Says more about the puerility of the writer cooking up this article about a serious issue in a "reputable" media outlet. If the point of this non-comedic satire (in the author's words) was to highlight the importance of USA standing by its allies and not displaying weakness in the face of its rivals (my guess since Mr Kane has not outlined his intention other than a vague explanation of a desire to induce debate on the issue of Taiwan), I guess part of it has failed as it has also shown the Republic of China's own tenuous love-hate relationship with America (and by extension every other ally with the exception of Israel and UK). After all if you are trying to carve out your own independent state, the last thing you want is to have submit to another sovereign nation whilst relying on it for everything and obeying its every dictum, paranoid that a inevidently satirical article advocating severing of military support that may yet turn out to be reality in the future.

It is my opinion that the crass language and the absurd idea that USA "owns" Taiwan and the Taiwanese that is inherently offensive.

*Disclaimer: You can take my words as mock disgust or genuine dislike, the purpose is designed to be thought-provoking.

If it was intended as satire then I am said to say that the author not only failed to make it clear, but also did not remember that we live in a time when absurd suggestions that cannot be taken seriously are far more common.

I still have to wonder about it. I understand that Tommy Wiseau attempted to claim that 'The Room' was a satire after it was clear that it could not be a serious film.

Also I'm still not sure how the author believes that the U.S could strike some kind of grand bargain with China (that China wouldn't accept) for Taiwan (which the U.S does not own) for economic agreements (which wouldn't necessarily fix our situation).

I'm not convinced by Kane's defense, either. Was he really satirizing the folly of Washington's global defense commitments despite severe financial constraints? Then he failed. I rather suspect he is just poorly informed about China, Taiwan, and US Asia policy and having fun making a name for himself.
If this were satire, Taiwan would hardly be a good example of security over-reach, since the Taiwanese pay handsomely for our weapons, and without Taiwan, other security commitments to Asian allies would remain in place to China's continued dismay. Among his "comedic" effects, the presumption that China would then substantially reduce its defense budget once Taiwan is annexed is most laughable, though he spares us no hint that he understands the joke. Such a claim is merely delusional.
If Kane presumed that readers saw the hilarity in this and other points, he is also poorly uninformed about the credulity of the reading public.
To ridicule historic commitments to a democratic ally, but offer no hint that this is meant to be satirical, is merely to misguide with one's readers, not stir debate. Especially so at a time when all manner of loony things are being said in all seriousness about US foreign policy by assorted people aspiring to be president with no trace of irony or humor.
The US has already backed off so far from supporting democratic Taiwan militarily and diplomatically that "selling" what remains of our commitments and good will would be like trying to trade in the smile of Alice's Cheshire cat. We're already a mere smile. Why would China pay a princely sum for erasing the grin when the cat is rapidly disappearing?
As for Kane's claim that he was merely invoking a literary device, it would be useful to know if NYT editors were in on the joke. I suspect they were not. Next time, sir, try Private Eye.

I doubt very much if mainland China is interested in paying so much for the USA to "ditch" Taiwan. The USA does not have such hold on the Taiwan situation or Taiwan as to “ditch” it. Mainland China’s objection over arms sales to Taiwan revolves around the principle of sovereign right. It takes umbrage over infringement on its internal affairs.

Taiwan’s geography will render it defenseless in due course with the type of weapon sales. Just resisting will cause Taiwan to wither. It will be Taiwan, not the mainland side, which will need to initiate the first military offensive. All the mainland will have to do is overtly threaten to attack oil tankers leaving Taiwan. It is still too early as Taiwan still has residual power and the mainland side still does not have the intimidating overwhelming advantage. Likely within the next 20-40 years it will.

Say in 2040, the mainland fires a few shoots at an oil-tanker leaving Taiwan, injuring three and killing one, and declares that it will repeat at will at any moment without further warning, what will Taiwan or the USA do? Will mainalnd China actually need to repeat often? No (A few years before, in 2030, it fired a few warning shots and state that next will be real.) Nothing. The USA will accept a Hong Kong deal for Taiwan instead of a war. How will the balance of power be in 2040?

Taiwan has not articulated to the USA that it wants to be a martyr. I don’t believe that the USA will assume that Taiwan wants to be a martyr and start a war. There is now no sign of such American recklessness. Another Hong Kong is in the offing, so the USA “ditching” Taiwan in 2015 is not a critical consideration, as Taiwan’s fate is sealed at any rate, sooner or later.

Also, such ditching of Taiwan will have to be overt for the impact. Clandestine arrangement will not be worth anything to China.

In another 20 years, Taiwan will not have the courage to actually use the weapons sold to it. It will most likely fold when the time comes. What some people think is that Taiwan will in 2040 start a war against the mainland so that Taiwan’s energy link could be revived. This is fanciful.

Agree with JOECBLOGGER. Sound like Mr. Kane is trying to cover up his puerility by saying it's satire. If this is Mr. Kane's intention to weight the debt issue over US foreign policy, he failed. His NYT article only makes himself look dumb.

I do have another angle about the foreigner-hold US debt. I read China news everyday. 99 out of 100 Chinese know US debt is a deprecating asset. More and more Chinese push China government to hold other assets instead of US debt. However, there is no sign China government is able to lower the US debt. The reason is no other asset so far provide enough liquidity and market size like US debt. I believe China government will be very welcome Kane's idea to find a way to DITCH deprecating US debt they own.

It is true that Taiwan does not have any strategic interest to the USA.

If a war with China becomes inevitable, the USA needs Japan and only Japan as the resolute and useful ally. I doubt even SK can be counted upon against China. Sk will be neutral, likely.

What is Taiwan to the USA?

Taiwan is both a large gym and a large restaurant to cater to mainland China. It is a gym as it provides the progressive resistance to exercise China, due to its stance and historical bagguage. It is a restaurant for the billions that it sinks into the Chinese economy as direct investment and management.

What is Taiwan to the USA in fervor? It is a democracy, but there is no real practical worth in containing China.

The USA has already given most of Taiwan back to China in the late 1970's free of charge. Would the Chinese be interested in the small remainder for trillions? I doubt it.

I am referring to US diplomatic position that Taiwan is a part of China. The USA does recognize that Taiwan is a part of China. (Knowledge is the same as recognize in diplomatic parlance.) Case closed; deal done.

The decisive significance of this diplomatic reality is best viewed in conjunction with other factors. The most obvious are that the mainland side is 98% of the Chinese population and that it has been growing at 9-11%. Naturally it will have defense spend that is very much larger, and increasingly larger, than that of Taiwan. It is also large enough in comparisons to the USA and will creep too close to the USA so as to inhibit reckless overconfidence from the USA.

Less talked about is Taiwan’s geography. Taiwan’s energy artery is very exposed. The mainland will pick and squeeze on it for the next 20-40 or more years. Taiwan independence or status quo will come to an end. The situation for Taiwan status quo or independence is completely hopeless. The advantages are so decisive that even if Taiwan knows what is to come and have all the time to prepare, it will still be hopeless. The mainland side has the absolute advantage to recover Taiwan. Also case closed.

The decisive significance of diplomatic reality is that when the mainland side squeezes Taiwan energy artery with greater and greater force, Taiwan will have nowhere and no platform to voice its grievance. Taiwan will wither if it just resisted much longer; no economy can develop with vigor under energy uncertainty. The world will do nothing and can do nothing for Taiwan. Prevention of war will override all considerations under the flavor of proper diplomatic protocol. Taiwan will not have the courage to start a war with the weapons sold to it; it WILL fold and negotiate for a deal. The USA will not presume otherwise and rob Taiwan of a chance for a niche in China.

Due to Taiwan’s geography, reunification is eventually inevitable with or without US arms sales. The USA really does not have much leverage as Taiwan really does not want war, or the USA cannot assume that it does.

Stoppage of US support will be worth something to the Chinese, but only if it is overt for the psychological impact on Taiwan and the rest of the world. Such stoppage has to be ceremonial and overt and upfront, otherwise it is worth very little. Arms to Taiwan will not be used, as Taiwan will not have the courage to start a war with them when its energy artery is pressed upon more and more in the decades to come.

I would just like to point out one thing. if the 3rd and 19th world largest economic entities reunify, personally I believe that will become one of the worst nightmares politically and economicially for US government. "Ditching Taiwan" will not contribute anything for US but China.
Being a Taiwanese, I deeply feel insult after reading this article. Taiwan is not a trading commodity or goods between two nation's political game. Also please consider if you are a Taiwanese, are you welling to reunify with a country such as China? Taiwan has gained its own democracy 20 years ago and we really do not wish to go backward with a nation where you can not even freely browse website. It is a place where you do not even have the basic human rights in your daily life. We need US to stand with us to resist this dictatorship nation and we really appreciate this has been done for more than 60 years by American people.
I think Mr. Paul V. Kane is either looking for a writting job in China or just using this dumb article to gain his popularity. I totally disgree of his idea and hopefully he can write an more realistic article next time.

"Agree with JOECBLOGGER. Sound like Mr. Kane is trying to cover up his puerility by saying it's satire. If this is Mr. Kane's intention to weight the debt issue over US foreign policy, he failed. His NYT article only makes himself look dumb."

Most definitely!!

This was a half-baked, poorly thought out piece of drivel which Mr. Kane got called on. Rather than defend his views, (which were written with purely serious intent) he reverses and claims it was satire. Bullcrap!

China will never go to war with Taiwan for one simple reason. A devastated Taiwan is worthless to China. They need the infrastructure and markets intact. All of those missiles and cheap military aircraft won't deliver them a usable Taiwan. The "Million Man Swim" is still not a viable concept for the PRC. If China can't take Taiwan through diplomacy, it won't bother.

Taiwan's economy is actually much more stable than the PRC in many respects. A fairly de-centralized economy with few large conglomerates and little to any central planning allowed it to weather some of the worst financial crises to hit Asia. They simply don't make the wasteful top-down decisions which have wreaked havoc on their economies in the same way their neighbors have. They were unaffected by the currency crises of the early 90's which hurt Southeast Asia, Korea and Japan. China was probably affected by this as well, but given the opacity and unreliability of national level financial reporting, few really know the impact.

China OTOH is an economy going off the rails with boondoggle projects, waste, rampant corruption, massive repression, and blind decision making. Its growth is over-estimated and usually fails to account for the huge per capita disparity within the country. It is a developing world economy (very small middle class, fabulously wealthy oligarchy and rampant poverty) on an unimaginable scale.

"I would just like to point out one thing. if the 3rd and 19th world largest economic entities reunify, personally I believe that will become one of the worst nightmares politically and economicially for US government."

This is not the point at all.

First, every two years or less mainland China adds another Taiwan's worth to its economy. China plus Taiwan today is just China two years from now.

Second, the US motivation to aid Taiwan is as it is advertized, for democracy and the ideal of aiding an old ally.

Third, Taiwan is already aiding the mainland Chinese economy. Political reunification or not makes no difference to the US.

Yes, the future first world will be in China. Everything is going to change. kompiuteriu remontas Vilniuje