Although the Conference on Sustaining Taiwan's Economic Development came to a close last week, the debate on Taiwan's China-leaning economic policies continues. It remains to be seen what conclusions Taiwan's policy-makers will come to. However, the Israeli-Lebanese conflict currently in the international spotlight may give Taiwan food for thought.
Since heavy clashes broke out between Israel and Hezbollah last month, Hezbollah has fired more than 1,500 short-range missiles into Israel and blasted an Israeli warship with a cruise missile, killing four sailors.
How did Hezbollah acquire such a massive amount of short-range ballistic and cruise missiles? Daniel Henninger, a dep-uty editor at the Wall Street Journal, recently wrote that Israel has realized that these arms are coming from China. Beijing exported missile technology to Iran, who then provided Hezbollah with the missiles. Even more painful for Israel, many of these missile technologies were provided by Israel when it was developing the Sino-Israeli relationship. It seems that Israel has shot itself in the foot.
Besides the US, Israel has over the past few years been actively strengthening relations with China and India in the pursuit of three objectives: raising its foreign exchange earnings through arms sales, breaking through the diplomatic and military pressure of the Arab world, and dealing with Islamic extremism.
Richard Fisher, a US defense expert and vice president of the International Assessment and Strategy Center, a Washington-based think tank, recently wrote that Israel's assessment is incorrect, for it has failed to understand the fundamental differences between India and China.
India is a democracy restricted by regular elections and the freedom of speech and the press, which forces it to operate within international norms. China, on the other hand, is a dictatorship whose diplomatic strategy is to challenge the US and the existing world order. Beijing's arms sales to North Korea, Pakistan and Iran follow clear strategic objectives. It wants to create a military balance to restrict the US-Japan military alliance, thus decreasing the strategic pressure on Beijing by leaving the US and Japan no time to deal with other issues.
It wants to export nuclear technology to Pakistan to balance India's military power thus pre-empting the strategic possibility of a two-pronged attack from India and Japan; and it wants to transfer missile technologies to Iran to arm Hezbollah, Hamas and other such organizations to create disturbances in the Middle East, thereby containing US forces and reducing the capacity to defend Taiwan.
In the past, Tel Aviv proposed selling Beijing an Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) aircraft but had to cancel the sale due to US opposition. Today, Israel is suffering from its efforts to assist China with its military development.
Many concerned countries have adopted measures to deal with China's rapid military rise and arms exports: India's military expenditure has grown at double digit rates in recent years; Henninger said in his article that Japan could assemble several nuclear devices within 30 days; and earlier this year, French President Jacques Chirac threatened a nuclear strike to deter terrorist attacks on France.
While nations all over the globe stop at nothing to protect their national security, Taiwan is still unable to pass the arms procurement budget in the legislature. Instead, it is pouring money into China, which is tantamount to helping Beijing develop more missiles to aim at Taiwan. I wonder if Taiwan is going to follow in the footsteps of Israel and shoot itself in the foot.
Cao Changqing is a freelance journalist based in the US.
Translated by Daniel Cheng
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers