The recent assessment by the US Defense Intelligence Agency of Taiwan’s air defense status, which was delivered to Congress on Feb. 16, requires serious reflection and action, both in Taiwan and the US.
The report says there is a serious military imbalance across the Strait, with Taiwan’s fleet consisting of several types of aging aircraft that are in urgent need of upgrades and replenishment. The nation has 60 F-5s that date back to the 1960s, only half of which are reportedly operational; 126 Indigenous Defense Fighters that have limited range and combat capability; 56 Mirage 2000s sold by France in the early 1990s, classified as advanced fighters but extremely expensive to maintain; and 146 F-16 A/B fighters sold by the US in the early 1990s that are in need of upgrades.
Taiwan thus has only about 350 operational fighter aircraft, while — according to a report on China’s military power by the US Department of Defense last year — China has a total of 2,300 fighters and bomber/attack aircraft, 500 of which are stationed directly opposite Taiwan. In addition, China has at least 1,400 missiles aimed at Taiwan. Yet the US is obligated under the Taiwan Relations Act to supply sufficient defensive weaponry to Taiwan to provide for its defense, and China has yet to renounce the use of force to settle the international status of Taiwan’s sovereignty.
A first step to redress the imbalance would be for the US to agree to Taiwan’s request, first made in 2006, to sell Taiwan 66 F-16C/Ds. This would be a sound military move as well as a clear political signal to China that the US does not look kindly on the Chinese military buildup across the Taiwan Strait, which has continued unabated in spite of the “rapprochement” by the administration of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九).
The administration of US President Barack Obama showed that it is paying close attention to the situation when it approved the arms package announced on Jan. 29, which included PAC-III missiles and Black Hawk helicopters. It now needs to move ahead forthwith on the sale of advanced F-16s, not only because of the abovementioned growing imbalance in air power, but also because of two other important reasons.
First, during its first year in office, the Obama administration did reach out to China and attempted to be accommodating in the hope that China would reciprocate. Instead, China blocked a meaningful agreement at the Copenhagen climate summit, prevented sanctions against Iran from moving forward in the UN and reacted furiously to Obama’s meeting with the Dalai Lama.
In addition, high-level Chinese military officers have threatened sanctions against US companies involved in the arms sales to Taiwan, and even suggested that China should dump its holdings of US Treasury bonds. All this requires a firm response from the US as Chinese aggression against Taiwan will only cease if the Chinese leadership realizes that its relations with the US and Europe will suffer if it perpetuates its hostility.
A second, very practical, reason is that the production of the F-16 is nearing its end, as more countries are switching to the advanced F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. This would necessitate a decision to sell Taiwan the F-16s before the end of the year. A restart of the assembly line at a later date would be prohibitively expensive.
In Taiwan, the defense establishment is eager to move forward, and the Legislative Yuan has also shown strong support for the F-16 package: In a letter to leading members of the US Congress, a bipartisan group of Taiwanese legislators urged the sale “to maintain a viable deterrent fighting force to ensure a balance of power.”
“Our military must be able to defend our airspace, as a further deterioration in the air balance across the Strait will only encourage PRC [People’s Republic of China] aggression,” the legislators said in their letter in December.
However, Washington has had some lukewarm and conflicting signals from Taiwan on the issue. The political leadership, from Ma down, needs to make it crystal clear that it does want to move ahead and redress the balance across the Strait before it is too late and they have their backs against the wall. The Obama and Ma administrations must show steadfast resolve on the issue of defensive arms sales to Taiwan, lest risk a misinterpretation by China regarding the peaceful settlement of the Taiwan issue.
Nat Bellocchi is a former chairman of the American Institute in Taiwan and a special adviser to the Liberty Times Group. The views expressed in this article are his own.
US$18.278 billion is a simple dollar figure; one that’s illustrative of the first Trump administration’s defense commitment to Taiwan. But what does Donald Trump care for money? During President Trump’s first term, the US defense department approved gross sales of “defense articles and services” to Taiwan of over US$18 billion. In September, the US-Taiwan Business Council compared Trump’s figure to the other four presidential administrations since 1993: President Clinton approved a total of US$8.702 billion from 1993 through 2000. President George W. Bush approved US$15.614 billion in eight years. This total would have been significantly greater had Taiwan’s Kuomintang-controlled Legislative Yuan been cooperative. During
Former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) in recent days was the focus of the media due to his role in arranging a Chinese “student” group to visit Taiwan. While his team defends the visit as friendly, civilized and apolitical, the general impression is that it was a political stunt orchestrated as part of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) propaganda, as its members were mainly young communists or university graduates who speak of a future of a unified country. While Ma lived in Taiwan almost his entire life — except during his early childhood in Hong Kong and student years in the US —
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers on Monday unilaterally passed a preliminary review of proposed amendments to the Public Officers Election and Recall Act (公職人員選罷法) in just one minute, while Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislators, government officials and the media were locked out. The hasty and discourteous move — the doors of the Internal Administration Committee chamber were locked and sealed with plastic wrap before the preliminary review meeting began — was a great setback for Taiwan’s democracy. Without any legislative discussion or public witnesses, KMT Legislator Hsu Hsin-ying (徐欣瑩), the committee’s convener, began the meeting at 9am and announced passage of the
In response to a failure to understand the “good intentions” behind the use of the term “motherland,” a professor from China’s Fudan University recklessly claimed that Taiwan used to be a colony, so all it needs is a “good beating.” Such logic is risible. The Central Plains people in China were once colonized by the Mongolians, the Manchus and other foreign peoples — does that mean they also deserve a “good beating?” According to the professor, having been ruled by the Cheng Dynasty — named after its founder, Ming-loyalist Cheng Cheng-kung (鄭成功, also known as Koxinga) — as the Kingdom of Tungning,
RSS