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.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS