As the special arms-procurement bill continues to be kept off the legislative agenda, some of Taiwan's US friends, who have shown concern for the nation in the past, are becoming disillusioned, and have begun to question whether Taiwan truly has the determination to defend itself. Statements by a US defense official indicate that there is a shift in attitude and policy on the defense of Taiwan.
On Sept. 19, Edward Ross, director of the US Defense Department's Defense Security Cooperation Agency, said at a defense industry conference sponsored by the US-Taiwan Business Council in San Diego, California, that by virtue of the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act (TRA), the US is not obliged to defend Taiwan. He said that the terms of the agreement were that the US come to the aid of Taiwan for the purpose of Taiwan's "self defense" if and when Taiwan came under attack.
Ross went on to say that the responsibility for Taiwan's self defense should lie with Taiwan itself rather than with the US, and that if Taiwan does not have the ability to defend itself, then the US was not obliged to defend it.
Ross said that over the past decade, Taiwanese political leaders have been overly dependent on Washington, which has resulted in a decrease in Taiwan's defense budget.
He then fiercely criticized the special arms budget, which has become a political football and remains stalled in the legislature. The American public is beginning to ask, "If Taiwan is not willing to invest in its national defense, why should the US defend Taiwan?"
It was ironic that at around the time Ross made these comments, the arms budget was once again rejected by the legislature's Procedure Committee for the 29th time.
Taiwan is a sovereign nation. Therefore, it should have the ability and determination to defend itself since this is the way to safeguard the security of its people's lives and property.
If Taiwan continues to depend on foreign military protection and does nothing to defend itself, it will be despised by the international community and be a disappointment to its allies. It would be undermining its own status as a sovereign nation.
Can a nation that cannot develop or manufacture advanced military weapons, that refuses to spend any money on such arms offered by its allies, but instead believes that its allies have a duty to defend it, be considered an independent nation?
Ross's scathing comments unquestionably embarrassed pan-blue politicians, who do not fear China only because they believe the US has a moral responsibility to defend Taiwan. Some lean toward Beijing, and look forward to entering the embrace of the "motherland." As they expect Taiwan to revert to China one day, they don't see any need for self defense.
The pan-blue camp continues to obstruct the arms bill and ignores the normal behavior of an opposition party in a democratic country by refusing even to give legislators an opportunity to debate the issue. They cite innumerable excuses for behaving in this way, the most preposterous of which is the idea that they are "caring for the public's wallets."
The true motive, however, is evil and will never be publicly admitted, because it runs counter to the interests and wishes of the Taiwanese people.
The Chinese military threat toward Taiwan is a serious one while Taiwan's military capabilities are falling further behind Beijing's. Most importantly, the arms procurement bill was planned and proposed by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government, but US President George W. Bush only approved the sale after the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) came to power.
The DPP is thus simply following through on its predecessor's policies, while the pan-blue camp is doing its utmost to block the bill. This is very difficult to understand. It really is like Ross said, the arms bill has become a political football. It is regrettable that Taiwan's security is being sacrificed for the sake of this political game.
An independent nation should have a sense of its own dignity. In addition to the special arms budget, the government should increase the annual defense budget to maintain an adequate defensive strength.
If the pan-blue camp wants to clarify the doubts among outsiders regarding Taiwan's China-friendly parties, it needs to give up its irrational obstruction of the arms bill. It has the responsibility to explain its repeated obstruction of the bill to the people.
National defense involves the lives and well-being of every Taiwanese. The people of Taiwan should therefore take a tough approach and demand that the parties opposed to the arms procurement bill deal with the issue rationally if they want to avoid the annihilation of the country.
Translated by Lin Ya-ti and Perry Svensson
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