As the special arms-procurement bill continues to be kept off the legislative agenda, some of Taiwan's US friends, who have shown concern for the nation in the past, are becoming disillusioned, and have begun to question whether Taiwan truly has the determination to defend itself. Statements by a US defense official indicate that there is a shift in attitude and policy on the defense of Taiwan.
On Sept. 19, Edward Ross, director of the US Defense Department's Defense Security Cooperation Agency, said at a defense industry conference sponsored by the US-Taiwan Business Council in San Diego, California, that by virtue of the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act (TRA), the US is not obliged to defend Taiwan. He said that the terms of the agreement were that the US come to the aid of Taiwan for the purpose of Taiwan's "self defense" if and when Taiwan came under attack.
Ross went on to say that the responsibility for Taiwan's self defense should lie with Taiwan itself rather than with the US, and that if Taiwan does not have the ability to defend itself, then the US was not obliged to defend it.
Ross said that over the past decade, Taiwanese political leaders have been overly dependent on Washington, which has resulted in a decrease in Taiwan's defense budget.
He then fiercely criticized the special arms budget, which has become a political football and remains stalled in the legislature. The American public is beginning to ask, "If Taiwan is not willing to invest in its national defense, why should the US defend Taiwan?"
It was ironic that at around the time Ross made these comments, the arms budget was once again rejected by the legislature's Procedure Committee for the 29th time.
Taiwan is a sovereign nation. Therefore, it should have the ability and determination to defend itself since this is the way to safeguard the security of its people's lives and property.
If Taiwan continues to depend on foreign military protection and does nothing to defend itself, it will be despised by the international community and be a disappointment to its allies. It would be undermining its own status as a sovereign nation.
Can a nation that cannot develop or manufacture advanced military weapons, that refuses to spend any money on such arms offered by its allies, but instead believes that its allies have a duty to defend it, be considered an independent nation?
Ross's scathing comments unquestionably embarrassed pan-blue politicians, who do not fear China only because they believe the US has a moral responsibility to defend Taiwan. Some lean toward Beijing, and look forward to entering the embrace of the "motherland." As they expect Taiwan to revert to China one day, they don't see any need for self defense.
The pan-blue camp continues to obstruct the arms bill and ignores the normal behavior of an opposition party in a democratic country by refusing even to give legislators an opportunity to debate the issue. They cite innumerable excuses for behaving in this way, the most preposterous of which is the idea that they are "caring for the public's wallets."
The true motive, however, is evil and will never be publicly admitted, because it runs counter to the interests and wishes of the Taiwanese people.
The Chinese military threat toward Taiwan is a serious one while Taiwan's military capabilities are falling further behind Beijing's. Most importantly, the arms procurement bill was planned and proposed by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government, but US President George W. Bush only approved the sale after the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) came to power.
The DPP is thus simply following through on its predecessor's policies, while the pan-blue camp is doing its utmost to block the bill. This is very difficult to understand. It really is like Ross said, the arms bill has become a political football. It is regrettable that Taiwan's security is being sacrificed for the sake of this political game.
An independent nation should have a sense of its own dignity. In addition to the special arms budget, the government should increase the annual defense budget to maintain an adequate defensive strength.
If the pan-blue camp wants to clarify the doubts among outsiders regarding Taiwan's China-friendly parties, it needs to give up its irrational obstruction of the arms bill. It has the responsibility to explain its repeated obstruction of the bill to the people.
National defense involves the lives and well-being of every Taiwanese. The people of Taiwan should therefore take a tough approach and demand that the parties opposed to the arms procurement bill deal with the issue rationally if they want to avoid the annihilation of the country.
Translated by Lin Ya-ti and Perry Svensson
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS