The controversy over the special budget plan for arms purchases continues to grow. Unfortunately, the arguments are mostly emotional, rather than rational, and some people have even accused the government of "buying garbage with big money."
Meanwhile, a legislative delegation composed of 13 legislators from across the political spectrum is visiting the US, hoping to gain a better understanding of the arms deal and to directly communicate with the US to ensure Taiwan's national interests are being protected.
Although the proposed NT$610.8 billion budget is a huge amount of money, this investment is a must for Taiwan in the light of the fact that China has been the world's largest weapons importer for the last four consecutive years. Also, Japan and South Korea have also greatly increased their military budgets. Therefore, I disagree with the criticism that Taiwan is exhausting all of its resources to build up its military power, but I do think that certain points need to be clarified first.
First, obviously, the proposed weapons will enter service in 15 years' time -- in the year 2019 -- which will leave a serious gap in military capabilities in light of this long period and rapid changes in modern warfare. The government should take future threats into account when rebuilding Taiwan's military, and should not fall into the trap of buying tomorrow's troops equipment to meet today's combat needs.
China's economic capacity, technological development, strategic shifts and defense investment can all be taken as key criteria when evaluating future threats to Taiwan. For example, the proposed anti-missile system serves as a good example. China is currently increasing the amount of missiles targeting Taiwan by 75 a year, and the total number will reach 1,250 when Taiwan's deployment of the US-made Patriot PAC-III missiles is completed in the year 2012.
The defense capacity of Taiwan's missiles will be counterbalanced by China's numerical advantage in terms of missiles. In response to this doubt, the Ministry of National Defense should come up with an explanation and take responsibility for its policy.
Next, in a modern warfare environment, military rebuilding should be complementary and should not rely on individual weapons systems. For example, Patriot missiles are just part of an anti-missile system, and are only effective with the help of an early-warning radar system and an advanced command and control system. But for Taiwan, an early-warning radar system can only detect flying objects, and US predictions on points of impact are still needed. The degree to which the anti-missile system will be able to be autonomous from US support should also be a concern.
Similarly, P-3C maritime patrol aircraft also rely heavily on complementary systems. Of course, due to limited resources, the necessary complementary systems cannot all be considered. But to make it simple, we must break the compartmented logic that Patriot missiles equal anti-missile, P-3Cs equal anti-submarine, or submarines equal deterrence. We must also employ integrated systems measures, so expensive weapons can give full play to their functions.
Finally, there is the price problem.
In fact, I believe that this should be a matter of value, as price is not the key issue. I will not jump to the conclusion of whether these weapons are worth the money, but would like to remind the ministry to at least further explain what they mean by "purchase value," "reasonable cost," and "possible upgrade" of these weapons systems to win public support.
More importantly, the time pressure on Taiwan has increased in the face of the rapidly changing security situation in East Asia and rapid Chinese military development. Taiwan doesn't have much time and should not solely rely on weapons replacements when strengthening its defense capacity.
Only by carrying out military reform can it upgrade its troops in a short time, and make the most of the nation's limited defense resources to ensure its national interests.
Lee Wen-chung is a DPP legislator.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers