The government-controlled Chinese media recently claimed that the People's Liberation Army (PLA) has begun to study the possibility of withdrawing its missiles targeting Taiwan. Those reports were immediately exaggerated by pro-unification media here, which are making it seem as if China has already decided to withdraw the missiles, and depict the supposed move as yet another goodwill gesture from Beijing.
Actually, this is not the first time there have been rumors about China withdrawing missiles. The only difference now is that China has gotten better at seizing the right time to float such rumors, so as to maximize the effect of its propaganda. With respect to Beijing's supposed deliberations on the missile issue, we should observe and listen carefully.
Even more important, we must study the intentions underlying such media reports. We should not take them at face value and thereby become an unwitting part of China's propaganda machine.
Reportedly, former Chinese president Jiang Zemin (
If Taiwan cannot purchase such equipment from the US, there is no other way for it to strengthen its defense capabilities. So obviously China has nothing to lose from this supposed deal.
The context in which China released the rumors about withdrawing missiles is worth pondering for several reasons.
First, it took place after the meetings between Chinese President Hu Jintao (
With these meetings as the starting point, Hu can keep the initiative on the cross-strait issue through the release of reports on the missile withdrawal. This is nothing but bait to lure the Taiwanese people into swallowing the poison of "one China."
Moreover, in recent days Chinese survey ships have repeatedly entered Taiwan's waters to gather information on water currents and ocean geography, in the clear pursuit of a military agenda. China has also released the rumors about withdrawing missiles to conceal its aggressive ambitions.
China also recently enacted the "Anti-Secession" Law, which includes explicit provisions on dealing with Taiwan through "non-peaceful" means. It continues to face severe international criticism over the law. The release of the rumors should help take some of the heat off China for its bellicose legislation.
China is endeavoring to persuade the EU to lift the arms embargo against it. Therefore, Beijing may be seeking to create an illusion that the threat facing Taiwan is lowering, to help persuade the EU to remove the ban.
Keeping this context in mind, it's clear that if China is truly planning to remove its missiles, it is doing so out of its own calculated self-interest, rather than as a genuine goodwill gesture toward Taiwan.
China's buildup of 700 missiles pointed at Taiwan constitutes an act of aggression and a crime under public international law. It is China's duty to completely remove these missiles and destroy them. It therefore makes no sense for China to use the withdrawal of missiles as a bargaining chip in dealing with Taiwan.
Furthermore, China's threat against Taiwan is not limited to those 700 missiles. China's defense budget has seen double digit growth in recent years. Its purchase of technologically-advanced fighter jets and submarines from Russia constitutes a major threat to Taiwan.
Of course, we must also realize that while Taiwan does face a serious military threat from China, Beijing's military expansion involves much more than just Taiwan. In fact, China is using Taiwan as a justification for its military buildup.
With the growth of the Chinese economy, Beijing's ability to expand militarily also grows. Behind the illusion of China's "peaceful rise" is the country's steady march toward the status of a military superpower. China is already a major economic power of Asia, and therefore it thinks it should rightfully become the next Asian hegemon.
The enormous military strength of the US is the biggest roadblock to China's ambitions to engulf Taiwan, reign over Asia and project power into the Pacific. Therefore, China is actively trying to squeeze the US's scope of control in the western Pacific.
China's ambition is obvious. Countries such as the US and Japan do not dare to take that ambition lightly. The scope of the joint US-Japan security strategy and the new alignment of US forces in Asia clearly targets an ambitious China. Although China has not yet reached the status of a regional power, after years of expansion its military strength should not be underestimated.
If a crisis in the Taiwan Strait similar to the 1995 and 1996 missile crises happens again, it will become even more difficult to maintain peace and security in the Taiwan Strait. For this reason, as the US spreads democratic values, it is also adopting a preventive strategy with respect to Chinese ambition, hoping to usher China down the path toward becoming a responsible power.
Taiwan is a peace-loving country. Sadly, it neighbors an aggressive bully, and so must endure constant military threats and verbal assaults. As a small country, Taiwan's best strategy is to follow democratic countries such as the US and Japan.
In particular, when directly and immediately confronted by China's military expansion, Taiwan must have sufficient self-defense capabilities -- at least enough to withstand a first strike by China -- and perhaps even some level of offensive capability in order to avoid defeat and buy time until international help arrives.
When the pan blue camp was in power, it called loudly for "retaking" China, treating Taiwan as the base for such a campaign. So it ought to know better than anyone else about the logic underlying Taiwan's need for a robust defense.
It's truly worrisome that after the pan-blue camp lost power, it had a complete change of heart. It now says that Chinese military threats are the result of Taiwan's "provocation." But what could be more "provocative" than the pan-blue camp's past talk about "retaking" China and "saving" Chinese compatriots?
Despite the mounting threat posed by China, the pan-blue camp has insisted on boycotting Taiwan's US arms purchase. Instead, its leaders crawl to Beijing to dance with the enemy and talk about cross-strait peace under the "one China" principle. How is this different from surrender?
Even as the pan-blue camp claims to pave the way for cross-strait dialogue, the special budget for the US arms procurement can't even make it out of the Legislative Yuan's procedure committee.
In all of this, there's nothing but good news for Beijing: if Taiwan's opposition parties continue to undermine national security and China's propaganda machine keeps humming along, it should be able to seize Taiwan peacefully -- without any need for those missiles.
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS