President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), when speaking at public occasions, has repeatedly called on the US to continue selling defensive weapons to Taiwan.
On Aug. 6, when meeting a delegation from the US Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) focusing on cross-strait confidence-building measures, Ma once more expressed his hope that the US would agree to sell advanced F-16C/D fighter jets to Taiwan. One can be sure, however, that as China gradually increases its influence, it will become more and more difficult for the US to sell Taiwan sensitive key weapons systems.
On Aug. 7, a delegation of Taiwanese lawmakers on a visit to the US told their hosts that after Kidd-class destroyers purchased from the US went into service in Taiwan, Taiwan’s navy, lacking sufficient technical know-how and spare parts, had some trouble conducting major repairs to the ships. The delegation suggested that the ships could go back to the US for maintenance. The Americans said they would seriously consider this suggestion, and added that if such an arrangement were found to be inappropriate, the US would send qualified personnel to help maintain the ships.
It has also been reported that next year the US State Department, invoking the Department of Defense’s Excess Defense Articles program, will approve the sale to Taiwan of two soon-to-be-replaced Perry-class frigates at just US$20 million each. The only problem with this proposal is that the US is set to take this class of frigate out of service entirely, which means that Taiwan is likely to have the same kind of problems it has had with the Kidd-class destroyers if it doesn’t fully master the skills necessary to service the frigates and if it can’t ensure a supply of spare parts.
In fact none of the items included in two waves of arms sales approved by the US over the last few years are key weapons that Taiwan really needs. Brian Kennedy, president of US think tank the Claremont Institute, wrote in the Wall Street Journal on Jan. 10 that most arms sales have been merely symbolic in nature and if the US really wants to help Taiwan improve its defensive capability it should approve the sale of more advanced weapons.
“Absent such serious defensive weaponry, the sale of arms is just a symbolic gesture rather than a meaningful military acquisition,” Kennedy wrote.
The reality of Taiwan’s arms purchases is in sharp contrast with Ma’s insistence, as expressed at a ceremony at the Ministry of National Defense last December, that money must be spent where it is most effective. Since arms purchases in recent years have been more for the sake of appearance than of practical use, it is not without good reason that some critics dismiss them as “bits and pieces.”
Since Ma took office in 2008, the National Security Council (NSC) has held a string of at least 10 closed-door meetings on the question of proposed submarine purchases, aimed at compiling opinions from various interested parties to formulate policy suggestions. However, after discussing the matter for two years, the NSC has still not come up with any public position.
At a dinner with a US delegation visiting Taiwan recently, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator Lin Yu-fang (林郁方) asked former commander of US forces in the Pacific, Admiral Timothy Keating, whether Taiwan needed to buy submarines, to which Keating replied simply: “Of course.”
When Su Chi (蘇起) resigned from his post as secretary-general of the NSC on Feb. 12, he revealed that he had once had a private meeting with then-US director of National Intelligence and former commander of the US Pacific Command Dennis Blair to talk about Taiwan’s submarine purchase plans.
Su recalled that the main reason given by the US for not agreeing to sell the subs was that Taiwan did not have enough deep-water harbor facilities and that it wasn’t capable of follow-up maintenance on the subs. Anyone with any knowledge of military analysis could easily point out the falseness and absurdity of this assertion, but surprisingly neither the Ministry of Defense nor the Navy has refuted it or given any clear response.
Mackenzie Eaglen is a research fellow for national security studies with US think tank the Heritage Foundation. Eaglen writes that, as China actively develops its naval power, Australia, India and countries around the Pacific have taken note of the shifting balance and responded by boosting their own naval armament programs. Notably, Australia, India, South Korea, Indonesia, Vietnam, Malaysia and, just recently, Japan, are all planning to expand their submarine fleets. Evidently, submarines are a priority consideration when it comes to asymmetric warfare preparedness.
Australia, for example, plans to build 12 new generation submarines for its navy. Despite the cost of between US$25 billion and US$35 billion, this plan has won widespread approval from the public, mainly because the policy decision has undergone a defense procurement review, allowing open and transparent information and analysis.
Taiwan’s existing anti-submarine warfare capability lags at least ten years behind the most advanced navies. The passivity and caution of Taiwan’s navy stem from its unwillingness to take on risks and from its determination to protect its vested interests.
This situation cannot go on forever. The Ma administration and the navy should not be allowed to keep putting off a decision on whether to build up our submarine fleet. No matter whether they finally decide for or against it, they should explain the decision clearly, and if the US is not able to supply the subs Taiwan wants, the government and navy should devise backup plans.
Wang Jyh-perng is an associate research fellow at the Association for Managing Defense and Strategies .
TRANSLATED BY JULIAN CLEGG
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
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS