The Democratic Action Alliance was one of the principle organizers of Saturday's "peace rally" held to protest the government's US$18.25 billion arms procurement deal with the US. The purchase will strengthen Taiwan's military defenses with eight diesel-electric submarines, six PAC-3 anti-missile systems and 12 P-3C Orion maritime patrol aircraft. The interest group is borrowing vocal opposition to the procurement plan from academics to advance its agenda.
Let's debunk the actions and words of the Democratic Action Alliance and its supporters, shall we?
First, promoting the protest as a "peace rally" is misleading. As a concerned citizen, I think the proponents of the arms purchase are pro-peace because they understand the heightened national security threat that comes not only from Taiwan's aggressive neighbor, but also from a weak and outdated military. China has always been a threat, and will only become a greater threat in the future.
The Chen administration has, on several occasions, offered an olive branch to Beijing, but only got insults and disappointment in return. And if there can be no peaceful dialogue between Taipei and Beijing, then one has to assume aggression is forthcoming. A sound defense is therefore critical to protect the nation.
Second, National Taiwan University's professor Huang Kuang-kuo (
Third, the alliance whines that the arms deal violates the "spirit of democracy." Democracy is defined as "government by the people, either directly or through elected representatives," and Taiwan's government (as well as most other world democracies) is clearly the latter. Our elected representatives in the Legislature voice our concerns regarding bills and statues. That's what you do when you cast the ballot. Perhaps the alliance can elaborate on how it defines democracy?
Fourth, opponents always argue about arms procurement at the expense of social welfare. A strong military can only be sustained if there's a strong economy and vice versa, as we have witnessed during the Cold War; when the US outlasted the Soviet Union economically, later bringing about the collapse of the Communist government. Where will you work or where will your family get medical care when a Chinese invasion completely destroys Taiwan? We should aim to grow a strong army, navy, and air force, then we will deal with the rest, as we are a freedom-loving and hard-working people.
People like me are labeled "hawks" or "war mongers," but the threat of an invasion of Taiwan is very real. Beijing continues to actively deploy coastal missiles and modernize its military, and any reasonable person can understand why. Domestic social issues are crucial indeed, but they mean nothing if future generations cannot live freely.
Eugene Liu
Atlanta
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