US President George W. Bush’s administration formally notified Congress about an arms sales deal to Taiwan last Friday. Despite the proposed deal being a lot less than what Taiwan asked for, President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration is extremely grateful and has started to boast that the deal represents an end to the last eight years of arms deal bickering and a new era of confidence between Taiwan and Washington.
This is typical of the Ma government’s knack for twisting the truth and taking credit for things it shouldn’t. Really, all the new and “streamlined” proposal proves is that the Bush administration is worried about Ma’s pro-China policies.
The US had a reason for waiting until just before the recess of Congress — it wanted Minister of National Defense Chen Chao-min (陳肇敏) to publicly express the Ma administration’s determination to defend Taiwan while he was still on US soil.
Many of the government’s recent actions have made the US doubt the Ma administration’s commitment to protecting Taiwan. These actions have included placing cross-strait relations above other diplomatic relations, proposing eventual unification and even requesting that the US temporarily stop selling arms to Taiwan. These actions were outgrowths of the pan-blue camp’s efforts to block arms spending when the Democratic Progressive Party was in power.
If Taiwan is not determined to defend itself, why should the US play the bad guy and offend China by selling weapons to Taipei? Chen’s participation in the annual US-Taiwan Defense Industry Conference in Florida was not openly reported, but the speech he gave guaranteeing Taiwan’s determination to protect itself has been quoted at great lengths by the Central News Agency, thus making it part of the public record. This was the public commitment the US wanted to hear.
The arms deal does not include submarines, Black Hawk helicopters and the highly advanced F-16C/D that the US has repeatedly refused to offer. This shows that the US is now only willing to provide the most basic weapon systems to Taiwan for defensive purposes. The chance is probably all but gone that Taiwan will be allowed to buy the submarines that Bush in an unprecedented decision approved for sale and that former minister of national defense Lee Jye (李傑) made a top priority.
The Ma administration’s pro-China policies also make it even less likely that the F-16C/Ds will be sold to Taiwan.
The items included in this arms deal are items that the US has in inventory or that they can deliver within a relatively short time.
This allows the US to avoid making long-term commitments to Taiwan.
In addition to the Taiwan Relations Act, the US is bound by the commitments it made in the third of the three communiques it signed with China.
The Ma administration’s betrayal of sovereignty in the name of better cross-strait relations can be exploited by Beijing to demand that the US stop selling arms to Taiwan. China has voice repeated objections to arms sales. It argues that cross-strait relations are at a high point and says the US should not “interfere in China’s internal affairs.”
The dispute over arms sales within Taiwan and the mistrust between Taiwan and the US were created by KMT members. The US has now turned around with a much smaller arms package for Taiwan than hoped for and the Ma government is singing its own praises and taking credit for this “breakthrough.”
This is a prime example of the shameless and unscrupulous nature of the KMT.
Shen Chieh is a freelance writer.
TRANSLATED BY DREW CAMERON
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