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.
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US