I have been following the many discussions regarding the budget proposal for the NT$610.8 billion (US$18 billion) arms deal to beef up Taiwan's military defenses, and I am perplexed at the notion that the issue is so controversial (it even spawned a street protest) considering the country's situation.
Undeniably, NT$610.8 billion is a phenomenal figure, especially at a time when there are so many underfunded social programs. However, if we divide that figure by 15, the result is roughly NT$40 billion a year for the next 15 years. If paying NT$40 billion each year can buy peace and prosperity for the country, it is a worthy investment. I said "if" because there can be no guarantee -- it can or it cannot buy what it is intended for, and there is no sure answer as far as my judgment goes. It's like buying stocks or gambling -- there is always that risk.
Nevertheless, under the current circumstances, what if Taiwan doesn't risk the NT$40 billion per year to strengthen its defense capability when China has aimed 600-plus missiles at it? There is simply no contest when the missiles start raining down on the 23 million people of Taiwan. Thus, I would like to explore three questions with regard to the arms deal issue.
First, why do some legislators make a big deal of Defense Minister Lee Jye's (李傑) use of pearl tea as an analogy as to how to pay for the deal? As far as I understand, the minister does not mean to discourage people from enjoying pearl tea. I personally enjoy this genuine drink and I certainly am not going to give it up even when my government spends NT$610.8 billion on defense or anything else.
We must understand that the tea analogy is used only as a means to help people understand how much it will cost to foot the bill (per capita) for the arms deal.
What best can help people comprehend the scope of this purchase except to use the cost of a popular drink as an example? Sure the minister can use sashimi or pizza, but how many people eat those foods and are familiar with their cost?
A good reader knows how to read between the lines and not to be duped by some politicians who enjoy their power and ability to mislead people. Besides, we all learned how to read and how to use our imagination when we were in school. Let's put those skills to work.
Second, why do so many people vehemently oppose the arms deal? To say that they oppose it simply because they don't like President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) is to ignore the real issue. Indeed, there seems to be a veiled motive behind all the fuss over the deal. Don't we all know what Chen is driving at? Of course we do. Everybody does. It's just that obvious.
Nonetheless, we must also understand the consequence of this budget proposal. If Taiwan obtains the most effective defensive weapons to counter China's aggression, China would have to think twice before starting an all-out war (to reunite, borrowing the Chinese terminology) with Taiwan.
Even if China attempts an invasion, it may or may not succeed. It certainly can not happen within the next few years or in the foreseeable future as long as Taiwan possesses the advanced weaponry. And what if China fails? Taiwan will most definitely declare independence and be recognized internationally.
So you see, the prospects seem to point in Taiwan's favor. This is not what those who vigorously promote unification like to see. If these people are allowed to succeed in blocking the arms budget proposal, they will ensure that Taiwan will have no capability to hold off China's invasion once its missiles, bombers, and warships strike. Without the advanced weaponry, the so-called unification by force is a given.
Taiwan is sure to be taken over. It can happen before you know it. Of course, the island's unificationists don't like to see Taiwan hold an edge to fend off China's invasion, since that will only deter their dream of one unified, great China. My question for those unificationists is this: If your dream comes true, do you honestly believe you can enjoy life under the control of the communist regime by keeping your mouths shut? How can you be sure you will be able to speak out -- a freedom you have now -- and not be persecuted?
Third, why can't we just quit the arms deal and tell China that we are not interested in an arms race with them, so leave us alone?
Do you really think once you stop buying weapons, China will be so kind as to stop their own arms procurement of missiles, aircraft, submarines, warships and carriers and declare Taiwan a friendly good neighbor? What if they don't? Are you ready to surrender and be a good citizen of the People's Republic of China, and continue to sip your pearl tea each and every day?
We know very well that China has been fervently protesting against any country willing to sells arms to Taiwan. Why do some Taiwanese people act as Beijing does then? My instinct tells me never give up and satisfy my enemy's desires. On the contrary, I should do exactly what my enemy is afraid of and what he doesn't want me to do. Only then do I hold bargaining chips needed for any future peace negotiations.
So, fellow Taiwanese people, the point I am trying to make is clear. Unless you are willing to say "uncle" to China, you will have to be strong enough to protect yourself. Unfortunately, the truth is even if you give up, you may still lose sleep under the roof of Beijing's regime. You must understand that the only way to stand up to a bully and tell him to leave you alone is to let the bully know that you are not a weakling. Otherwise, you are going to have to kneel down and kiss his toes to save your own skin.
Mike Chu
DuPage Community College, Illinois
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