Can China Counter US Arms Sales to Taiwan?

Macomb, Detroit, Michigan – The first batch of 32 Abrams tanks, the heaviest, most lethal and battle-proven “steel mountain,” was delivered to Taiwan this week. The deal is for 108 tanks to be delivered by 2024.

Interestingly, while the economies of both the US and China are highly intertwined and inseparable, the US seems to be leaving no stone unturned in China, bringing it to a point where it could abandon measured patience and respond in kind. For example, to counter the U.S. strategy of building up military hardware and services in Taiwan, China could begin supplying military hardware to Puerto Rico, which holds a similar strategic and geopolitical position to the U.S. as Taiwan does to China.

Like Taiwan and China, Puerto Rico is a US territory with considerable autonomy, but remains under US sovereignty, lacking full independence, similar to how China claims Taiwan as part of its territory. In contrast, Taiwan functions as a de facto independent nation with its own government and military. Both Puerto Rico and Taiwan reflect elements of disputed sovereignty and territorial claims, neither perfectly mirroring Taiwan’s unique geopolitical situation.

In addition, the US has built strategic alliances and partnerships to counter China’s perceived influence in the South China Sea, Pacific and Indian Ocean regions, such as the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad), the AUKUS pact between the US, UK and Australia, and strengthening bilateral security agreements with allies such as the Philippines, Japan and South Korea.

But China’s response to these military alliances is economic and infrastructure development and forging alliances with resource-rich countries on all continents to ensure regular supplies of raw materials to fuel China’s enormous economy, following President Xi’s win-win philosophy.

China has established global infrastructure, port and mineral exploration alliances through its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). In Asia, it has built roads, railways and ports such as Gwadar (Pakistan) and Hambantota (Sri Lanka), while investing in minerals in Afghanistan and Central Asia.

In Africa, China has developed railways, highways, ports such as Djibouti and Kenya’s Lamu port, and cobalt and copper mines in the DRC and Zambia. In Europe, it finances rail links (such as the Budapest-Belgrade railway), ports such as Piraeus (Greece), and rare earth processing in Eastern Europe.

In Latin America, it builds highways and railroads, invests in ports in Panama and Argentina, and mines lithium and iron ore in Chile and Brazil. In Oceania, it focuses on Pacific Island infrastructure, ports and mining in Australia and Papua New Guinea. Interestingly, although China invests trillions of dollars in development projects across continents, it emphasizes a policy of non-interference, presenting itself as a partner that respects sovereignty and refrains from meddling in domestic politics. They do not form military alliances, do not interfere in internal politics and do not get involved in the internal conflicts of allied countries. This non-interventionist approach also includes avoiding internal problems in these states.

However, both the US and China should prioritize redefining their policies and work together constructively to address this complex issue. By jointly facilitating a natural and peaceful resolution of the Taiwan conflict, they can set a precedent for diplomacy and collaboration, demonstrating that geopolitical disputes can be resolved without resorting to hostility or conflict.

Instead, the US is perceived to be more overtly involved in the domestic affairs of its allies, often justified under the banner of promoting democracy, human rights and free markets. This includes imposing conditions on aid, providing direct political support or pressuring allies to align with its foreign policy goals, and is viewed as intrusive and undermining sovereignty.

Thus, China is often seen as a pragmatic economic partner with strategic conditions, while the US is viewed as a political and military ally that expects ideological and political alignment.

In a hypothetical situation, if China reverses its policy of strategic restraint and tolerance, and to counterbalance the US policy of arming Taiwan, if China begins to openly support Puerto Rico, perhaps the US will not tolerate this Chinese intervention and it would be perceived as a direct challenge to his “backyard” influence, leading to a strong response.

Domestically, Puerto Rican independence movements could gain momentum, causing unrest and political divisions. Militarily, the US would strengthen its presence in the Caribbean, escalating tensions with China and risking a confrontation.

For the region and China, this scenario would create profound consequences. The Caribbean could become a proxy battleground, destabilizing smaller nations and forcing them to choose sides, with economic and political consequences in Latin America. China’s involvement risks spilling over, provoking a strong U.S. response and alienating regional allies wary of outside interference.

Globally, the confrontation could lead to a new Cold War dynamic, with increased militarization in both the Caribbean and the Indo-Pacific region. While China could expose US vulnerabilities, it would also face significant diplomatic and economic pushback, diverting resources from its primary focus on Taiwan and the Asia-Pacific.

Given the potential for escalating tensions and global instability, both China and the US should seriously reassess their Taiwan policy and adopt a more balanced approach that prioritizes dialogue over provocation.

While supporting Taiwan’s democratic aspirations is important, overt actions that appear to challenge China’s sovereignty risk triggering a dangerous cycle of countermeasures, such as potential Chinese interference in Puerto Rico or elsewhere, that could destabilize multiple regions.

Instead of a confrontational stance, the US should focus on promoting regional stability through multilateral diplomacy, reducing militarization, and encouraging peaceful coexistence between Taiwan and China.

A restrained and pragmatic approach would not only prevent unnecessary conflict, but also protect US interests, maintain global economic stability, and maintain a rules-based international order without forcing China to take retaliatory measures that could turn in a cold or even hot war.

While this scenario is highly unlikely and a distant possibility, it is important to recognize that China, known for its strategic restraint, ideological depth and long-term vision, is unlikely to deviate from the path of patience and pragmatism. Like Hong Kong, Taiwan may eventually find itself within China, either through a gradual process of integration or other mechanisms. While US support for Taiwan may slow this trajectory, it is conceivable that, in the long run, such integration could become a accomplished fact.

However, both the US and China should prioritize redefining their policies and work together constructively to address this complex issue. By jointly facilitating a natural and peaceful resolution of the Taiwan conflict, they can set a precedent for diplomacy and collaboration, demonstrating that geopolitical disputes can be resolved without resorting to hostility or conflict.