According to the US Department of Defense's annual report to Congress on China's military power, there has been talk in Taiwan about attacking high-value targets in China, such as the Three Gorges Dam, if the nation comes under attack from China. Immediately, some media outlets began to portray this as a suggestion by the US that Taiwan attack, or interpreted it to mean that the nation is actually planning such an attack.
This is of course all very irresponsible and the whole story could not be further from the truth. This is not to mention that the story has created unnecessary anxiety in Taiwan.
It is imperative to point out that Taiwan could not possibly make a first strike against China in any event. If it did, it would lose all international support, in particular that of the US, which is the lifeline onto which it has been hanging in the face of increasing Chinese threats. Even talk of enhancing Taiwan's sovereignty or adopting a new constitution has triggered pressure from the US, which has repeatedly emphasized that the US is obligated under the Taiwan Relations Act only to help Taiwan in its self-defense, not in other situations; so it is not hard to imagine what would happen if Taiwan made a first strike. Under the circumstances, it is completely erroneous to depict Taiwan as planning such an attack or the US as suggesting such a thing.
But it is an entirely different matter to think about what could be done in self-defense if China attacked. Attacking the Three Gorges Dam is merely one among many options that might be discussed against such a backdrop. There is really no need to highlight such a scenario -- doing so would only create a hawkish image of Taiwan, when in reality China is the biggest threat to peace in the Taiwan Strait and in fact the entire Asia-Pacific region.
When pressed by legislators on Wednesday about the nation's ability to attack the Three Gorges Dam, Vice Minister of National Defense Tsai Ming-hsien (
Though Tsai was telling the truth, the strange thing is that such comments probably created anxiety instead of comfort among the public. This reflects the mindset of the people of Taiwan: They do not want any talk of military hostility between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait. Many people can't seem to face the genuine nature of the cross-strait relationship -- that is, that China is a very hostile country waiting eagerly to take over the nation. While the two sides of the Taiwan Strait have been engaging in close economic, social and cultural exchanges, the Chinese government has never altered its hostile attitude.
Tsai also indicated in the Legislative Yuan that China may very well launch a small-scale attack as early as 2006 or 2008. He was of course condemned for encouraging hysteria and paranoia. The truth of the matter is that while giving a precise timetable about an attack is probably unwise, the possibility of an attack is real. The topic is now taboo precisely because the possibility is so real.
The day that the people of Taiwan finally face the truth and adjust their mentality may be the day that the current "national identity" crisis becomes a thing of the past.
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS