Rumors that Taiwan has nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, all secretly hidden away, have plagued journalists for a decade. Wild gossip includes Taiwan's acquisition of two nuclear weapons from either Russia or South Africa, depending on the story. Other stories include the storage of sarin nerve gas at two sites in Taiwan. Biological-weapons rumors include everything from Anthrax to Ebola.
It takes about 300kg of sarin to kill 60 to 100 people, but only 30kg of anthrax spores to kill 30,000 to 100,000 people.
The advantages of the latter are obvious. Biological weapons leave cities untouched but wipe out the population. Chemical weapons require massive clean-up operations and pollute the environment for decades. Nuclear weapons simply achieve both -- the utter destruction of both population and cities. The price tag for biological weapons production is much lower than nuclear and, given its lethality compared to chemicals, much more attractive.
A 1993 US Congressional Office of Technology Assessment listed Taiwan as "possibly" having an "undeclared offensive BW [biological-weapons] program." An equally unnerving report was issued in July 1998 by the US Arms Control and Disarmament Agency which noted that Taiwan had upgraded its biotechnology capabilities by purchasing sophisticated biotechnology equipment from the US and Switzerland, but concluded that evidence was not sufficient to determine if Taiwan is engaged in biological-weapons activities.
A 1997 Russian Federation Foreign Intelligence Service report stated that Taiwan did not have biological weapons, but has "shown signs of conducting biological research of an applied military nature." A recent Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) report, Perspectives on Biological Weapons Proliferation, stated Taiwan was suspected of "mounting an offensive biological weapons program."
Local media picked up the CSIS report and further alleged that Taiwan had developed 36 types of bacteria for biological weapons. But the CSIS report never mentioned this allegation.
The development of biological weapons, according to specialists, would require only US$100,000, five trained biologists and a few weeks to produce enough weapons to wipe out a large city. For example, 35 grams of botulinal toxin could kill 60 million people.
According to the Center for Nonproliferation Studies, Taiwan is listed as having a "possible research program" in biological weapons, and is a "probable" possessor of chemical agents.
At the end of World War II Taiwan's military took possession of a Japanese chemical weapons facility in northern Taiwan, and is believed to have expanded the facility in light of the threat from China. Taiwan is rumored to house sarin at two locations: Tsishan, Kaohsiung County and Kuanhsi, Hsinchu County.
Though Taiwan has researched and developed anti-chemical and anti-biological warfare equipment in response to threats from China, the government maintains that it will not pursue nuclear, biological and chemical warfare capabilities.
Taiwan signed and ratified both the 1925 Geneva Protocol and the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention. However, it has not signed the Chemical Weapons Convention, and this is often excused due to Taiwan's quasi-diplomatic position, which does not allow it to sign as a nation-state.
Despite denials and accusations, the nuclear, biological and chemical-weapons question will continue to haunt Taiwan. Though weapons of mass destruction are more often depicted in movies than in real life, they nonetheless exist in today's world. Who has them answers the question of who might use them.
Wendell Minnick is a correspondent with Jane's Defence Weekly in Taiwan.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with