Damon Bristow's recent opinion piece ("Offensive capability is not the best response," Dec. 3, Page 12) argues that Taiwan's pursuit of offensive missile systems will only provoke Beijing's ire and jeopardize Taiwan's relationship with the US, forcing the latter to curtail its support of the island's military capabilities.
This type of analysis, all too common in foreign policy circles recently, betrays a serious misunderstanding of US-Taiwan relations.
Anyone listening to American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) chairman Richard Bush's speeches lately will likely draw the conclusion that thoughtful observers drew years ago: the US isn't going to come to Taiwan's aid when China decides to put its troops into the boats.
There will be some hot air blown in Beijing's direction, a House Subcommittee hearing or two, perhaps some meaningless sanctions.
Taiwan's elites will flash their green cards on their way off the island to cushy jobs in US universities (the way prepared by decades of quiet donations that have been astonishingly effective in silencing the US academic community) and everyone will sit down and fire off memoirs at each other. The only thing Beijing will have to fear is the mis-spellings.
Consequently, any analysis of Taiwan's options must begin with the undeniable fact that it has already been abandoned, nor is the US likely to take up the sword again any time soon, judging from the craven positions held by all major party presidential candidates.
Since Taiwan need not account to the US for its military choices, what options does the island have?
As the KMT does not currently pursue a vigorous policy to raise Taiwan's international profile, there are basically two.
One is to hold out for the best deal possible before annexation, the other is to create an offensive capability great enough to enable the island to pursue a "balance of terror" policy.
Nuclear weapons must be included in the force mix.
Not only would a heavily armed Taiwan give China pause, but it would also afford Taiwan additional negotiating weight if its leaders decide to hold out for the best possible deal, rather than continued de facto independence.
Present the US with the accomplished fact of Taiwanese nukes, as well as a larger market for US defense goods, and the US will live with it.
Despite its might, the US is a weak, fickle power without firm principles, easily gulled or bullied. If Israel can do it, so can Taiwan.
China is never going to give up the idea of annexing Taiwan, especially when democratic nations refuse to abide by any of their treaty obligations.
Of the two sides, however, it is more likely that the West can be shamed into honorable action than that China will grow up. It is for that long-term change, rather than any real hope of victory, that Taiwan should build up a small but potent counterstrike capability and assure its continued survival.
Michael Turton
Kaohsiung
`Woolly thinking' questioned
Regarding a letter by John Coomber that appeared in the Taipei Times on Nov. 30, I would like to know just what spectrum joins together the languages of China and Scandinavia? I know little about linguistics and do not understand the logic behind Coomber's apparently woolly thinking. As a person of Scandinavian descent, I would really like to know.
Holger Jacobsen
Taipei
Adding it all up
RSS