There are bigger U.S. interests like not giving the control over the South China Sea to China. TSMC is a minor issue and would probably be destroyed by either the U.S. or Taiwan itself in case of a successful invasion.
No it's not. Disruption of the world's chip supply would be grave, and is a strategic asset very much worth being protected. If it weren't for TSMC, Taiwan's situation would be much different.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_Defense_Treaty_between_...
Why shouldn't China should control the South China Sea? And why do we care about a body of water on the other side of the planet?
The historical context, really, is that China has been weak in the last two centuries, a period during which Western powers divided the world among themselves and decided modern borders while China was majorly screwed.
In the South China Sea for instance all countries apart from Thailand have been colonies of Western countries.
There is no right or wrong. There are competing interests as always. The US are trying to protect their control of the region, while China is trying to disrupt that and increase control of its own backyard and gain leverage in East Asia.
Yes, this is the problem. That Western-established order sees a full third of global maritime shipping transiting the South China Sea.
> The most strategically impacted countries are actually the East Asian ones, Taiwan, Korea, Japan. That's an important point because they are almost de facto US protectorates on mainland China's doorsteps.
Speaking of rhetoric.
> There is no right or wrong.
No, there is very much a right and a hypothetical wrong here. Right is for both the sovereign territory of nations and international waters to be respected as such. Wrong would be for the PRC to be able to assert its most extremist position on what parts of the South China Sea it considers to be its territory as this line cuts through both the sovereign waters of other nations nearby and their land in some cases, allowing the PRC to put its thumb on the scale in one of the largest shipping channels in the world. Don’t forget, the State called the “People’s Republic of China” is by its own laws only an entity subordinate to the Communist Party of China. No country should have that much power over international shipping, but a totalitarian one even less so.
I would refer to my previous comment about what happened in the past two centuries. What is "sovereign water and land" depends on past agreements and use of force. In this case it is not even always clear because indeed most of the area is disputed.
What power a country should or should not have is relative to which side you're standing. The US have military control over the Panama Canal, should they have that much power? So far China has less that 1/10th of the power the US have on the international stage but it is growing. It is 'bad' if you are the US, it is 'good' if you are China.
Now, the political system in China is a red herring and irrelevant. It's only convenient for the US as it allows to build an anti-China narrative more easily ("freedom!"). But if China was a democracy nothing would change in the South China Sea or with respects to the issue the US have with China, which is that it is big and powerful and does not defer to them.
There's such a thing as too much moralism in geopolitics. There's also such thing as too little.
The Chinese perspective is that Taiwan is China (and currently the UN agrees). Unfortunately, unless they peacefully fold back into China, a war for their independence is the most likely outcome.
You’re goddamned right I am and I will defer to no commies or their stooges on this subject. As of this moment in time, Taiwan is independent as the Republic of China.
And that's relevant, why? I mean, the present-day United States used to be colonies of Great Britain, France, Spain, and Russia.
For the same reason India shouldn't control the Indian Ocean.
Just how close geographically must a body of water be for us to care about it? Or might there be other criteria?