On Aug. 23, US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld voiced his displeasure with Taiwan's delays in approving the arms procurement budget, blurting out that, "countries -- sovereign nations have to do what they decide to do. It's up to them to do it."
That remark intrigued reporters so much that on Sept. 30 the US State Department came forward to reiterate that the US view that Taiwan is self-governed was unchanged, that the US' "one China" policy also remains unchanged and that it does not support Taiwan's independence.
This incident indicates a fundamental problem with the US' Taiwan policy.
The military budget is always a large part of a national budget. The only goal of spending such staggering amounts of money on expensive military equipment is to protect national sovereignty. If we agree with this goal, then it is rather odd that the US does not want to acknowledge that Taiwan is a sovereign state, while at the same time it asks Taiwan to purchase extremely expensive weapons. In fact, the US stance on this matter has seriously jeopardized Taiwan's national security.
The logic is that it only pays to spend so much money on weapons if they can be used to protect our sovereignty. But if the nation is deprived of its sovereignty, what would be the point of spending so much? Those who firmly believe that Taiwan is a sovereign state will of course feel that Taiwan has to be well-equipped militarily. However, as the US does not acknowledge our sovereignty, it is hardly surprising to see that many are giving up on the US and are opposing the arms procurement bill.
Only those with a clear awareness of the nation's sovereignty will feel a strong need for the arms procurement. Those with a clear awareness of the nation's sovereignty are also the only ones who will put the arms purchased -- the nation's tangible military capability -- to full use. Militarily speaking, tangible and intangible military capabilities are seen as being equally important. Intangible military capabilities refer to the public's willpower, and the core of that willpower is the awareness of sovereignty.
The US offers sharp and apprehensive reviews of Taiwan's ability to resist Chinese pressure in its annual Pentagon reports on the military power of the People's Republic of China. In one report, the US repeatedly stressed that the most decisive factor determining whether or not China will invade Taiwan is Beijing's perception of Taiwan's determination to defend itself. China's confidence in its military capabilities are secondary. The report stresses that the basis for Taiwan's determination to defend itself is whether or not the Taiwanese leadership and people identify themselves with their own nation strongly enough to want to defend it against China.
The question is, if Taiwan is not a sovereign state, how can the Taiwanese identify themselves with the country?
Adopting a "one China" policy and refusing to acknowledge Taiwan as a sovereign state has been the US' policy for over three decades. Based on its military expertise, the Pentagon believes Taiwanese have a strong civic awareness, while its slowly changing political policies cause the State Department to oppose that civic awareness.
In this case, we are undoubtedly witnessing a deep contradiction in the US' Taiwan policy. Unless it is resolved, Taiwan will not be able to purchase the weapons it needs.
And not only that, warns Steve Chabot, chairman of the Congressional Taiwan Caucus, the US' unwillingness to support full sovereignty is tantamount to agreeing that China owns it. This encourages Beijing to pursue unification by force, and imperils regional security. The US should take a hard look at these contradictions and deal with them.
Lin Cho-shui is a Democratic Progressive Party legislator.
Translated by Daniel Cheng
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
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
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
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS