The government-controlled Chinese media recently claimed that the People's Liberation Army (PLA) has begun to study the possibility of withdrawing its missiles targeting Taiwan. Those reports were immediately exaggerated by pro-unification media here, which are making it seem as if China has already decided to withdraw the missiles, and depict the supposed move as yet another goodwill gesture from Beijing.
Actually, this is not the first time there have been rumors about China withdrawing missiles. The only difference now is that China has gotten better at seizing the right time to float such rumors, so as to maximize the effect of its propaganda. With respect to Beijing's supposed deliberations on the missile issue, we should observe and listen carefully.
Even more important, we must study the intentions underlying such media reports. We should not take them at face value and thereby become an unwitting part of China's propaganda machine.
Reportedly, former Chinese president Jiang Zemin (
If Taiwan cannot purchase such equipment from the US, there is no other way for it to strengthen its defense capabilities. So obviously China has nothing to lose from this supposed deal.
The context in which China released the rumors about withdrawing missiles is worth pondering for several reasons.
First, it took place after the meetings between Chinese President Hu Jintao (
With these meetings as the starting point, Hu can keep the initiative on the cross-strait issue through the release of reports on the missile withdrawal. This is nothing but bait to lure the Taiwanese people into swallowing the poison of "one China."
Moreover, in recent days Chinese survey ships have repeatedly entered Taiwan's waters to gather information on water currents and ocean geography, in the clear pursuit of a military agenda. China has also released the rumors about withdrawing missiles to conceal its aggressive ambitions.
China also recently enacted the "Anti-Secession" Law, which includes explicit provisions on dealing with Taiwan through "non-peaceful" means. It continues to face severe international criticism over the law. The release of the rumors should help take some of the heat off China for its bellicose legislation.
China is endeavoring to persuade the EU to lift the arms embargo against it. Therefore, Beijing may be seeking to create an illusion that the threat facing Taiwan is lowering, to help persuade the EU to remove the ban.
Keeping this context in mind, it's clear that if China is truly planning to remove its missiles, it is doing so out of its own calculated self-interest, rather than as a genuine goodwill gesture toward Taiwan.
China's buildup of 700 missiles pointed at Taiwan constitutes an act of aggression and a crime under public international law. It is China's duty to completely remove these missiles and destroy them. It therefore makes no sense for China to use the withdrawal of missiles as a bargaining chip in dealing with Taiwan.
Furthermore, China's threat against Taiwan is not limited to those 700 missiles. China's defense budget has seen double digit growth in recent years. Its purchase of technologically-advanced fighter jets and submarines from Russia constitutes a major threat to Taiwan.
Of course, we must also realize that while Taiwan does face a serious military threat from China, Beijing's military expansion involves much more than just Taiwan. In fact, China is using Taiwan as a justification for its military buildup.
With the growth of the Chinese economy, Beijing's ability to expand militarily also grows. Behind the illusion of China's "peaceful rise" is the country's steady march toward the status of a military superpower. China is already a major economic power of Asia, and therefore it thinks it should rightfully become the next Asian hegemon.
The enormous military strength of the US is the biggest roadblock to China's ambitions to engulf Taiwan, reign over Asia and project power into the Pacific. Therefore, China is actively trying to squeeze the US's scope of control in the western Pacific.
China's ambition is obvious. Countries such as the US and Japan do not dare to take that ambition lightly. The scope of the joint US-Japan security strategy and the new alignment of US forces in Asia clearly targets an ambitious China. Although China has not yet reached the status of a regional power, after years of expansion its military strength should not be underestimated.
If a crisis in the Taiwan Strait similar to the 1995 and 1996 missile crises happens again, it will become even more difficult to maintain peace and security in the Taiwan Strait. For this reason, as the US spreads democratic values, it is also adopting a preventive strategy with respect to Chinese ambition, hoping to usher China down the path toward becoming a responsible power.
Taiwan is a peace-loving country. Sadly, it neighbors an aggressive bully, and so must endure constant military threats and verbal assaults. As a small country, Taiwan's best strategy is to follow democratic countries such as the US and Japan.
In particular, when directly and immediately confronted by China's military expansion, Taiwan must have sufficient self-defense capabilities -- at least enough to withstand a first strike by China -- and perhaps even some level of offensive capability in order to avoid defeat and buy time until international help arrives.
When the pan blue camp was in power, it called loudly for "retaking" China, treating Taiwan as the base for such a campaign. So it ought to know better than anyone else about the logic underlying Taiwan's need for a robust defense.
It's truly worrisome that after the pan-blue camp lost power, it had a complete change of heart. It now says that Chinese military threats are the result of Taiwan's "provocation." But what could be more "provocative" than the pan-blue camp's past talk about "retaking" China and "saving" Chinese compatriots?
Despite the mounting threat posed by China, the pan-blue camp has insisted on boycotting Taiwan's US arms purchase. Instead, its leaders crawl to Beijing to dance with the enemy and talk about cross-strait peace under the "one China" principle. How is this different from surrender?
Even as the pan-blue camp claims to pave the way for cross-strait dialogue, the special budget for the US arms procurement can't even make it out of the Legislative Yuan's procedure committee.
In all of this, there's nothing but good news for Beijing: if Taiwan's opposition parties continue to undermine national security and China's propaganda machine keeps humming along, it should be able to seize Taiwan peacefully -- without any need for those missiles.
On May 7, 1971, Henry Kissinger planned his first, ultra-secret mission to China and pondered whether it would be better to meet his Chinese interlocutors “in Pakistan where the Pakistanis would tape the meeting — or in China where the Chinese would do the taping.” After a flicker of thought, he decided to have the Chinese do all the tape recording, translating and transcribing. Fortuitously, historians have several thousand pages of verbatim texts of Dr. Kissinger’s negotiations with his Chinese counterparts. Paradoxically, behind the scenes, Chinese stenographers prepared verbatim English language typescripts faster than they could translate and type them
More than 30 years ago when I immigrated to the US, applied for citizenship and took the 100-question civics test, the one part of the naturalization process that left the deepest impression on me was one question on the N-400 form, which asked: “Have you ever been a member of, involved in or in any way associated with any communist or totalitarian party anywhere in the world?” Answering “yes” could lead to the rejection of your application. Some people might try their luck and lie, but if exposed, the consequences could be much worse — a person could be fined,
On May 13, the Legislative Yuan passed an amendment to Article 6 of the Nuclear Reactor Facilities Regulation Act (核子反應器設施管制法) that would extend the life of nuclear reactors from 40 to 60 years, thereby providing a legal basis for the extension or reactivation of nuclear power plants. On May 20, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) legislators used their numerical advantage to pass the TPP caucus’ proposal for a public referendum that would determine whether the Ma-anshan Nuclear Power Plant should resume operations, provided it is deemed safe by the authorities. The Central Election Commission (CEC) has
When China passed its “Anti-Secession” Law in 2005, much of the democratic world saw it as yet another sign of Beijing’s authoritarianism, its contempt for international law and its aggressive posture toward Taiwan. Rightly so — on the surface. However, this move, often dismissed as a uniquely Chinese form of legal intimidation, echoes a legal and historical precedent rooted not in authoritarian tradition, but in US constitutional history. The Chinese “Anti-Secession” Law, a domestic statute threatening the use of force should Taiwan formally declare independence, is widely interpreted as an emblem of the Chinese Communist Party’s disregard for international norms. Critics
RSS