America's Support for Taiwan Is at a Critical Juncture
But today, the strength of this relationship is being tested, not by a lack of goodwill, but by shifting perceptions in Washington and a growing sense of urgency about the military balance across the Taiwan Strait.
Like great powers throughout history, the United States undergoes cyclical fatigue with its overseas commitments. After three decades of global overcommitment, Americans are increasingly questioning the cost and necessity of seemingly distant obligations. This fatigue is compounded by a growing perception that Taiwan, compared to other frontline states like Ukraine and Israel, is not sufficiently serious about its own defense. Fair or not, this perception is a dangerous undercurrent that threatens to erode bipartisan support in Washington, including in a Republican Party traditionally committed to Taiwan's defense. For Taiwan to remain a U.S. priority, it must address this skepticism head-on and tangibly demonstrate it is willing to bear the burdens of its own security.
This perception stems significantly from Taiwan's domestic politics, particularly the approach of the principal opposition party, the Kuomintang (KMT). The KMT's insistence earlier this year on slow rolling defense spending increases, by instituting freezes on certain programs, politicized an issue that should be a strong point for unity. National Taiwanese reluctance to prioritize adequate defense spending has raised concerns in Washington. The KMT must recognize that defense spending is not a luxury but a necessity, and its hesitation risks signaling to adversaries and allies that Taiwan is not fully committed to its own survival. It also risks fundamentally undermining U.S. support for Taiwan's defense over the long term.
At the same time, China's military modernization has dramatically shifted the military balance across the Taiwan Strait. The People's Liberation Army has invested heavily in advanced weaponry, cyber capabilities, and naval power. Taiwan's defense spending, though increasing in recent years, remains woefully insufficient to counter this growing threat. Last year, Taiwan's defense budget was approximately $19 billion, or roughly 2.5 percent of GDP. In contrast, China's defense budget is almost $240 billion, with a focus on capabilities that directly threaten Taiwan, like amphibious landing craft and weapons vital to China's anti-access/area denial strategy. This disparity is not just a matter of numbers; it signals to the world that Taiwan is not keeping pace, and acts as a form of political warfare on Beijing's behalf.
Defense spending isn't just about dollars spent; it's also how they're spent. Taiwan must invest in asymmetric capabilities, like drones, air defenses, and anti-ship missiles, to deter China's overwhelming conventional forces. At the same time, it must modernize its aging military hardware, enhance and extend training for its reservists, address its manpower retention problems, and fortify critical infrastructure against cyberattacks and blockades, which were identified in Taiwan's Quadrennial Defense Review as persistent issues.
These steps are not optional; they are the bare minimum to demonstrate to the United States, across the political spectrum, that Taiwan is a credible partner capable of holding the line. Without a clear commitment to closing the military gap, Taiwan risks being seen as a liability rather than an asset in Washington's strategic calculus.
The sobering reality is that there is a growing feeling in some U.S. circles that the military balance has tipped so far in China's favor that neither Taiwan nor the U.S. can realistically counter it. This perception is dangerous because it breeds defeatism and encourages miscalculation by Beijing. Analysts point to China's numerical superiority in ships, aircraft, and missiles, as well as its ability to sustain a prolonged campaign, and question whether Taiwan can hold out long enough for U.S. forces to intervene effectively.
Time is running out to reverse this trajectory. Every year, the gap widens, and American patience wears thinner. Action by both the U.S. and Taiwan will be required to meet the military moment but also to uphold political legitimacy.
Taiwan's domestic concerns cannot serve as a reasonable excuse for neglecting an existential issue. Economic challenges, political polarization, and social debates are real but pale in comparison to the threat of a Chinese invasion or blockade. Taiwan's leaders must clearly communicate this reality to their people and rally public support for increased defense spending and preparedness, or accept a steady diminution of U.S. commitment.
The United States has its own domestic pressures to contend with. The bipartisan consensus that has long underpinned support for Taiwan is not guaranteed to hold indefinitely. In the Republican Party, there are voices rightly questioning the wisdom of committing resources to distant conflicts not core to our national interests. On the Democratic side, support for Taiwan is often tempered by a focus on avoiding escalation with Beijing. Taiwan cannot assume that either party will remain indefinitely committed to its defense for reasons of history or tradition. Political winds can shift, and Taiwan must act now to solidify its standing as a worthy partner, and to justify its current standing as a core geopolitical interest of the United States.
To secure Washington's continued support, Taiwan must significantly increase defense spending, aiming for at least 5 percent of GDP in coming years, and prioritize asymmetric and defensive capabilities that maximize cross-strait deterrence. It must also foster bipartisan unity on defense policy, setting aside partisan differences to present a united consensus and engage in public diplomacy to reassure the U.S. and its citizens that it is serious about its security. Only then will it be safe to assume that U.S. support for this vital partner can be maintained for the long term.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Mainichi
3 hours ago
- The Mainichi
Solar panels that fit on your balcony or deck are gaining traction in the US
(AP) -- When Terrence Dwyer received a knock on his door and a flyer for a solar panel system small enough to fit on his deck, he was quickly sold. Solar systems that plug into regular wall outlets have been popular in Europe for years and are gaining traction in the U.S. for their affordability and simple installation. "We thought absolutely, let's do this right away," said Dwyer, who lives in Oakland, California. These small-scale solar systems could become attractive to more homeowners now that President Donald Trump's sweeping budget-and-policy package will scrap residential rooftop solar tax credits and may shift interest to cheaper alternatives. Even before the GOP bill passed, manufacturers of the smaller systems known as plug-in or balcony solar were seeing increased demand and other positive signs such as a new Utah law streamlining regulations for homeowners to buy and install them. The systems about the size of a door haven't been as widely adopted in the U.S. as in Europe because of lack of awareness, patchwork utility rules and limited availability. The $2,000 plug-in solar system installed on Dwyer's backyard deck in March consists of two 400 watt panels, an inverter, a smart meter and a circuit breaker. It saves him around $35 per month on his power bill because he is consuming less energy from the grid, but he said reducing his carbon footprint was his primary motivation. "We like the environmental benefits of solar and wanted to engage with solar in some fashion," Dwyer said. Had Dwyer opted for rooftop solar, he would have paid $20,000 for the system and $30,000 to upgrade his roof to support the panels. Installing a plug-in solar system requires some homework. What power companies let customers do with energy-generating equipment varies, which is why prospective purchasers should check their utility's policies first. Building permits might be required depending on the municipality. Some systems can be self-installed, while others may require an electrician. For example, some kits have meters that must be wired into a home's circuit breaker. Removing hurdles for plug-in solar Dwyer bought his system from Bright Saver, a nonprofit company in California that advocates for plug-in solar. In addition to the type Dwyer bought, the company also offers a smaller model costing $399 that recently sold out in six days. "The interest and demand have been overwhelming," said Cora Stryker, a founder of Bright Saver. "It is clear that we are hitting a nerve -- many Americans have wanted solar for a long time but have not had an option that is feasible and affordable for them until now." Kevin Chou, another founder of Bright Saver, said wider adoption of the systems in the U.S. has been hindered by utility policies that create uncertainty about whether they're allowed and a lack of state and local policies to make clear what rules apply. Some utilities contacted by The Associated Press say plug-in solar systems require the same interconnection applications as rooftop panels that send electricity back to the wider network. But Steven Hegedus, an electrical engineering professor at University of Delaware, said he doesn't understand why a utility would need to require an interconnection agreement for plug-in solar because, unlike rooftop systems, they are designed to prevent energy from flowing to the grid. Still, if in doubt, a customer should follow their utility's policy. During the early days of plug-in solar's growth, some opposition from utilities is likely since customers are buying less energy, said Robert Cudd, a research analyst at the California Center for Sustainable Communities at the University of California, Los Angeles. "Utilities really prefer everyone being a predictable and generous consumer of the electricity they sell," Cudd said. This year, Utah enacted a novel law supporting plug-in solar by exempting certain small-scale systems from interconnection agreements and establishing safety requirements such as being certified by a nationally recognized testing organization such as Underwriters Laboratories. It appears to be the only state that's passed legislation supporting plug-in solar, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Republican state Rep. Raymond Ward, who sponsored the legislation, said the smaller systems allow people to better manage where their energy comes from and what they pay. "Europe has these things. You can go buy them and they work and people want them. There is no reason why we shouldn't have them here in the United States," Ward said. Bright Saver says they are lobbying other states for similar legislation. Alexis Abramson, dean of the University of Columbia Climate School, also applauded Utah's move. "We actually need more localities, more states putting in allowances for this type of equipment," she said. Plug-in solar availability and savings potential Some questions remain about how much customers could save. Severin Borenstein, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley's Haas School of Business, said the cost of some portable solar systems in the U.S. would make it hard for customers to come out ahead on their utility bills over the time they own them. He estimates the price of a $2,000 system in the U.S. works out to paying about $0.20 a kilowatt-hour over a 25-year period, which only saves people money if they have high utility costs. By comparison, Borenstein said the cost of systems sold in Europe, typically around $600, is equivalent to paying about $0.05 or $0.06 per kilowatt-hour over 25 years. Baltimore resident Craig Keenan said saving money was only part of why he installed one of the smaller Bright Saver models on his balcony in July. "I'm interested in renewable energy because the amount of carbon emissions that we produce as a species is very, very unsustainable for our world," he said. He said he expects the system will save him about $40 per year on utility bills, so it would take him about 10 years to recoup the cost of the kit. Keenan, a mechanical engineer, said installation took him 10 to 15 minutes. "I think anyone can install this," he said. "It's not complicated. It doesn't require a technical degree." Other companies selling plug-in solar kits include Texas-based Craftstrom. It has sold about 2,000 systems in the U.S. since 2021, mostly in California, Texas and Florida. The company's basic kits contain a solar panel that can fit in a backyard or other sunny space, along with equipment to maintain and regulate the flow of energy including an inverter and smart meter. Kenneth Hutchings, Craftstrom's chief revenue officer, said their U.S. sales rose this year even before the passage of the GOP tax bill, and he expects demand for plug-in solar to increase further as federal rooftop solar credits expire. The company advises customers to notify their power company before installation, but it has "never had any pushback from any utility," said Michael Scherer, one of the founders of Craftstrom. China-based EcoFlow plans to begin selling plug-in solar systems in Utah and expand to other states if supportive legislation is passed, said Ryan Oliver, a company spokesperson. "This is an example of where technology is sort of ahead of the regulators," Oliver said, adding: "As this rolls out to more of a nationwide product, we expect it will become more mainstream as people understand it better."
Japan Today
12 hours ago
- Japan Today
Retail sales in U.S. rise a solid 0.5% in July from June as shoppers appear to shrug off tariff pressures
By ANNE D'INNOCENZIO Shoppers spent at a healthy pace in July, particularly at the nation's auto dealerships, as they appear to shrug off President Donald Trump's tariffs, which are starting to take a toll on jobs and lead to some price increases. Retail sales rose a solid 0.5% last month, and June spending was stronger than expected, according to the Commerce Department's report released Friday. June's retail sales were revised upward to 0.9%, from a 0.6% increase, the agency said. The pace in July matched economists' estimates. The increases followed two consecutive months of spending declines — a 0.1% pullback in April and a 0.9% slowdown in May. Excluding auto sales, which have been volatile since Trump imposed tariffs on many foreign-made cares, retail sales rose 0.3% in July. Auto sales rose 1.6%. They appear to have returned roughly to normalized spending after a surge in March and April as Americans attempted to get ahead of Trump's 25% duty on imported cars and parts and then a slump after that, according to Samuel Tombs, chief U.S. Economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics. The data showed solid spending across many retail sectors. Business at clothing stores was up 0.7% while online retailers saw a 0.8% increase. Business at home furnishings and furniture stores rose 1.4%. However, at electronics stores, sales were down 0.6%. And business at restaurants, the lone services component within the Census Bureau report and a barometer of discretionary spending, fell 0.4%, however as shoppers are focusing on eating at home to save money. A category of sales that excludes volatile sectors such as gas, cars, and restaurants rose last month by 0.5% from the previous month. The figure feeds into the Bureau of Economic Analysis's consumption estimate and is sign that consumers are still spending on some discretionary items July's spending likely got a boost from Amazon's Prime Day sales and competing online sales at Target, Walmart and other retailers, analysts said. 'Consumers have a little more spring in their step,' said Christopher S. Rupkey, chief economist at FWDBonds LLC, a financial markets research firm. 'Whether this is simply whistling in the dark, time will tell, but the tariff headline chaos did not keep consumers at home in July with the one caveat that they reduced their dining out spending. Retail sales do not give the economy a complete bill of health, but at least the consumer is not in headlong retreat.' But Rupkey noted that time will tell how consumers will react when they see higher prices on goods in shops in the mall in the months to come. Tariffs are starting to take a toll in other parts of the economy. Earlier this month, the Labor Department reported that U.S. hiring is slowing sharply as Trump's trade policies paralyze businesses and raise concerns about the outlook for the world's largest economy. U.S. employers added just 73,000 jobs last month, the Labor Department reported, well short of the 115,000 expected. Another government report, issued Tuesday, on U.S. inflation showed that inflation was unchanged in July as rising prices for some imported goods were offset by declining gas and grocery prices, leaving overall prices modestly higher than a year ago. Consumer prices rose 2.7% in July from a year earlier, the same as the previous month and up from a post-pandemic low of 2.3% in April. Excluding the volatile food and energy categories, core prices rose 3.1%, up from 2.9% in June. Both figures are above the Federal Reserve's 2% target. On a monthly basis, prices rose 0.2% in July, down from 0.3% the previous month, while core prices ticked up 0.3%, a bit faster than the 0.2% in June. The new numbers suggest that slowing rent increases and cheaper gas are offsetting some impacts of Trump's sweeping tariffs. Many businesses are also likely still absorbing much of the cost of the duties. The consumer price figures likely reflect some impact from the 10% universal tariff Trump imposed in April, as well as higher duties on countries such as China and Canada. But that may change. U.S. wholesale inflation soared unexpectedly last month, signaling that Trump's taxes are pushing costs up and that higher prices for consumers may be on the way. The Labor Department reported Thursday that its producer price index — which measures inflation before it hits consumers— rose 0.9% last month from June, biggest jump in more than three years. Compared with a year earlier, wholesale prices rose 3.3%. The figures were much higher than economists had expected. The report comes as major retailers like Walmart and Target are slated to report their fiscal second-quarter earnings reports starting next week. Analysts will stud the reports to see how much retailers are absorbing the costs and how much they're passing on to shoppers. They'll also want to get insight into the state of consumer behavior heading into the critical fall and winter holiday seasons. In May, Walmart, the nation's largest retailer, warned t hat it had increased prices on bananas imported from Costa Rica from 50 cents per pound to 54 cents, but it noted that a large sting for shoppers wouldn't start to appear until June and July. The retailer's chief financial officer, John David Rainey, told The Associated Press that he thought car seats made in China that were selling for $350 at Walmart would likely cost customers another $100. But a growing list of companies including Procter & Gamble, Cosmetics, Black & Decker and Ralph Lauren told investors in recent weeks that they plan to or have already raised prices. Some, like eyewear retailer Warby Parker, are trying to be selective and are trying to focus on raising prices on just their premium products as a way to offset the higher costs from tariffs. Warby Parker told analysts last Thursday that it plans to keep its $95 option. But it's increasing prices on select lens types. It also wants to cater more to older shoppers who need more expensive progressive lens. Warby Parker said that progressives, trifocals and bifocals make up roughly 40% of all prescription units sold industrywide. But just 23% of Warby Parker's business now is made up of progressives. Company executives said progressives are its highest priced offering and offer the highest profit margins. 'We were able to quickly roll out select strategic price increases that have benefited our growth,' Neil Blumenthal, co-chairman and co-founder and co-CEO of Warby Parker, told analysts last week. © Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.
The Diplomat
16 hours ago
- The Diplomat
America's Support for Taiwan Is at a Critical Juncture
For decades, the United States has been a steadfast partner to Taiwan, providing diplomatic, economic, and military support to ensure the island's autonomy, security, and prosperity are safeguarded in the face of growing threats from Beijing. This partnership has been a cornerstone of peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific. Ensuring that Taiwan remains free from outside coercion remains a paramount U.S. national interest. But today, the strength of this relationship is being tested, not by a lack of goodwill, but by shifting perceptions in Washington and a growing sense of urgency about the military balance across the Taiwan Strait. Like great powers throughout history, the United States undergoes cyclical fatigue with its overseas commitments. After three decades of global overcommitment, Americans are increasingly questioning the cost and necessity of seemingly distant obligations. This fatigue is compounded by a growing perception that Taiwan, compared to other frontline states like Ukraine and Israel, is not sufficiently serious about its own defense. Fair or not, this perception is a dangerous undercurrent that threatens to erode bipartisan support in Washington, including in a Republican Party traditionally committed to Taiwan's defense. For Taiwan to remain a U.S. priority, it must address this skepticism head-on and tangibly demonstrate it is willing to bear the burdens of its own security. This perception stems significantly from Taiwan's domestic politics, particularly the approach of the principal opposition party, the Kuomintang (KMT). The KMT's insistence earlier this year on slow rolling defense spending increases, by instituting freezes on certain programs, politicized an issue that should be a strong point for unity. National Taiwanese reluctance to prioritize adequate defense spending has raised concerns in Washington. The KMT must recognize that defense spending is not a luxury but a necessity, and its hesitation risks signaling to adversaries and allies that Taiwan is not fully committed to its own survival. It also risks fundamentally undermining U.S. support for Taiwan's defense over the long term. At the same time, China's military modernization has dramatically shifted the military balance across the Taiwan Strait. The People's Liberation Army has invested heavily in advanced weaponry, cyber capabilities, and naval power. Taiwan's defense spending, though increasing in recent years, remains woefully insufficient to counter this growing threat. Last year, Taiwan's defense budget was approximately $19 billion, or roughly 2.5 percent of GDP. In contrast, China's defense budget is almost $240 billion, with a focus on capabilities that directly threaten Taiwan, like amphibious landing craft and weapons vital to China's anti-access/area denial strategy. This disparity is not just a matter of numbers; it signals to the world that Taiwan is not keeping pace, and acts as a form of political warfare on Beijing's behalf. Defense spending isn't just about dollars spent; it's also how they're spent. Taiwan must invest in asymmetric capabilities, like drones, air defenses, and anti-ship missiles, to deter China's overwhelming conventional forces. At the same time, it must modernize its aging military hardware, enhance and extend training for its reservists, address its manpower retention problems, and fortify critical infrastructure against cyberattacks and blockades, which were identified in Taiwan's Quadrennial Defense Review as persistent issues. These steps are not optional; they are the bare minimum to demonstrate to the United States, across the political spectrum, that Taiwan is a credible partner capable of holding the line. Without a clear commitment to closing the military gap, Taiwan risks being seen as a liability rather than an asset in Washington's strategic calculus. The sobering reality is that there is a growing feeling in some U.S. circles that the military balance has tipped so far in China's favor that neither Taiwan nor the U.S. can realistically counter it. This perception is dangerous because it breeds defeatism and encourages miscalculation by Beijing. Analysts point to China's numerical superiority in ships, aircraft, and missiles, as well as its ability to sustain a prolonged campaign, and question whether Taiwan can hold out long enough for U.S. forces to intervene effectively. Time is running out to reverse this trajectory. Every year, the gap widens, and American patience wears thinner. Action by both the U.S. and Taiwan will be required to meet the military moment but also to uphold political legitimacy. Taiwan's domestic concerns cannot serve as a reasonable excuse for neglecting an existential issue. Economic challenges, political polarization, and social debates are real but pale in comparison to the threat of a Chinese invasion or blockade. Taiwan's leaders must clearly communicate this reality to their people and rally public support for increased defense spending and preparedness, or accept a steady diminution of U.S. commitment. The United States has its own domestic pressures to contend with. The bipartisan consensus that has long underpinned support for Taiwan is not guaranteed to hold indefinitely. In the Republican Party, there are voices rightly questioning the wisdom of committing resources to distant conflicts not core to our national interests. On the Democratic side, support for Taiwan is often tempered by a focus on avoiding escalation with Beijing. Taiwan cannot assume that either party will remain indefinitely committed to its defense for reasons of history or tradition. Political winds can shift, and Taiwan must act now to solidify its standing as a worthy partner, and to justify its current standing as a core geopolitical interest of the United States. To secure Washington's continued support, Taiwan must significantly increase defense spending, aiming for at least 5 percent of GDP in coming years, and prioritize asymmetric and defensive capabilities that maximize cross-strait deterrence. It must also foster bipartisan unity on defense policy, setting aside partisan differences to present a united consensus and engage in public diplomacy to reassure the U.S. and its citizens that it is serious about its security. Only then will it be safe to assume that U.S. support for this vital partner can be maintained for the long term.
