On Aug. 23, US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld voiced his displeasure with Taiwan's delays in approving the arms procurement budget, blurting out that, "countries -- sovereign nations have to do what they decide to do. It's up to them to do it."
That remark intrigued reporters so much that on Sept. 30 the US State Department came forward to reiterate that the US view that Taiwan is self-governed was unchanged, that the US' "one China" policy also remains unchanged and that it does not support Taiwan's independence.
This incident indicates a fundamental problem with the US' Taiwan policy.
The military budget is always a large part of a national budget. The only goal of spending such staggering amounts of money on expensive military equipment is to protect national sovereignty. If we agree with this goal, then it is rather odd that the US does not want to acknowledge that Taiwan is a sovereign state, while at the same time it asks Taiwan to purchase extremely expensive weapons. In fact, the US stance on this matter has seriously jeopardized Taiwan's national security.
The logic is that it only pays to spend so much money on weapons if they can be used to protect our sovereignty. But if the nation is deprived of its sovereignty, what would be the point of spending so much? Those who firmly believe that Taiwan is a sovereign state will of course feel that Taiwan has to be well-equipped militarily. However, as the US does not acknowledge our sovereignty, it is hardly surprising to see that many are giving up on the US and are opposing the arms procurement bill.
Only those with a clear awareness of the nation's sovereignty will feel a strong need for the arms procurement. Those with a clear awareness of the nation's sovereignty are also the only ones who will put the arms purchased -- the nation's tangible military capability -- to full use. Militarily speaking, tangible and intangible military capabilities are seen as being equally important. Intangible military capabilities refer to the public's willpower, and the core of that willpower is the awareness of sovereignty.
The US offers sharp and apprehensive reviews of Taiwan's ability to resist Chinese pressure in its annual Pentagon reports on the military power of the People's Republic of China. In one report, the US repeatedly stressed that the most decisive factor determining whether or not China will invade Taiwan is Beijing's perception of Taiwan's determination to defend itself. China's confidence in its military capabilities are secondary. The report stresses that the basis for Taiwan's determination to defend itself is whether or not the Taiwanese leadership and people identify themselves with their own nation strongly enough to want to defend it against China.
The question is, if Taiwan is not a sovereign state, how can the Taiwanese identify themselves with the country?
Adopting a "one China" policy and refusing to acknowledge Taiwan as a sovereign state has been the US' policy for over three decades. Based on its military expertise, the Pentagon believes Taiwanese have a strong civic awareness, while its slowly changing political policies cause the State Department to oppose that civic awareness.
In this case, we are undoubtedly witnessing a deep contradiction in the US' Taiwan policy. Unless it is resolved, Taiwan will not be able to purchase the weapons it needs.
And not only that, warns Steve Chabot, chairman of the Congressional Taiwan Caucus, the US' unwillingness to support full sovereignty is tantamount to agreeing that China owns it. This encourages Beijing to pursue unification by force, and imperils regional security. The US should take a hard look at these contradictions and deal with them.
Lin Cho-shui is a Democratic Progressive Party legislator.
Translated by Daniel Cheng
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