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.
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