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
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
In the 2022 book Danger Zone: The Coming Conflict with China, academics Hal Brands and Michael Beckley warned, against conventional wisdom, that it was not a rising China that the US and its allies had to fear, but a declining China. This is because “peaking powers” — nations at the peak of their relative power and staring over the precipice of decline — are particularly dangerous, as they might believe they only have a narrow window of opportunity to grab what they can before decline sets in, they said. The tailwinds that propelled China’s spectacular economic rise over the past