The 1938 Munich Agreement, in which British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain conceded the Sudetenland to Adolf Hitler in the name of peace, ultimately emboldened Nazi Germany and led to the most catastrophic conflict in modern history–the very result the agreement was meant to avoid.
This history seems to resonate with much of the academic debate over the U.S.’s Taiwan policy these days. In the name of avoiding a devastating war between the U.S. and China over Taiwan, the debate has been dominated by a fixation on balancing “carrots” and “sticks.”
The latest musing of this kind can be found in the article “The Taiwan Fixation” in Foreign Affairs by Jennifer Kavanagh and Stephen Wertheim. It contends that the United States should help defend Taiwan by bolstering Taiwan’s defensive capabilities, but should take the option of direct military intervention in a prospective Chinese invasion of Taiwan off the table.
To support this thesis, the article not only accounts for the staggering costs of such a direct armed conflict, but attempts to tilt the see-saw even more by downplaying the costs of China’s annexation of Taiwan to the United States.
This perspective, however, fails to fully account for the geopolitical ramifications of such a disengagement. The perceived abandonment of Taiwan would represent not merely a failure of deterrence but a pivotal inflection point in the erosion of U.S. global hegemony, severely undermining its credibility and long-term strategic position in the international order.
The lesson is clear: ceding strategic ground to an authoritarian adversary in hopes of avoiding confrontation often results in greater instability and conflict in the long run.
The Indispensability of Taiwan to the U.S.
The costs of Taiwan falling into Beijing’s control is not as trivial as the article attempts to argue. The claim that U.S. security is not inherently linked to Taiwan’s sovereignty is a profound misinterpretation of contemporary geopolitics. Taiwan is not merely a prosperous democracy—it is a critical fulcrum in the First Island Chain, functioning as a geostrategic buffer that constrains Chinese maritime expansion into the Western Pacific. Additionally, Taiwan’s pivotal role in the global economy underscores its indispensability. The article claims the US is on track to produce 28 percent of the world’s advanced semiconductors by 2032, but it fails to take into account the continued advancement of the know-how of the Taiwanese semiconductor manufacturing industry. Furthermore, Taiwan is a pivotal supply chain node for not just semiconductors, but for a wide range of crucial industries from advanced machinery to clean energy.
Likewise, the proposition that the U.S. could mitigate the strategic consequences of a Taiwanese defeat by repositioning its defenses along the Second Island Chain is deeply flawed. Such a retrenchment would constitute a fundamental breach of trust with U.S. allies, particularly Japan, South Korea, and the Philippines. The credibility of U.S. security assurances would be irrevocably compromised—if Washington proves unwilling to defend Taiwan, there is little reason for regional allies to continue to have faith in American security promises. The implications of such a strategic retreat would extend beyond the Indo-Pacific, reverberating throughout NATO and undermining U.S. leadership across the global security architecture.
Not Carrots Or Sticks, But Principle
While the article correctly warns against inflammatory rhetoric and excessive brinkmanship, the United States must maintain a principled approach. Carrots are meant to reward desirable behavior that is verifiable, not to serve as unilateral gestures of goodwill based on imagined reciprocation.
At its core, the Taiwan question is about confronting an authoritarian power that seeks to expand its influence through coercion. History has repeatedly shown that appeasement encourages aggression. When dealing with a bully, concessions only invite further demands. The more ground the U.S. cedes, the more emboldened Beijing becomes.
We need not look to Munich in 1938. The last 30 years have demonstrated that U.S. goodwill and cooperation have resulted in a stronger and more assertive regime in Beijing that has escalated its strategic competition with the United States.
Rather, a predictable and reliable policy framework is essential for deterring aggression and guiding diplomatic engagement. Effective deterrence hinges on demonstrating strength, resolve, and principle. A firm U.S. stance on Taiwan is not just a matter of regional security but of maintaining the integrity of the broader international order. Stability is not achieved through perpetual ambiguity but through clear and consistent commitments to partners and adversaries alike.
The Imperative of U.S. Resolve
In an ideal world, the U.S. and China would set aside notions of territorial ambition and great power rivalry to recognize their synergies with a free Taiwan to promote common prosperity and address a wide range of global challenges. The U.S. and Taiwan have made efforts to move in this direction, demonstrating a willingness to engage in constructive diplomacy. However, the regime in Beijing has chosen a different path, prioritizing coercion and unilateral power consolidation over genuine cooperation.
The fall of Taiwan would not simply mark a regional shift in power; it would signal a decisive shift in the global balance of power. A Chinese-controlled Taiwan would consolidate Beijing’s hegemony in East Asia, embolden further territorial revisionism, and fundamentally undermine the rules-based international order. The abandonment of Taiwan would not merely erode U.S. credibility—it would signal to authoritarian actors worldwide that it is open season for redrawing the world map.
The United States stands at a decisive juncture in its strategic posture. It must either reaffirm its commitments to Taiwan and its Indo-Pacific allies, or play a game of equivocation and risk the unraveling of its global leadership. Taiwan’s security is not an isolated regional issue—it is a litmus test for U.S. credibility, deterrence, and the sustainability of the international order. The decisions made today will shape the trajectory of global power dynamics for decades to come. The world is observing, and history will render its verdict accordingly. Just ask the Czechs in 1938, or the Ukrainians today.
(Featured photo from the White House via Flickr)
