The Pentagon's dissatisfaction with delays over the arms procurement bill has led it to voice inappropriate criticism, saying basically that if Taiwan does not buy weapons to defend itself, then the US has no obligation to defend us. Minister of National Defense Lee Jye (李傑) has responded by saying that the criticism smacks of interference in domestic affairs, but at the same time, Lee also said that Taiwan should not ignore this warning. In acting in this way, he is showing a forthrightness and frank appreciation of the situation that is characteristic of a military man.
The development of Taiwan's democracy, the dramatic changes in the cross-strait relationship and relations with the US, and the impact of China's "rising" mean that Taiwan's purchase of arms from the US is not a simple military problem, but is a complex issue that is critical to the security of the Taiwan Strait and the relationship between Taiwan, the US and China.
At present, the issues holding up the passage of the arms procurement act include political feuding, pressure on the budget, the outcome of the referendum and fears of igniting a conflict in the Taiwan Strait. These can all be regarded as domestic issues and are the result of political parties and camps having different interpretations of the cross-strait situation. Whether such domestic issues should influence foreign policy is an important question in the study of political science, but the US' response to the arms procurement debacle more than proves that domestic issues have a decisive influence.
The administration of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) has put the focus of its concern on military security and US relations. They fear the growing military threat presented by China and the imbalance in military preparedness. As they believe that China will never relinquish its ambition to annex Taiwan, they have put their faith in the purchase of advanced weapons and military modernization, as well as improving military cooperation with the US, and making themselves part of the US effort to contain China. They believe that this provides the best guarantee of security.
The DPP's position emphasizes the difference in materials and facilities, but has neglected to give sufficient consideration to the impact the arms purchase may have on security, and therefore tends to put too much faith in the offer of US protection.
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the People First Party (PFP), which make up the pan-blue camp, place a greater emphasis on the development of peaceful cross-strait relations and are unwilling to see a conflict in the Strait. They point to the high level of mutual economic dependency that exists across the Strait and argue that military parity would not help ensure peace and stability in the Strait.
As China has pointed to Taiwan independence aspirations as the main cause of conflict, the pan-blue camp argues that the necessity of the arms procurement deal must be assessed in terms of its impact on cross-strait peace, in addition to the debt that such a purchase would lay on the next generation, worries about a financial crisis and the individual items on the list of proposed purchases.
In political theory, this is a more structural argument, compared to the more realist one presented by the government. It emphasizes perception and beliefs, but this cannot negate the importance of strengthening Taiwan's military and improving relations with the US.
In addition, domestic issues within the US have influenced the arms procurement act. The Clinton administration initiated the policy of engaging with China. Most of the items on the arms procurement bill were first raised with the US at that time, but the Democrats put the issue on hold. The current Bush administration approved the sales as a way of turning around the US' policy on China, but they had no way of understanding the full implications of the transition of power from the KMT to the DPP, and as a result, the procurement of arms became a weapon in interparty struggle.
The threats now coming from the US regarding Taiwan's inability to pass the arms procurement bill will not only not help reconcile the different perspectives of the two political camps, but will make future relations between Taiwan and the US even more complex.
Due to the boycott of the arms procurement bill by the pan-blue camp, it has yet to be debated in the legislature, and in most cases, the position of the general public on the issue depends largely on party affiliation. The use of populist rhetoric by both sides has further increased the influence of the arms procurement issue on the domestic political scene. Domestic politics has clearly become critical to both the cross-strait and national security debates.
Because of the current political climate, propaganda far outweighs reasoned argument, so it seems likely that the proposed arms procurement bill, among other political decisions, must await an election for a final resolution.
Philip Yang is an associate professor of political science at National Taiwan University.
Translated by Ian Bartholomew
US President Donald Trump has gotten off to a head-spinning start in his foreign policy. He has pressured Denmark to cede Greenland to the United States, threatened to take over the Panama Canal, urged Canada to become the 51st US state, unilaterally renamed the Gulf of Mexico to “the Gulf of America” and announced plans for the United States to annex and administer Gaza. He has imposed and then suspended 25 percent tariffs on Canada and Mexico for their roles in the flow of fentanyl into the United States, while at the same time increasing tariffs on China by 10
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump last week announced plans to impose reciprocal tariffs on eight countries. As Taiwan, a key hub for semiconductor manufacturing, is among them, the policy would significantly affect the country. In response, Minister of Economic Affairs J.W. Kuo (郭智輝) dispatched two officials to the US for negotiations, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s (TSMC) board of directors convened its first-ever meeting in the US. Those developments highlight how the US’ unstable trade policies are posing a growing threat to Taiwan. Can the US truly gain an advantage in chip manufacturing by reversing trade liberalization? Is it realistic to
Last week, 24 Republican representatives in the US Congress proposed a resolution calling for US President Donald Trump’s administration to abandon the US’ “one China” policy, calling it outdated, counterproductive and not reflective of reality, and to restore official diplomatic relations with Taiwan, enter bilateral free-trade agreement negotiations and support its entry into international organizations. That is an exciting and inspiring development. To help the US government and other nations further understand that Taiwan is not a part of China, that those “one China” policies are contrary to the fact that the two countries across the Taiwan Strait are independent and
RSS