The special arms procurement bill designed to purchase three Patriot missile batteries, eight diesel-electrical submarines and 12 P-3C Orion aircraft has been blocked again -- the 37th time -- by the pan-blue-controlled procedure committee last week. Taiwan's fractious politicians playing games with national security seemingly cannot reach any consensus on passing the arms bill in the foreseeable future. This reveals that Taiwan is facing a strategic crossroads regarding how to ensure its national security: by depending either on enemies' mercy and allies' kindness, or on our own military buildup to achieve cross-strait peace.
Taiwan can choose a path of peaceful unification with China by disarming itself and giving up its trump card. That is, by continuing to block the special arms budget bill and denying equipping itself with the state-of-art weapons. If this is possible, we have to do what China has required of us -- surrender our sovereignty, recognize the "one-China" policy, retain the status quo and enjoy our own freedom in a bird cage. Consequently, we can only accept unification on China's terms and without any wherewithal to say "no."
Taiwan can also choose, or find itself upon, a path along which the strong do as they please and the weak do as they must. In this vein, Taiwan cannot but equip itself with the advanced weaponry, allowing it not only to consolidate its bilateral relationship with the US, a vigorous ally at our side, but also to engage with China more peacefully as well as confidently in pursuit of perpetual peace across the Strait. After all, China has the final say on whether it will renounce use of force against Taiwan.
If we hope to have any say whatsoever in the destiny of our country, it is imperative that Taiwan buy these weapons to deter aggression by our enemy.
In other words, the liberty of offence will always be theirs and that of defense clearly ought to be ours; particularly as China by the day grows more powerful economically as well as militarily and we more destitute in terms of our military budget. The gap in military budgets and supremacy across the Strait is widening and tilting in China's favor.
We must build up our own self-defense muscle because the only sure basis of peace or status-quo maintenance between two rivals is for each party to be equally afraid of the other. Any rival who would like to encroach on the other is then deterred by the fact that he will not have the odds in his favor.
Of course, the future of Taiwan's national destiny is not yet set immutably on one course or another at this stage. For those who have a free choice in the matter and whose fortunes are not at stake, preparing for war by means of purchasing the arms promised by the Bush administration to secure peace in the Strait may be the greatest of follies.
But if it comes down to the core issue behind the choice between submission with loss of independence, and danger with the hope of preserving that independence, in my view, it is he who will not accept the cost and risk of war that deserves blame, not he who will.
The recent Japanese and US worries over the threat posed by China should be sufficient to make us turn to some means of safety, including seeking external alliances and investing more in military buildup. It must be thoroughly understood that the procurement of the arms for self-protection is a necessity, and the more readily we accept it, the less willing our enemies will be to launch military adventures against us. The most we should be afraid of is not our enemies' devices but our blunders in not passing the arms bill now.
Yu Tsung-chi, director of the political warfare office of the Chiayi Reserve Control Command, is also an adjunct professor at Fu Hsing Kang College.
Having lived through former British prime minister Boris Johnson’s tumultuous and scandal-ridden administration, the last place I had expected to come face-to-face with “Mr Brexit” was in a hotel ballroom in Taipei. Should I have been so surprised? Over the past few years, Taiwan has unfortunately become the destination of choice for washed-up Western politicians to turn up long after their political careers have ended, making grandiose speeches in exchange for extraordinarily large paychecks far exceeding the annual salary of all but the wealthiest of Taiwan’s business tycoons. Taiwan’s pursuit of bygone politicians with little to no influence in their home
In 2025, it is easy to believe that Taiwan has always played a central role in various assessments of global national interests. But that is a mistaken belief. Taiwan’s position in the world and the international support it presently enjoys are relatively new and remain highly vulnerable to challenges from China. In the early 2000s, the George W. Bush Administration had plans to elevate bilateral relations and to boost Taiwan’s defense. It designated Taiwan as a non-NATO ally, and in 2001 made available to Taiwan a significant package of arms to enhance the island’s defenses including the submarines it long sought.
US lobbyist Christian Whiton has published an update to his article, “How Taiwan Lost Trump,” discussed on the editorial page on Sunday. His new article, titled “What Taiwan Should Do” refers to the three articles published in the Taipei Times, saying that none had offered a solution to the problems he identified. That is fair. The articles pushed back on points Whiton made that were felt partisan, misdirected or uninformed; in this response, he offers solutions of his own. While many are on point and he would find no disagreement here, the nuances of the political and historical complexities in
Taiwan faces an image challenge even among its allies, as it must constantly counter falsehoods and misrepresentations spread by its more powerful neighbor, the People’s Republic of China (PRC). While Taiwan refrains from disparaging its troublesome neighbor to other countries, the PRC is working not only to forge a narrative about itself, its intentions and value to the international community, but is also spreading lies about Taiwan. Governments, parliamentary groups and civil societies worldwide are caught in this narrative tug-of-war, each responding in their own way. National governments have the power to push back against what they know to be
RSS