The director of the US Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Edward Ross, on Monday issued a blunt warning on Taiwan's blocked arms-procurement bill, saying that in terms of its Taiwan Relations Act (TRA), the US is under no obligation to help Taiwan deter a military threat in the Strait if it believes that Taiwan has not fulfilled its unwritten obligation to ensure its own viable self-defense.
The US' comments to Taiwan have evolved from statements of support and appreciation into complaints, and now into clear words of warning.
The latest rhetoric from senior Pentagon officials shows that the US has changed its policy of communicating with the Democratic Progressive Party administration to making appeals to the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and People First Party, and now to directly addressing the people of Taiwan, urging them to have the determination to defend themselves and hold their lawmakers accountable for their actions.
Without doubt, the Bush administration seems to have grown rather disappointed, frustrated and discontented with politicians in Taiwan on the self-defense issue. As Ross forthrightly put it: The special budget for the arms-procurement plan has become a "political football" in the field of Taiwan's domestic politics, and that "this battered ball has been kept in play more to entertain the players -- the politicians -- than to serve the real needs of Taiwan."
Can you blame the US? Even Taiwan's friends in the US Congress are asking why the US should risk the lives of its young men and women to defend Taiwan, which seems to be reluctant to invest in its own defense.
Despite China's substantial military build-up in recent years, Taiwan's defense budget has been declining for the past 10 years. And then the legislature's pan-blue dominated Procedure Committee on Tuesday yet again rejected the arms-procurement bill, marking the 29th time Taiwan has said "No" to the package of eight diesel-electric submarines, 12 P3 surveillance planes and advanced Patriot missile defense systems which the US had approved in 2001.
What impression is Taiwan creating with these 29 rejections? That it is unwilling to invest in its own defense, but regards the TRA as a blank check issued by the US to defend it? Or that it is simply so stupid as to be oblivious to the military threat posed by its vicious, giant neighbor? The latest rejection of the arms-procurement plan must seem like encouragement to China in its aggression toward Taiwan.
Some in Taiwan argue that Taiwan can never match the spending of China, the emerging military giant -- so why try? Such a mindset demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of the military. The military exists to deter attacks. It deters attacks by providing a credible defense capability.
It is frustrating enough to see Taiwan being locked in a diplomatically disadvantageous position on the international stage, but it is even more terrifying to see senseless domestic politics making Taiwan's national defense one of the nation's weaknesses.
All politicians, regardless of party affiliations, ought to ask themselves and examine their hearts about what they have done to substantively promote Taiwan's national defense. Taiwan possesses no offensive capability against China. Are they going to let the nation lose even the most basic minimum requirement -- a capacity to at least deter threats?
It is time for all the people of Taiwan to reach a consensus on national security and show the US that Taiwan is no coward, nor a baby that knows only how to cry for help but refuses to help itself.
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
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
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath