American Institute in Taiwan Director Stephen Young's comments last week urging the legislature to pass the arms procurement bill this fall sent many politicians into an uproar. The ensuing slew of wild criticism has included accusations that he interfered with Taiwan's domestic affairs and demands that he be deported, as well as personal attacks that he is only concerned with US interests and was acting as its "arms dealer."
It's easy to draw parallels between these politicians and China's intensely nationalistic online community of "angry youths." But of course it isn't Taiwanese nationalism that drives them, but Chinese nationalism.
Do Young's comments really constitute interference in Taiwan's domestic affairs? The US' proposed arms sale is permitted under its Taiwan Relations Act. Taiwan has never objected to this, and in fact has strongly welcomed it. During its time in power, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) bought much of the nation's weaponry from the US.
If one looks at the current arms deal as a simple business transaction, how is it unreasonable for a seller to offer the buyer a last chance to make the purchase after he or she has gone back on promises and dragged out the negotiations?
How could this be construed as "political interference?" Opposition politicians could always come out and say clearly that they don't want to buy the US' weapons and be done with it. But do they dare? In refusing to buy US arms, are they preparing to buy Chinese weapons instead, or perhaps getting ready to surrender to China?
As for the claims that Young is just a US arms dealer, China claimed in the 1950s and 1960s that that was the US' motivation for starting wars. In digging up this excuse, Taiwanese politicians opposed to the arms budget have only hurt themselves by revealing the true weakness of their position. Isn't the Lafayette frigate scandal a classic example of collusion between the KMT and China to purchase arms? This is just an attempt to distract attention from the pan-blue camp's own crimes.
Is there a case of a truly foolish arms purchase for Taiwan to study? Certainly. In August last year, China held joint military exercises with Russia in an apparent attempt to intimidate Taiwan, Japan and the US. It was also a business opportunity for Russia to display its "advanced weaponry" for potential Chinese buyers. After the Chinese military saw Russia's Ilyushin-76MD transport aircraft and Ilyushin-78 mid-air refuelers, it immediately signed a US$1.5 billion order and made a down payment without even going to inspect the production facilities.
The contract clearly stipulated that the aircraft should be delivered by the summer of this year, but as yet there is still no sign of them. Russian newspapers have reported that the manufacturing plant in Uzbekistan has lost many of its skilled workers and now doesn't have the human resources to produce large batches of the aircraft.
Does China have the guts to turn on Russia? Of course not. Russia is its old pal. Is there any doubt that People's Liberation Army generals have lined their own pockets during the deal? Now Chinese President Hu Jintao (
People First Party Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜) has repeatedly called the current arms package "stupid," questioning why the US won't sell Taiwan the AEGIS-class warships he claims it needs.
But if the US were to give Soong his AEGIS fleet, the US would be the one making the foolish sale.
First of all, US policy has always been to sell Taiwan the arms it needs to defend itself, not to make it more powerful than the Chinese army.
If that had happened, Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) would long ago have tried to take back China with Soong's father, former lieutenant-general Soong Ta (宋達).
Second, arms-producing countries do not normally give their advanced weapons to others, in order to safeguard their own security. This is common sense.
With certain Taiwanese politicians joining forces with their Chinese supporters to force Taiwan into eventual unification, it would not only be stupid, but crazy as well, for the US to sell Taiwan its best weapons, since certain people would give them to Beijing as "tribute." Could the US be so crazy? Certainly not.
Paul Lin is a political commentator based in Taipei.
Translated by Marc Langer
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS