Missiles the threat, not US
Did Tony Weir (Letter, Aug. 22, page 8) intend to trace Ameri-can involvement in Asia or just excoriate the Taiwanese for their infatuation with the US? At one point, he claims Taiwan has "no defense against China except dialogue and negotiation." Yet, near the end of his screed, he finds "Taiwan is free to develop along her own path, with her own ideas, values and sense of pride." Which is it?
Is Taiwan hors d'oeuvre able only to negotiate a place on the dragon's menu or is Taiwan a free, feisty and self-reliant democracy capable of managing its own affairs? If, in fact, Taiwan has no defense, how could it be "free to develop along her own path?" In this universe, freedom is and always has been predicated on a credible defense.
Adding to the credibility of Taiwan's defense is the US support for the Republic of China began with the Franklin Roose-velt administration, and has been fairly consistent ever since. However, you can bet your life no one in the Pentagon wants to fight a land war with the PRC and they have made great efforts to avoid that scenario.
Weir claims that Taiwan faces a "massive ground attack" and that "missiles, aircraft and ships simply prolong the inevitable." Nothing could be further from the truth.
He overlooks or discounts the simple fact that the PRC lacks a navy capable of moving the People's Liberation Army (PLA) across the Taiwan Strait. Were the strait undefended, it could be a vast highway for the PRC's fishing and merchant fleets. In fact, the Strait was and is stoutly defended; once by the US Seventh Fleet and nowa-days by Taiwan's US-sourced fighters, attack helicopters, frigates and tanks.
No, the real threat is not a massive ground attack but missile bombardment by the PLA's M-9s and M-11s.
Does anyone remember the Iran-Iraq war? Former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein got the Iranians to sue for peace because he was able to hit Tehran with poison-gas-tipped Scud missiles and the Iranians had no defense and no response. On the scale of atrocities, the poison gas didn't kill that many people, but the Iranians lost the will to resist. At that point, neither their society nor their government nor their industrial base nor their armed forces had been destroyed.
This could happen to Taiwan. The Taiwanese are already trading with the enemy to the tune of billions of dollars annually. How long would it take for the Taiwanese to fold once the whiff of mustard gas is in the air?
Hence, the purchase of Patriot missiles. They seemed fairly effective in recent Gulf war. Despite the questions about them, they are the only anti-missile system available to Taiwan. As most readers know, the PRC has already deployed 450 IRBMs targeted at Taiwan and is now augmenting that force at the rate of 75 per year. Absent the Patriots, Taiwan is defenseless. With enough of them, the chance of a PRC missile attack producing capitulation before the US can act is reduced.
Are they worth the cost? Only the Taiwanese can decide and they have no sense of urgency.
Bruce Franklin
Taipei
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.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing