President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration has suffered a major diplomatic and national security defeat. As the US Congress adjourned late on Friday, it had not received notification from the State Department about the arms sale package for Taiwan, meaning the package is certain to remain stalled. Although Congress will remain in session for a few more days to deal with the US financial crisis before going into recess ahead of the November general elections, it is highly unlikely the arms sale will make it onto the agenda. The issue may be dealt with when Congress resumes in late November, or be left for the next president.
The government has consistently deceived both itself and the public over the arms purchase. When Ma attended Armed Forces Day celebrations on Sept. 3, he said: “The latest signs from the US imply that the US government will notify Congress that the legal procedures [for the arms sale] should be completed.” National Security Council Secretary-General Su Chi (蘇起) said all the information he had obtained during a visit to the US pointed to support for the sale. In an interview on Sept. 9, Representative in Washington Jason Yuan (袁健生) said: “the arms purchase has never been in question” and that work on the deal had never been stopped.
The reality, however, looks different.
Does the US government’s preoccupation with the US financial crisis mean it isn’t interested in selling arms? Not at all. The State Department sent out notifications for arms deals with France, Pakistan, Turkey and Saudi Arabia. The Taiwanese deal has been discussed for seven years. It can no longer be delayed with the excuse that it is still under discussion. Both houses of Congress have passed resolutions expressing concern over arms sales to Taiwan and requiring that the administration give them regular detailed briefings on the progress, a move that was opposed by both the State Justice departments. The Justice Department even said the bill “would infringe upon the president’s right to conduct foreign policy.”
This makes it clear that the case is not being blocked by Congress, but by the State Department and the White House. This is a serious blow to the Ma administration’s efforts to work with the US and to Ma’s national security strategies.
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) must assume responsibility for this result. Pan-blue camp politicians boycotted what they called an overpriced arms procurement deal since it was announced, using it as tool in their political battles with former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁). To dispel the Bush administration’s misgivings over his pro-Beijing tilt, Ma repeatedly said he would follow through on the arms purchase plan. But the White House’s commitment to defending Taiwan at any expense has been replaced by disappointment in Taiwanese politicians.
The US needs Beijing’s cooperation in fighting terror, on North Korea’s nuclear disarmament and stabilizing the global financial system. Arms sales to Taiwan may disturb its relations with China. The Ma administration’s unilateral tilt toward China has prompted many US politicians and think tank experts to worry that arms and military technology sold to Taiwan will be leaked to China.
The KMT and the Ma administration’s misreading of the White House and the US Congress has caused the arms procurement effort to fail. The government must learn from this defeat, revise its faulty pro-China strategies, make personnel changes in the National Security Bureau and rebuild relations with the US. If it doesn’t, there is a real risk that relations between Taiwan, the US and China will become dangerously imbalanced.
Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) has prioritized modernizing the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to rival the US military, with many experts believing he would not act on Taiwan until the PLA is fully prepared to confront US forces. At the Chinese Communist Party’s 20th Party Congress in 2022, Xi emphasized accelerating this modernization, setting 2027 — the PLA’s centennial — as the new target, replacing the previous 2035 goal. US intelligence agencies said that Xi has directed the PLA to be ready for a potential invasion of Taiwan by 2027, although no decision on launching an attack had been made. Whether
A chip made by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) was found on a Huawei Technologies Co artificial intelligence (AI) processor, indicating a possible breach of US export restrictions that have been in place since 2019 on sensitive tech to the Chinese firm and others. The incident has triggered significant concern in the IT industry, as it appears that proxy buyers are acting on behalf of restricted Chinese companies to bypass the US rules, which are intended to protect its national security. Canada-based research firm TechInsights conducted a die analysis of the Huawei Ascend 910B AI Trainer, releasing its findings on Oct.
In honor of President Jimmy Carter’s 100th birthday, my longtime friend and colleague John Tkacik wrote an excellent op-ed reassessing Carter’s derecognition of Taipei. But I would like to add my own thoughts on this often-misunderstood president. During Carter’s single term as president of the United States from 1977 to 1981, despite numerous foreign policy and domestic challenges, he is widely recognized for brokering the historic 1978 Camp David Accords that ended the state of war between Egypt and Israel after more than three decades of hostilities. It is considered one of the most significant diplomatic achievements of the 20th century.
In a recent essay in Foreign Affairs, titled “The Upside on Uncertainty in Taiwan,” Johns Hopkins University professor James B. Steinberg makes the argument that the concept of strategic ambiguity has kept a tenuous peace across the Taiwan Strait. In his piece, Steinberg is primarily countering the arguments of Tufts University professor Sulmaan Wasif Khan, who in his thought-provoking new book The Struggle for Taiwan does some excellent out-of-the-box thinking looking at US policy toward Taiwan from 1943 on, and doing some fascinating “what if?” exercises. Reading through Steinberg’s comments, and just starting to read Khan’s book, we could already sense that