Taiwan watchers in the US may have been surprised by media reports on Wednesday that the military has already begun deployment of its newly developed Hsiung Feng II-E cruise missile and is on the verge of starting mass production. The White House must have been aware of this well in advance.
Several conservative think tank academics in the US -- most notably at the Cato Institute -- have been highly critical of Taiwan, accusing it of over-reliance on the US and claiming it is unwilling to defend itself.
The US government, meanwhile, is eager to hold up Taiwan's democracy as an example to the world, but when Taiwan asserts the US administration's favorite buzzword by holding a referendum, Washington changes the rules, criticizes Taipei and holds back on previously agreed weapons sales.
Then, when Taiwan, in its frustration over the lack of weapons available, begins to develop means of defending itself, the US frowns upon it and takes prompt action to block any move.
Washington, it seems, wants to have its cake and eat it too.
The document that dictates US policy on Taiwan -- the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) -- states that the US is only allowed to sell Taiwan weapons "of a defensive character." Nowhere does it give the White House the right to dictate what the Taiwanese military can or cannot do.
Of course, the TRA also stresses the need to "help maintain peace, security and stability in the Western Pacific," but calling the Taiwanese government's UN referendum campaign a threat to regional stability -- as influential US officials have done -- is grossly exaggerating matters.
Let us not forget why the nation needs the means to defend itself in the first place: the ever-present threat of invasion from its enormous and authoritarian neighbor.
Taiwan, on the other hand, poses no threat to anyone. The former ruling Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has long given up public expressions of "retaking the mainland."
The sole reason for developing these missiles is to counter Beijing's military intimidation.
The US' decades-long policy of strategic ambiguity over the Taiwan issue means no one -- including the Taiwanese government and the US itself -- knows whether Washington would send US troops to help defend Taiwan in the event of a Chinese attack.
Meanwhile, the Bush administration's "war on terror" and the unlimited nature of such a conflict means the US military is already stretched to its limits and will remain so for the foreseeable future. While its forces remain bogged down in the Middle East, there would be little domestic appetite for US troops to get involved in another war far from its shores.
This means that if the White House continues to hold back on weapons sales, then Taiwan must forge ahead and develop and build its own -- even at the risk of upsetting its best friend.
But even the mass production of these domestic missiles is now in jeopardy, as Washington has begun to put the squeeze on the export of key engine components, while the pan-blue camp has slashed the budget for production.
Washington has said many times in the past that it wants Taiwan to be in a strong position militarily to enable it to negotiate a peaceful settlement to the cross-strait issue with China on an equal footing.
The US' recent actions, juxtaposed with the relentless pace of China's military build-up, have shown those assertions to be nothing more than lip service.
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
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS