The government-controlled Chinese media recently claimed that the People's Liberation Army (PLA) has begun to study the possibility of withdrawing its missiles targeting Taiwan. Those reports were immediately exaggerated by pro-unification media here, which are making it seem as if China has already decided to withdraw the missiles, and depict the supposed move as yet another goodwill gesture from Beijing.
Actually, this is not the first time there have been rumors about China withdrawing missiles. The only difference now is that China has gotten better at seizing the right time to float such rumors, so as to maximize the effect of its propaganda. With respect to Beijing's supposed deliberations on the missile issue, we should observe and listen carefully.
Even more important, we must study the intentions underlying such media reports. We should not take them at face value and thereby become an unwitting part of China's propaganda machine.
Reportedly, former Chinese president Jiang Zemin (
If Taiwan cannot purchase such equipment from the US, there is no other way for it to strengthen its defense capabilities. So obviously China has nothing to lose from this supposed deal.
The context in which China released the rumors about withdrawing missiles is worth pondering for several reasons.
First, it took place after the meetings between Chinese President Hu Jintao (
With these meetings as the starting point, Hu can keep the initiative on the cross-strait issue through the release of reports on the missile withdrawal. This is nothing but bait to lure the Taiwanese people into swallowing the poison of "one China."
Moreover, in recent days Chinese survey ships have repeatedly entered Taiwan's waters to gather information on water currents and ocean geography, in the clear pursuit of a military agenda. China has also released the rumors about withdrawing missiles to conceal its aggressive ambitions.
China also recently enacted the "Anti-Secession" Law, which includes explicit provisions on dealing with Taiwan through "non-peaceful" means. It continues to face severe international criticism over the law. The release of the rumors should help take some of the heat off China for its bellicose legislation.
China is endeavoring to persuade the EU to lift the arms embargo against it. Therefore, Beijing may be seeking to create an illusion that the threat facing Taiwan is lowering, to help persuade the EU to remove the ban.
Keeping this context in mind, it's clear that if China is truly planning to remove its missiles, it is doing so out of its own calculated self-interest, rather than as a genuine goodwill gesture toward Taiwan.
China's buildup of 700 missiles pointed at Taiwan constitutes an act of aggression and a crime under public international law. It is China's duty to completely remove these missiles and destroy them. It therefore makes no sense for China to use the withdrawal of missiles as a bargaining chip in dealing with Taiwan.
Furthermore, China's threat against Taiwan is not limited to those 700 missiles. China's defense budget has seen double digit growth in recent years. Its purchase of technologically-advanced fighter jets and submarines from Russia constitutes a major threat to Taiwan.
Of course, we must also realize that while Taiwan does face a serious military threat from China, Beijing's military expansion involves much more than just Taiwan. In fact, China is using Taiwan as a justification for its military buildup.
With the growth of the Chinese economy, Beijing's ability to expand militarily also grows. Behind the illusion of China's "peaceful rise" is the country's steady march toward the status of a military superpower. China is already a major economic power of Asia, and therefore it thinks it should rightfully become the next Asian hegemon.
The enormous military strength of the US is the biggest roadblock to China's ambitions to engulf Taiwan, reign over Asia and project power into the Pacific. Therefore, China is actively trying to squeeze the US's scope of control in the western Pacific.
China's ambition is obvious. Countries such as the US and Japan do not dare to take that ambition lightly. The scope of the joint US-Japan security strategy and the new alignment of US forces in Asia clearly targets an ambitious China. Although China has not yet reached the status of a regional power, after years of expansion its military strength should not be underestimated.
If a crisis in the Taiwan Strait similar to the 1995 and 1996 missile crises happens again, it will become even more difficult to maintain peace and security in the Taiwan Strait. For this reason, as the US spreads democratic values, it is also adopting a preventive strategy with respect to Chinese ambition, hoping to usher China down the path toward becoming a responsible power.
Taiwan is a peace-loving country. Sadly, it neighbors an aggressive bully, and so must endure constant military threats and verbal assaults. As a small country, Taiwan's best strategy is to follow democratic countries such as the US and Japan.
In particular, when directly and immediately confronted by China's military expansion, Taiwan must have sufficient self-defense capabilities -- at least enough to withstand a first strike by China -- and perhaps even some level of offensive capability in order to avoid defeat and buy time until international help arrives.
When the pan blue camp was in power, it called loudly for "retaking" China, treating Taiwan as the base for such a campaign. So it ought to know better than anyone else about the logic underlying Taiwan's need for a robust defense.
It's truly worrisome that after the pan-blue camp lost power, it had a complete change of heart. It now says that Chinese military threats are the result of Taiwan's "provocation." But what could be more "provocative" than the pan-blue camp's past talk about "retaking" China and "saving" Chinese compatriots?
Despite the mounting threat posed by China, the pan-blue camp has insisted on boycotting Taiwan's US arms purchase. Instead, its leaders crawl to Beijing to dance with the enemy and talk about cross-strait peace under the "one China" principle. How is this different from surrender?
Even as the pan-blue camp claims to pave the way for cross-strait dialogue, the special budget for the US arms procurement can't even make it out of the Legislative Yuan's procedure committee.
In all of this, there's nothing but good news for Beijing: if Taiwan's opposition parties continue to undermine national security and China's propaganda machine keeps humming along, it should be able to seize Taiwan peacefully -- without any need for those missiles.
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
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
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS