Last week, the arms procurement bill was finally put on the legislative agenda after being vetoed 41 times in the Procedure Committee. But on Friday the pan-blue camp halted the legislative session, preventing any discussion of the matter on the floor.
Legislators who oppose the bill should not continue blocking it but allow it to be debated, giving the public a better understanding of the matter. Being on the agenda is different from being passed. It only means that the legislature is able to review the proposal. When it is discussed, the public can attempt to understand both the arms bill's content and scope.
If a consensus cannot be reached after discussion and negotiation, it may still be rejected by the legislature. But in this process, the public will gain a better understanding of Taiwan's defense capacities and needs.
The controversy presently focuses on whether the weapons are being sold for a reasonable price. In fact, the plan is closely connected to the nation's overall defense policy and security strategy. This is not the right time to haggle over prices, because this concerns the nation's defense. The plan grows out of the nation's broad security strategy.
Apart from the debate on the budget, there is also concern over the possible negative impact on Taiwan-US relations if the plan fails. Unfortunately, the core issue -- the nation's strategic and tactical needs -- has been drowned out by the torrent of personal abuse from politicians and the media. As a result, there is an absence of real debate on the issues. This clearly does not help Taiwan's development, and it may prevent the public from becoming better educated about national defense.
The US has for a long time said that it will accept Taiwan's democratic decisions regarding the purchases. But as former deputy assistant secretary of state Randall Schriver pointed out, what the US does not understand is why the legislature will not even put the issue on the agenda for discussion.
If we take a closer look at the plan, its content and items have been amended. Some items have been moved to the regular budget from a special one. The budget has also been reduced significantly. Doesn't even the amended plan deserve legislative consideration?
Several pan-blue-camp leaders claim that it is unnecessary to propose a plan, because the procurement of weapons was vetoed in the referendum held last year on the same day as the presidential vote. It should be remembered, however, that another referendum question was also "vetoed": the establishment of a "peace and stability framework" for cross-strait interaction. According to the pan-blue leaders' logic, the cross-strait talks they promote so actively should also be banned, since the second referendum question also failed to pass.
In which case, the public would be more likely to oppose their trips to China and the ongoing forum between the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the communists.
Instead of sticking to such twisted logic, the two referendum questions should be clarified. Last year's vote should not be seen as the end of the issue.
Some oppose the arms procurement plan because they see it as "spendthrift" purchasing. Even if they do not support it, doesn't it deserve a chance for rational discussion in the Legislative Yuan? The boycott is a result of a political confrontation between the pan-blue and pan-green camps. But rather than emotional accusations, the public should be allowed to thoroughly examine the plan under the framework of national security.
Lai I-chung is the director of foreign policy studies at Taiwan Thinktank.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
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