At a symposium held on Saturday, the Ministry of National Defense revealed that China will have its first aircraft carrier battle group by 2020.
When that occurs, the Chinese navy will be able to surround Taiwan from the east and will have greatly bolstered its ability to hinder US warships coming to Taiwan's aid in the event of armed conflict.
Therefore, the eight diesel submarines which make up one part of the arms purchase package approved by US President George W. Bush in 2001 have become increasingly important to the navy and are vital to Taiwan's future defense needs, a naval spokesman added.
The ministry and the navy were obviously highlighting China's naval progress to remind the public that despite endless promises from various pan-blue bigwigs, the purchase of the submarines from the US is still being blocked from review in the legislature by their lawmakers. This situation has been allowed to prevail for two years.
During that time, the pan-blue camp has done everything in its power to hold up the bill, first by claiming that parts of it were too expensive, then by linking it to the referendum on defense held in tandem with the 2004 presidential election -- which it sabotaged. Then it was the probe into the president's "state affairs fund" and, finally, cross-strait flights and comments by the US representative in Taiwan, Stephen Young.
The continued delay is the fault of the People First Party (PFP), which has been holding its pan-blue ally, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), to ransom over the bill, threatening to side with the pan-green camp on a bill that would divest the KMT of its stolen assets if it agrees to pass the arms purchase.
Some credit must be given, however, because the submarine portion of the bill was originally overpriced. But now that the budget has been revised downward in line with its demands, the PFP has no reason to further delay proceedings.
But still the PFP holds it up. And by now it has become quite clear to everyone that as long as the PFP has any political power left it will never allow the bill to pass.
So, the question people should be asking is: Who exactly is the PFP representing?
Not the majority of Taiwanese, who time and again have shown they value a strong relationship with the US and have indicated their desire to maintain the cross-strait "status quo."
Whether one is pro-unification or pro-independence, maintaining the "status quo" means investing in defensive weapons so that Taiwan has the military muscle to negotiate with Beijing on equal terms -- which relies on keeping Taiwan's armories stocked and up to date.
Taiwan cannot afford to delay giving the project the go-ahead for much longer, because even if the purchase of the vessels were approved tomorrow, the first submarines would not be ready for another 10 years or so.
China's view, on the other hand, is that no one should be allowed to sell arms to Taiwan, as this would only impede annexation.
If China continues to expand its military capability unchecked while that of Taiwan remains blocked, checked and delayed at every juncture, then only one party will benefit and China will eventually be able to enforce its will.
Since the price reduction, the PFP has presented no rational explanation for the continued delay of the arms bill, thereby leaving people to conclude that PFP legislators only have one country's best interests at heart. Sadly, that country is not Taiwan.
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