During the summit between US President George W. Bush and Chinese President Jiang Zemin (江澤民), Jiang proposed the removal of missiles from the Taiwan Strait in exchange for a decrease in arms sales to Taipei. Although Bush disarmed him simply by saying, "We are not that naive," the repercussions are still reverberating. What's more, according to former US State Department officials, the ball may soon be knocked into Tai-wan's court, where it could become hard to play.
Beijing's security policies have become more adaptable and flexible in recent years, mainly because those policies are still centered on "stabilizing the periphery and developing the economy." This is to highlight the fact that China is attempting the mature handling of international issues to show that it is sensible and capable of cooperation. We outline below, on the basis of Jiang's reasoning, a number of issues that arise from his offer and the responses that we would recommend.
First, it may have been a propaganda exercise to test the reactions of US and international media. China used the format and location of the APEC summit in Mexico to propose this way of reducing the risk of a military stand-off. It could be said that guided missiles have a high propaganda value and Jiang's proposal naturally provides several advantages in terms of public opinion.
To this, Minister of Foreign Affairs Eugene Chien (簡又新) used the analogy of "apples and oranges," saying that China's "missiles for arms sales" proposal is not a balanced one. There is some truth to this statement and the Ministry of National Defense believes that China's verbal goodwill is of no substantive value, but debate on the matter continues. To ensure that Taipei's point of view is heard, the two ministries should intensify their discussion on measures that could make for a good balance, in terms of both propaganda and substance.
Second, it is worth watching to see if Washington's China policies are changing. When the Bush administration took office, its statements and policies were clearly biased toward Taiwan, but this situation changed after the Sept. 11 attacks. The main reason was that terrorist activities had become a real threat to the US and so it became important to win China's cooperation.
Of course, from a strategic point of view, even if deals are made under the table between Beijing and Washington, the US cannot accept unequal deals like Jiang's "missiles for arms sales" offer. The problem is, however, that if Taiwan cannot propose a constructive response, US strategy in the Taiwan Strait will tip toward the other side, marginalizing Taipei.
Finally, China may have been proposing to adopt formal disarmament measures controlling the total number of missiles, perhaps even destroying them. Of course, it is employing diplomatic pressure, military threats and economic unification against Taiwan, objectives which this possibility would not appear to serve. But if China really were to disarm along the Taiwan Strait, Taipei could consider responding by means of declarations or track-two dialogue in an attempt to put an early end to the arms race.
It may be that the future will see a never-ending stream of more flexible policies from Beijing. For Taiwan, Jiang's offer provides a lesson in realism. Only with the close integration of national security, national defense, diplomacy and the China affairs network will an effective national security team be developed, with the ability to generate comprehensive strategies to meet the range of challenges that Taiwan faces on these fronts.
Lee Wen-chung is a DPP legislator and Su Tzu-yun is a researcher in the DPP Policy Research and Coordinating Committee.
Translated by Perry Svensson
Congratulations to China’s working class — they have officially entered the “Livestock Feed 2.0” era. While others are still researching how to achieve healthy and balanced diets, China has already evolved to the point where it does not matter whether you are actually eating food, as long as you can swallow it. There is no need for cooking, chewing or making decisions — just tear open a package, add some hot water and in a short three minutes you have something that can keep you alive for at least another six hours. This is not science fiction — it is reality.
In a world increasingly defined by unpredictability, two actors stand out as islands of stability: Europe and Taiwan. One, a sprawling union of democracies, but under immense pressure, grappling with a geopolitical reality it was not originally designed for. The other, a vibrant, resilient democracy thriving as a technological global leader, but living under a growing existential threat. In response to rising uncertainties, they are both seeking resilience and learning to better position themselves. It is now time they recognize each other not just as partners of convenience, but as strategic and indispensable lifelines. The US, long seen as the anchor
Kinmen County’s political geography is provocative in and of itself. A pair of islets running up abreast the Chinese mainland, just 20 minutes by ferry from the Chinese city of Xiamen, Kinmen remains under the Taiwanese government’s control, after China’s failed invasion attempt in 1949. The provocative nature of Kinmen’s existence, along with the Matsu Islands off the coast of China’s Fuzhou City, has led to no shortage of outrageous takes and analyses in foreign media either fearmongering of a Chinese invasion or using these accidents of history to somehow understand Taiwan. Every few months a foreign reporter goes to
The war between Israel and Iran offers far-reaching strategic lessons, not only for the Middle East, but also for East Asia, particularly Taiwan. As tensions rise across both regions, the behavior of global powers, especially the US under the US President Donald Trump, signals how alliances, deterrence and rapid military mobilization could shape the outcomes of future conflicts. For Taiwan, facing increasing pressure and aggression from China, these lessons are both urgent and actionable. One of the most notable features of the Israel-Iran war was the prompt and decisive intervention of the US. Although the Trump administration is often portrayed as
RSS