The recent controversies over Premier Yu Shyi-kun's talk last Saturday about Taiwan striking Shanghai with missiles in the event of an attack against Taiwan by China is a classical case of words taken out of context by the media. It is truly puzzling how those who depict Yu's comment as being provocative and hostile can overlook the fact that Yu was only talking about a scenario in which Taiwan was forced to react to a missile attack by China and fend off further such attacks.
It is imperative to point out that Yu made the statement in the face of a rally by about 1,000 people organized by the pan-blue opposition against the government's arms procurements from the US. The statement was meant to help explain the need for the arms purchases in an easy-to-understand manner. Yu said that in order to maintain the security of Taiwan, if China is capable of destroying Taiwan, Taiwan also needs to maintain that kind of capability against China, so that "in the event [China] hits [Taiwan] with 100 missiles, then [Taiwan] should at least be able to strike back with 50 missiles; if [China] hits Taipei and Kaohsiung, then [Taiwan] should be able to strike Shanghai in return."
Yu was simply talking about maintaining a degree of counterstrike ability in order to deter one's enemy from launching an attack, rather than Taiwan taking the initiative and attacking Shanghai for no reason. Yu's point was that maintaining that kind of capability can help avert war all together, and in order to maintain that ability, Taiwan needs to make the arms purchases. Yu's comments are also consistent with the existing national defense strategy of Taiwan, which is "effective prevention [of war], and steady self-defense."
While some people may not like Yu's bluntness, he pointed out something that the general public in China, which continues to overwhelmingly support unification, should keep in mind: in the event that their government tries to impose unification through the use of military might, the Chinese people might be the one paying a hefty price in the lives of their sons and daughters in the event of a cross-strait conflict. For decades, the Chinese government has been brainwashing its people about the importance of "unifying" with Taiwan -- even through military adventurism -- as part of its campaign to harness the blind nationalism of the masses and maintain the security of the corrupt and bloodthirsty authoritarian regime in Beijing. If the Chinese people can be taught to see things from an alternative perspective, then perhaps there might be a change in China's policy toward Taiwan one day.
Another question that needs to be faced is this: If a counterattack is out of question, then aside from keeping one's fingers crossed praying that US aid would arrive in time, how can Taiwan respond to a missile attack by the Chinese? Perhaps what the pan-blues want is to surrender immediately, and then organize a reception banquet? Otherwise, it is hard to understand their opposition to the special arms budget.
Ironically, on Wednesday, the spokesperson for China's Taiwan Affairs Office Li Weiyi (
If China did not cast the dark shadow of military conquest over Taiwan; and if China did not have hundreds of missile targeting Taiwan; there would be no need for the arms purchase, and Yu would not have to defend this need in such a manner.
As the biggest threat to not only cross-strait peace, but also regional peace, it is laughable to hear Beijing accuse others other of being provocative and hostile.
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