US President George W. Bush has announced that the US will withdraw between 60,000 and 70,000 troops stationed overseas over the next decade, representing the US' greatest military redeployment since the end of the Cold War. Although the US has repeated that there will be no changes to its security commitments, this country would do well to pay attention and formulate early responses to the effects that the redistribution of US troops will have on international, Asia-Pacific and even cross-strait security.
With the development of modern weapons and tactics, the size of military deployments is no longer the vital issue. Troop mobility and impact are now keys to victory on the battlefield. The US' current strategic goals are focused on striking against terrorism and restricting China from becoming a great military power. Although Bush still has not made public any details of the pullback, he has pointed out the need to redeploy large numbers of troops in areas where the wars of the previous century have ended. Clearly, this means that the focus of troop redeployment will be Europe. The Asia-Pacific will also be affected, but due to the military tension on the Korean Peninsula and in the Strait, these areas will probably not see too much change.
There are two major island chains in the region -- the first forms a line through the Kurile Islands, through Japan, Taiwan, Guam, the Philippines and Indonesia; the second forms a north-south line from the Kuriles through Japan, the Bonins, the Marianas, the Carolines and Indonesia.
The US will likely cut down troop deployments in South Korea and along the "second island chain" while improving military capabilities in order to build a deterrent force. In case of military tension in the Asia-Pacific region, the US will be able to use its military flexibly, both for purposes of attack and defense. China and North Korea will be the targets of this force. For Taiwan, located in the first island chain, this development would seem to leave it more exposed, with the country acting as a shield for US forces in Guam and Hawaii. But it could actually improve the country's overall security, to the extent that it makes Taiwan's role even more critical to regional security, and so strengthens the country's alliances.
In response to the developing military situation, Taiwan should increase its defensive capabilities. Only if the country shows China that it can both defend itself and also counterattack will the country inhibit China from using force to "unify" Taiwan. Even if the worst happens and a conflict erupts between Taiwan and China, this nation must have the defensive capability to hold off the aggressor until international forces can intervene to re-establish peace across the Strait.
To achieve this, the first step is to strengthen the country's defensive capability. In addition to procuring submarines, anti-submarine aircraft and Patriot missiles, the nation should also aggressively seek approval to purchase AEGIS-equipped destroyers, now that the US is considering including this item in its arms sales to Taiwan. The country should actively seek admission to the Theater Missile Defense network. In this way Taiwan can establish itself as an integral link in Asia's regional defense.
In addition, Taiwan should actively seek inclusion into international security networks in Asia to play a role in assuring regional security. The nation should purchase intelligence-gathering equipment to improve its capability in this area, taking advantage of its position in the center of the first island chain to collect information on military deployments in China. This intelligence capability would allow for expanded information exchanges between the first and second island chains. This will serve as a foundation of Taiwan's national defense. It will also put the nation in a position to provide the US, Japan and other countries with key information when necessary, making it an active member of a cooperative regional defense network.
US President Donald Trump created some consternation in Taiwan last week when he told a news conference that a successful trade deal with China would help with “unification.” Although the People’s Republic of China has never ruled Taiwan, Trump’s language struck a raw nerve in Taiwan given his open siding with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression seeking to “reunify” Ukraine and Russia. On earlier occasions, Trump has criticized Taiwan for “stealing” the US’ chip industry and for relying too much on the US for defense, ominously presaging a weakening of US support for Taiwan. However, further examination of Trump’s remarks in
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
RSS