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
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
RSS