The Ministry of National Defense has run its first ever wargame for President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) and other political leaders here to test their ability to respond to a military assault from China.
For a week in April, Chen, Premier Su Tseng-chang(
Among the findings: Taiwan could fend off China for two weeks, despite Beijing's continuing military buildup, before Taipei would need help from the US. Under the Taiwan Relations Act, often cited by the Bush administration as the basis for the US posture on Taiwan, the US would be obliged in most circumstances to come to Taiwan's aid.
"We could defend our country by ourselves for at least two weeks if we were attacked by the PRC [the People's Republic of China]," said Abe Lin (
Bush administration officials have been in what one called "a grumpy mood" toward Taipei for what they have seen as Chen's provocative posture toward China and Taipei's failure to complete an US$18 billion arms purchase from the US.
Moreover, Bush officials have suggested that Taiwanese are unwilling to defend themselves and rely too much on the US to prevent Taiwan from being seized by China.
When an American visitor brought up these perceptions, Lin protested: "That's not fair. It is not fair to say that we are not willing to defend ourselves."
Civilian officials and military officers in the meeting vigorously agreed with Lin.
Moreover, Lin asserted, "We have never thought that we would get a free ride from the US. We have never planned to rely only on US forces in our defense."
Lin and his colleagues pointed to the lessons learned from the wargame; to Taiwan's first comprehensive national security strategy report, issued last month; to increases planned for defense spending; to forthcoming cuts in military personnel to free funds for investment in weapons; and to a national mobilization law adopted in 2004.
They said, however, Taiwan needed to "harden" more of its communications apparatus. The security report called for setting up a hotline between Taipei and Beijing to preclude miscalculation.
The legislature must approve increases in defense spending from 2.4 percent of GDP next year to 3 percent in 2009. (US defense spending is about 4 percent of GDP.) The armed forces will be reduced to 275,000 from 295,000 by 2008.
If China attacked, Lin said, "We would need to sustain ourselves politically, militarily, economically, and psychologically. The psychological may be the weakest part. I wonder how much our people could suffer."
Polls suggest that Taiwanese are eager, maybe even desperate to avoid war with China. A survey by the Mainland Affairs Council found that 88.6 percent of Taiwanese wanted the status quo to continue. Only a few chose either independence, which would provoke China into an attack, or unification with China.
Against this backdrop, the US Pacific Command in Hawaii has quietly strengthened US military ties with Taiwan. At the same time, Admiral William Fallon, the command's leader, has been executing the Bush administration's policy of engaging China by having Chinese officers visit US forces and US officers travel to China.
Retired Admiral Dennis Blair, a former Pacific commander, has come to Taiwan once a year for the last several years to offer advice during a large Taiwanese military exercise. Defense attaches at the American Institute in Taiwan are serving officers now rather than retired officers on contract. Pacific Command officers regularly visit to confer with counterparts.
Even so, military officers and defense officials in Hawaii expressed misgivings about the US engagement with China, saying they feared the US might succumb to Chinese pressure or cajolery.
"We support Admiral Fallon's policy of engagement," said an admiral, "so long as it is not at our expense."
The chief spokesman for Fallon, Navy Captain W. Jeffrey Alderson, addressed that issue. In response to a query, he said: "No one loses here. Our efforts at engagement and transparency are intended to avoid miscalculations and thus maintain peace and stability in the region."
Richard Halloran is a writer based in Hawaii.
The conflict in the Middle East has been disrupting financial markets, raising concerns about rising inflationary pressures and global economic growth. One market that some investors are particularly worried about has not been heavily covered in the news: the private credit market. Even before the joint US-Israeli attacks on Iran on Feb. 28, global capital markets had faced growing structural pressure — the deteriorating funding conditions in the private credit market. The private credit market is where companies borrow funds directly from nonbank financial institutions such as asset management companies, insurance companies and private lending platforms. Its popularity has risen since
The Donald Trump administration’s approach to China broadly, and to cross-Strait relations in particular, remains a conundrum. The 2025 US National Security Strategy prioritized the defense of Taiwan in a way that surprised some observers of the Trump administration: “Deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving military overmatch, is a priority.” Two months later, Taiwan went entirely unmentioned in the US National Defense Strategy, as did military overmatch vis-a-vis China, giving renewed cause for concern. How to interpret these varying statements remains an open question. In both documents, the Indo-Pacific is listed as a second priority behind homeland defense and
Every analyst watching Iran’s succession crisis is asking who would replace supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Yet, the real question is whether China has learned enough from the Persian Gulf to survive a war over Taiwan. Beijing purchases roughly 90 percent of Iran’s exported crude — some 1.61 million barrels per day last year — and holds a US$400 billion, 25-year cooperation agreement binding it to Tehran’s stability. However, this is not simply the story of a patron protecting an investment. China has spent years engineering a sanctions-evasion architecture that was never really about Iran — it was about Taiwan. The
In an op-ed published in Foreign Affairs on Tuesday, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) said that Taiwan should not have to choose between aligning with Beijing or Washington, and advocated for cooperation with Beijing under the so-called “1992 consensus” as a form of “strategic ambiguity.” However, Cheng has either misunderstood the geopolitical reality and chosen appeasement, or is trying to fool an international audience with her doublespeak; nonetheless, it risks sending the wrong message to Taiwan’s democratic allies and partners. Cheng stressed that “Taiwan does not have to choose,” as while Beijing and Washington compete, Taiwan is strongest when
RSS