The NT$610.8 billion (US$18 billion) arms procurement plan has polarized public opinion to an extent reminiscent of the runup to the presidential election. An alarming development is the anti-procurement protest by more than 150 retired generals. This reveals the extent of the divisions in this country. It also shows that some consider politics more important than national security. If this situation continues, the international community may well question why they should support Taiwan.
Every sovereign nation requires a robust defense system that can deal with any immediate or potential threat from outside. This is true of any country, regardless of the system of government. Even pacifist groups, when faced with a threat from a global or regional power, would not expect their own country to dispense with their military capability and just sit still, waiting for the enemy to do what it will.
These military officials were cultivated by past governments, and they enjoy generous retirement pensions to this day. They should certainly see the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) as Taiwan's biggest enemy.
During their tenure under the Chinese Nationalist Party's (KMT) rule, they upheld the government's plan to regain China by force, and implemented a decade-long arms purchase plan of NT$450 billion to strengthen naval and air defense capabilities. In fact, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) government's 15-year purchase plan of NT$610.8 billion was organized between 1995 and 1998 by some of these now-retired generals.
After these men retired, some moved to China, while others frequently travel between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait. Surprisingly, they now speak for their long-time enemy. They say that Taiwan cannot defeat China no matter how many weapons are bought, so it's better for us to save money and try to resolve cross-strait issues through political means. Such statements prove that they not only deceived the people in the past, but are also willing to give up the nation's sovereignty in order to unify with China.
According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, Taiwan's annual military budget of 3 percent of GDP does not have a negative impact on its spending in areas such as education and social welfare. China's military spending has, meanwhile, seen double digit growth for years. President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) has said that the number of Chinese missiles targeting Taiwan has now increased to 600. The US has predicted that the balance between Taiwan's and China's military power will tilt in Beijing's favor by 2006.
Against this backdrop, 150 generals now not only refuse to sign a petition demanding that China drop its threat to use force against Taiwan, but are also asking Taiwan to put down its defenses. With friends like these, who needs enemies?
Many civic groups have come out against the arms purchase, out of concern that the that the huge expense will be a burden to future generations. They have called on the government to provide more guarantees that this allocation of funds will not affect other expenditures. This is the correct way for the people to monitor a government's activities. But the fact that these generals should so neglect the nation's safety is a sign of creeping defeatism and neglect of martial virtues.
If even our generals are now pawns in China's unification game, and if these opposition forces have become defeatists who work against the core interests of their own country, then how can Taiwan effectively seek support from the international community? What duty would the US and Japan have to continue their involvement in Taiwan's defense?
These soldiers have lost their faith, and they stand at the head of a path that leads to treason. They should be forcefully reprimanded by the people.
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
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS