At a US congressional hearing on March 14 — the 35th anniversary of the US’ Taiwan Relations Act — US Congressman Brad Sherman asked if Taiwan was doing enough for its national defense.
“It is important that we provide Taiwan with the tools to defend itself, but Taiwan needs to act as well. Taiwan spends less than one-fifth per capita [on defense] than we Americans do,” Sherman said.
As a 19-year-old Taiwanese, I was surprised to hear that Taiwan spends less than many nations that do not face the same external threat. At present, Taiwan’s defense expenditure amounts to approximately 2.2 percent of GDP, compared with the 3 percent considered nominal internationally.
It is the nation’s responsibility and privilege to protect its democracy, liberty and culture.
I have heard a lot of people say that no matter how much Taiwan spends on defense, it would still lose in a cross-strait confrontation with China. That attitude is wrong: Taiwanese should not surrender before the fight has even begun. The people of Taiwan want peace, but freedom and democracy are just as important.
Others argue that the US will not sell Taiwan its latest weapons, so spending money on old military aircraft is a waste. Taipei is seeking to purchase F-16C/Ds, but Washington only wants to upgrade Taiwan’s F-16A/Bs, so purchasing F-35s is impossible. Also, does the nation even have the experts and technical knowledge required to maintain and operate such advanced fighter jets?
Opposition to spending big on national defense is also down to a lack of public trust in the military, in part due to several high-ranking military officials being charged with spying for China or corruption. The government must take action to shake up the military culture, since they are the ones that the public should entrust their lives to.
Taiwan recently implemented an all-volunteer military service system to replace the semi-voluntary one. Joining the military should be seen as a meaningful and courageous career move, but local culture does not encourage pride in serving one’s country.
Some Taiwanese feel that serving in the military is a waste of time and a career for people who do not want to study and cannot find a job. In this digital age, the military is more about brain than muscle. Taiwanese have to change their attitude toward the military and the government should come up with creative ideas to encourage young people to take pride in protecting their nation.
It is a fallacy to think that as long as Taiwan maintains the “status quo” and does not declare independence, war is not going to happen. China has 1,600 missiles aimed at Taiwan and would not hesitate to apply military force if they saw a chance to take the country. Taiwanese therefore need to protect themselves and develop “self-defense consciousness.”
To build up the public’s trust and willingness to invest in national defense, the government needs to be transparent about defense spending, engage domestic industries in supplying military arms and equipment, undertake military reform and provide incentives for outstanding young Taiwanese to serve their nation.
Only with strong enough national military capabilities — which requires spending of at least 3 percent of GDP on defense — will the nation be able to protect the democracy and liberty that Taiwanese have worked so hard to achieve.
Doing this will show Sherman and other international friends of Taiwan’s that Taiwanese do care about national defense and are contributing to peace and stability in the part of the world they inhabit.
Roxie Zhuang is a sophomore at Wesleyan University and an intern at the Formosan Association for Public Affairs in Washington.
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Former minister of culture Lung Ying-tai (龍應台) has long wielded influence through the power of words. Her articles once served as a moral compass for a society in transition. However, as her April 1 guest article in the New York Times, “The Clock Is Ticking for Taiwan,” makes all too clear, even celebrated prose can mislead when romanticism clouds political judgement. Lung crafts a narrative that is less an analysis of Taiwan’s geopolitical reality than an exercise in wistful nostalgia. As political scientists and international relations academics, we believe it is crucial to correct the misconceptions embedded in her article,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which