Macomb, Detroit, Michigan-The first batch of 32 Abrams tanks, the heaviest and most lethal “steel mountain” and battle-proven, was handed over to Taiwan this week. The deal is for 108 tanks to be delivered by 2024.
Interestingly, while the economies of both the USA and China are highly intertwined and inseparable, the USA seems to leave no stone unturned in poking China, bringing it to a point where it might abandon its measured patience and respond in kind. For example, to counter the American strategy of bolstering military hardware and services in the Taiwan, China could begin supplying military hardware to Puerto Rico, which holds a similar strategic and geopolitical position relative to the USA as Taiwan does to China.
Like Taiwan to 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 operates 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 mirrors Taiwan’s unique geopolitical situation.
In addition, the USA has built strategic alliances and partnerships to counter China’s perceived influence in the South China Sea, Pacific, and Indian Ocean regions such as Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad), the AUKUS pact between the USA, UK, and Australia and strengthening bilateral security agreements with allies like the Philippines, Japan, and South Korea.
But China’s response to these military alliances is economic and infrastructure development and making alliances with resourceful countries in all continents to ensure regular supply of raw material to fuel China’s enormous economy by pursuing 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 like Gwadar (Pakistan) and Hambantota (Sri Lanka), while investing in minerals in Afghanistan and Central Asia.
In Africa, China has developed railways, highways, ports like Djibouti and Kenya’s Lamu Port, and mines for cobalt and copper in the DRC and Zambia. In Europe, it funds rail links (such as the Budapest-Belgrade railway), ports like Piraeus (Greece), and rare earth processing in Eastern Europe.
In Latin America, it builds highways and railways, 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 is investing trillions of dollars in development projects across continents but emphasizes a policy of non-interference, presenting itself as a partner that respects sovereignty and refrains from meddling in domestic politics. It does not form military alliances, meddle in internal politics, or involve itself in the internal conflicts of its allied countries. This non-interventionist approach also includes staying clear of internal matters in these states.
However, both the USA and China should prioritize redefining their policies and working together constructively to address this complex issue. By jointly facilitating a natural and peaceful resolution to the Taiwan conflict, they can set a precedent for diplomacy and collaboration, proving that geopolitical disputes can be resolved without resorting to hostility or conflict.
In contrast, the USA is perceived as more openly involved in the internal 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 objectives and is viewed as intrusive and undermining sovereignty.
Thus, China is often seen as a pragmatic economic partner with strategic conditions, while the USA is regarded as a political and military ally that expects ideological and policy alignment
In a hypothetical situation, if China reversde its policy of restraint and strategic tolerance and with a view to counterbalance the USA’s policy to arm Taiwan, if China starts openly supporting Puerto Rico, perhaps the USA will not tolerate this Chinese intervention and this would perceived as a direct challenge to its influence in its “backyard,” leading to a strong response.
Domestically, Puerto Rican independence movements could gain momentum, causing political unrest and division. Militarily, the USA would reinforce 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 fallout across Latin America. China’s involvement risks overreach, provoking a strong US response and alienating regional allies wary of external interference.
Globally, the confrontation could lead to a new Cold War dynamic, with heightened militarization in both the Caribbean and Indo-Pacific regions. While China might 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 USA should seriously reevaluate their policy toward Taiwan 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 U.S. should focus on fostering 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 conflicts but also safeguard US interests, maintain global economic stability, and uphold a rules-based international order without forcing China into retaliatory measures that could spiral into a cold or even hot war.
While this scenario is highly unlikely and a distant possibility, it is important to acknowledge that China, known for its strategic restraint, ideological depth, and long-term vision, is unlikely to deviate from its path of patience and pragmatism. Much like Hong Kong, Taiwan may eventually find itself within China’s fold— whether 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 fait accompli.
However, both the USA and China should prioritize redefining their policies and working together constructively to address this complex issue. By jointly facilitating a natural and peaceful resolution to the Taiwan conflict, they can set a precedent for diplomacy and collaboration, proving that geopolitical disputes can be resolved without resorting to hostility or conflict.
