The West’s resolute response in supporting Ukraine came as a surprise to the Kremlin, as well as many analysts who argued that the West was in decline. There is no doubt that the US and its NATO allies have shown a political unity not seen since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelenskiy, too, has defied people’s expectations and risen to the occasion to face down a country 28 times larger than his own. Rapid changes in global events reveal the best and worst in leaders, institutions and ourselves.
The West in the past few months has faced an uncomfortable reality, as its rapid response to supply Ukraine with armaments has left its arsenals at risk of running dry. A larger problem looms: replenishing the acute shortage would take years.
The shortage in the West’s “arsenal of democracy” should be of utmost concern to Taiwan. Nothing guarantees Beijing will not repeat the actions of its Russian partner of no limits. Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) has never ruled out the use of force to secure “reunification.” With Taipei’s military equipment mostly imported, and primarily from the US, diversifying the nation’s sources of armaments is essential to prepare for confrontation.
One case from Ukraine’s situation should serve as a warning for Taiwan. The Economist reported that Washington produces about 180,000 155mm artillery shells annually, while Europe produced 300,000 last year. The sum of this is short of what Ukraine utilizes in three months.
Taiwan’s overreliance on foreign military imports is not unknown to domestic policymakers. One of the Ministry of National Defense’s guiding principles of arms procurement has been the need to develop the domestic defense research-and-development industry. Despite this principle, 23 percent of the military’s weapons come from foreign sources.
In September last year, US President Joe Biden’s administration approved a US$1.1 billion arms sale to Taiwan, including systems such as anti-ship missiles and air-to-air missiles. Over the past 10 years, the US has approved upward of US$20 billion in arms sales.
However, US industrial and procurement issues have lengthened the timeline in which these systems are to be delivered. For example, a sale of F-16s — approved in 2019 — is estimated to arrive in Taiwan in 2026.
Certain US lawmakers have blamed material support to Ukraine as the cause for weapons shortages, but reports have suggested that the oligarchical nature of the US defense industry is the main reason for procurement issues. Since the 1990s, the number of main defense companies has been shrinking, falling from 51 to just five in the past 30 years.
Two other Ministry of National Defense procurement principles are that arms from foreign sources should be acquired directly from manufacturers and that supply sources should be diversified. The aforementioned oligopoly not only has consequences for the US military’s supply, but also for the Taiwanese military’s fighting capabilities.
In Taiwan, there are two main defense companies that are able to design and produce indigenous weapon systems: the Chungshan Institute of Science and Technology and Aerospace Industrial Development Corp. While there are smaller companies that contribute to the domestic defense industry, the two main companies with control over the industry might discourage competition and innovation.
Although the US and Taiwan have issues in their defense industries, there are ways to ensure that Taiwan is prepared for any surprises.
The US has some of the best military technology in the world, with state-of-the-art aircraft such as the F-35 coming from US manufacturers. The US should share certain technologies with Taiwanese defense companies, helping the domestic defense industry produce cutting-edge military equipment. While US security concerns would not permit the sharing of all of its military technology secrets, areas of the Taiwanese domestic defense industry that are lacking could be supplemented with US technical sharing.
The US should also license out the production of certain military equipment such as naval mines, missiles and other systems that the US produces. That would allow Taiwan to ease its reliance on imports as well as skip the line when it comes to receiving US weaponry, by allowing it to produce the systems domestically.
However, these propositions cannot be implemented effectively without Taiwan raising its defense budget. Taipei only spends 2.4 percent of its GDP on defense. For a nation under constant threat of invasion, this is woefully low. Countries such as Israel have been spending just over 5 percent since 2010 and Ukraine, prior to Russia’s invasion, was spending 3.8 percent.
Taiwan should raise this figure. It would not only allow it to purchase more weapons for defense, but also bolster the domestic defense industry. This increase in spending would also incentivize younger talent to join the defense industry, as more contracts to local companies would bring in more money.
While it might be in the interest of each country to bolster their arsenals, it might also pave the way for greater dangers ahead. International relations students might be familiar with the “security dilemma,” in which one state’s quest for security is perceived by another as a threat.
This is already exemplified most terrifyingly by Russian President Vladimir Putin’s decision to suspend Russia’s participation in the New START nuclear treaty. A renewed arms race, conventional and unconventional, would be a fixture of this new era of great power rivalry.
In the not too distant future — if we have not blown each other up — when the West reaches its current demands, a surplus of conventional weapons might find eager consumers in conflict zones ranging from the jungles of Myanmar to the ruinous desert towns of Yemen. Overcoming weapons shortages might only perpetuate conflict throughout the world, and not least heightening tensions across the Taiwan Strait, but it is the only good policy that states can pursue without taking the risk of trusting adversaries.
Nigel Li resides in Moscow and writes about current affairs on the blog A Singaporean in Moscow. Kai Suherwan, an international relations student in Washington, is a division chief at American University’s Pericles Institute and writes about defense issues in the Indo-Pacific region.
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