The bickering over the purchase of weapons from the US has been going on for over two years. Last week, the bill allowing for that purchase was struck down yet again. This is nothing less than frustrating, and one wonders if it might not turn into and endless, inextricable mess. It is perhaps time we started thinking about what the impact of this quagmire will be.
Some people already say that the remarks made by American Institute in Taiwan Director Stephen Young last week are part of those consequences. Some construe Young's statement as an attempt to humiliate the nation or perhaps even apply overt pressure.
For my part, I do appreciate the director's stern warning and take it very seriously. One can easily imagine the US' patience running short on the issue. Like an untrustworthy customer, Taiwan placed an order early on but then bargained with the salesman, the US, for five years.
Why couldn't the US' impatience make sense to us? We cannot deceive ourselves into thinking that the US will wait indefinitely for us to make up our mind. In fact, it is not altogether infeasible that all of a sudden the US will pack its things up, withdraw its promise to protect us, and thenceforth refuse to deal with us, period.
Young's comments provided a timely reminder of that.
Let's look at the arms procurement bill -- and the failure to pass it -- from another angle: that of all-out defense. In light of the threat that Taiwan faces from across the Strait, it is crucial that we focus our minds on ensuring the defense of the nation, not only in terms of military capacity but -- and perhaps more importantly -- in the spiritual will to do so. This concept requires a strong belief that we possess a potent national defense apparatus.
However, at present, an appeal to all-out defense would awaken shame and embarrassment at the poor state of our weaponry. In fact, if this were to continue, it is possible that the national defense mechanism would lose people's support.
The decision to purchase weaponry needs to be made with a calm and rational mind. It certainly shouldn't be put aside -- or expedited -- out of political considerations.
Let's all hope that the arms procurement bill will be passed soon so that we can transform the nation's overall defense capabilities into something we can rely on and be proud of.
During the US-India Strategic Partnership Forum’s third leadership summit on Aug. 31, US Deputy Secretary of State Stephen Biegun said that the US wants to partner with the other members of the Quadrilaterial Security Dialogue — Australia, India and Japan — to establish an organization similar to NATO, to “respond to ... any potential challenge from China.” He said that the US’ purpose is to work with these nations and other countries in the Indo-Pacific region to “create a critical mass around the shared values and interest of those parties,” and possibly attract more countries to establish an alliance comparable to
On August 24, 2020, the US Secretary of Defense, Mark Esper, made an important statement: “The Pentagon is Prepared for China.” Going forward, how might the Department of Defense team up with Taiwan to make itself even more prepared? No American wants to deter the next war by a paper-thin margin, and no one appreciates the value of strategic overmatch more than the war planners at the Pentagon. When the stakes are this high, you can bet they want to be super ready. In recent months, we have witnessed a veritable flood of high-level statements from US government leaders on
China has long sought shortcuts to developing semiconductor technologies and local supply chains by poaching engineers and experts from Taiwan and other nations. It is also suspected of stealing trade secrets from Taiwanese and US firms to fulfill its ambition of becoming a major player in the global semiconductor industry in the next decade. However, it takes more than just money and talent to build a semiconductor supply chain like the one which Taiwan and the US started to cultivate more than 30 years ago. Amid rising trade and technology tensions between the world’s two biggest economies, Beijing has become
With a new White House document in May — the “Strategic Approach to the People’s Republic of China” — the administration of US President Donald Trump has firmly set its hyper-competitive line to tackle geoeconomic and geostrategic rivalry, followed by several reinforcing speeches by Trump and other Cabinet-level officials. By identifying China as a near-equal rival, the strategy resonates well with the bipartisan consensus on China in today’s severely divided US. In the face of China’s rapidly growing aggression, the move is long overdue, yet relevant for the maintenance of the international “status quo.” The strategy seems to herald a new