The recent controversies over Premier Yu Shyi-kun's talk last Saturday about Taiwan striking Shanghai with missiles in the event of an attack against Taiwan by China is a classical case of words taken out of context by the media. It is truly puzzling how those who depict Yu's comment as being provocative and hostile can overlook the fact that Yu was only talking about a scenario in which Taiwan was forced to react to a missile attack by China and fend off further such attacks.
It is imperative to point out that Yu made the statement in the face of a rally by about 1,000 people organized by the pan-blue opposition against the government's arms procurements from the US. The statement was meant to help explain the need for the arms purchases in an easy-to-understand manner. Yu said that in order to maintain the security of Taiwan, if China is capable of destroying Taiwan, Taiwan also needs to maintain that kind of capability against China, so that "in the event [China] hits [Taiwan] with 100 missiles, then [Taiwan] should at least be able to strike back with 50 missiles; if [China] hits Taipei and Kaohsiung, then [Taiwan] should be able to strike Shanghai in return."
Yu was simply talking about maintaining a degree of counterstrike ability in order to deter one's enemy from launching an attack, rather than Taiwan taking the initiative and attacking Shanghai for no reason. Yu's point was that maintaining that kind of capability can help avert war all together, and in order to maintain that ability, Taiwan needs to make the arms purchases. Yu's comments are also consistent with the existing national defense strategy of Taiwan, which is "effective prevention [of war], and steady self-defense."
While some people may not like Yu's bluntness, he pointed out something that the general public in China, which continues to overwhelmingly support unification, should keep in mind: in the event that their government tries to impose unification through the use of military might, the Chinese people might be the one paying a hefty price in the lives of their sons and daughters in the event of a cross-strait conflict. For decades, the Chinese government has been brainwashing its people about the importance of "unifying" with Taiwan -- even through military adventurism -- as part of its campaign to harness the blind nationalism of the masses and maintain the security of the corrupt and bloodthirsty authoritarian regime in Beijing. If the Chinese people can be taught to see things from an alternative perspective, then perhaps there might be a change in China's policy toward Taiwan one day.
Another question that needs to be faced is this: If a counterattack is out of question, then aside from keeping one's fingers crossed praying that US aid would arrive in time, how can Taiwan respond to a missile attack by the Chinese? Perhaps what the pan-blues want is to surrender immediately, and then organize a reception banquet? Otherwise, it is hard to understand their opposition to the special arms budget.
Ironically, on Wednesday, the spokesperson for China's Taiwan Affairs Office Li Weiyi (
If China did not cast the dark shadow of military conquest over Taiwan; and if China did not have hundreds of missile targeting Taiwan; there would be no need for the arms purchase, and Yu would not have to defend this need in such a manner.
As the biggest threat to not only cross-strait peace, but also regional peace, it is laughable to hear Beijing accuse others other of being provocative and hostile.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS