Over the past month, multiple public figures in the US have raised calls to arm Taiwanese as a deterrent against China. The idea has not gained realistic traction within Taiwan, although it has garnered some media attention.
The first of these comments came from former US national security adviser Robert O’Brien. Speaking in Taiwan on March 24, he said that having 1 million Taiwanese on “every corner and in every apartment block” armed with AK-47 assault rifles would deter the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) from attempting an invasion.
“Think how rattled it would make the leadership of the CCP if they knew that if they invaded, there would be 1 million Taiwanese with an AK-47,” he said. “Those legitimate concerns around gun ownership concerns or gun safety pale in comparison when we look at the war crimes that have taken place.”
A couple of weeks later on April 14, Republican presidential candidate and entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy made a similar call to raucous cheers at the annual gathering of the US’ National Rifle Association (NRA) in Indianapolis, Indiana.
“You want China not to invade Taiwan? Here is something we can do: The NRA can open its branch next time in Taiwan,” Ramaswamy said. “And you want to stop [Chinese President] Xi Jinping (習近平) from invading Taiwan, put a gun in every Taiwanese household, have them defend themselves. Let’s see what Xi Jinping does then.”
Although O’Brien was more metered in his rhetoric than Ramaswamy — acknowledging a Taiwanese aversion to guns and suggesting public armories or personal safes to store them — both are operating from a culturally specific perspective that says far more about US politics than it does about Taiwan’s defense.
There is a difference between “deterrence through strength,” as many US politicians advocate, and flooding the streets with firearms. As a grouping of islands, Taiwan is more concerned about air and sea attacks than street skirmishes. A full landing by Chinese troops would be exceedingly difficult, and it would come later in a conflict, if at all. Until then, the average citizen could hardly be expected to shoot a missile out of the air with their personal AR-15, nor would Xi feel threatened by them.
What widespread gun ownership would do is make daily life in Taiwan far less safe. The damage wrought by gun violence in the US hardly needs reminding, but bears repeating. Americans own considerably more guns than anyone else in the world, even outnumbering the population, with 120.5 firearms for every 100 people. The US has 18 times more violent gun deaths than other developed countries. With data as clear as this, no wonder other countries have little appetite for guns, Taiwan included.
Although poorly considered, there is a kernel of truth to O’Brien’s and Ramaswamy’s advice. Most Taiwanese men who went through compulsory military service would say they are still not confident in their ability to use a firearm in a combat situation. Luckily, making training more practical is part of ongoing military reforms, with firing exercises now including shooting from different positions and in diverse situations. Most Taiwanese would also agree that better training and communication on what citizens should do in a conflict is sorely needed. While there are certainly more discussions to be had, they require more nuance and situational understanding than just “give them guns.”
Just last week, videos were widely shared online of a 17-year-old shooting up a closed pawn shop beside a bustling street in New Taipei City’s Tucheng District (土城) with a modified submachine gun. The incongruity of the incident was shocking for a country relatively safe from gun violence. If this is the kind of scene that would become more common in an armed society, it is hard to imagine anyone championing the cause.
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,
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
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then