When Minister of National Defense Lee Jye (
Why? There are serious technological hurdles involved in designing and building (much less fielding) an accurate cruise or ballistic missile with a range that would be effective in striking targets in China.
Second, Bush administration officials have long publicly opposed efforts by Taiwan to develop what are often described as "offensive" capabilities, such as a land-attack cruise missile (LACM) or ballistic missile system.
Despite the skepticism, only last week -- while calling on Taiwan to take its defense "seriously" -- the US de facto ambassador to Taiwan made pointed comments in response to Lee's public announcement about the cruise missiles.
"We think that offensive capabilities on either side of the Strait are destabilizing and therefore not in the interest of peace and security," American Institute in Taiwan Director Stephen Young quoted Dennis Wilder, the senior director for East Asian affairs at the US National Security Council, as saying.
All of this back-and-forth centers on a program about which very few verifiable details are available.
Reports detailing the development of the Hsiung Feng-2E LACM have been surfacing since 2001. The HF-2E is supposedly an LACM with a 1,000km range based on the successful Hsiung Feng series of anti-ship missiles, a program developed by the Chung Shan Institute of Science and Technology.
As the US seeks to limit Taiwan's development of domestic weapons systems -- a practice which itself evokes US president Dwight D. Eisenhower's warnings about the unwarranted influence of the military-industrial establishment on US policymaking -- it should consider how other efforts to limit military technology have turned out.
One example is the Washington Naval Conference of 1921, when the major powers strictly limited the number of battleships that nations could build. The argument was that the battleship, as the pre-eminent weapon of mass destruction of the day, had an ability to project power and had to be strictly controlled.
The result of that conference was that Japan, among others, was told that it could build only a handful of battleships in comparison to countries such as the US and Great Britain.
Miffed at what they perceived as racism and bullying, this spurred the Japanese to focus on an alternative technology: the aircraft carrier. This technology ultimately rendered the battleship obsolete -- but only after several devastating attacks on battleships by carrier-based aircraft, the most notable being, of course, the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941.
Furthermore, one must ask exactly what the US means when it says it is worried about "offensive capabilities." How can any serious defense strategist (which one hopes a member of the US National Security Council qualifies as) argue that there is a difference between "offensive" and "defensive" capabilities in this day and age?
The problem is that the US is making no distinction between tactical offense and strategic offense. Do the "experts" back in Washington truly think that Taiwan is going to start a war with China?
This is not a realistic concern. Since the US claims the right of pre-emptive attack, why then cannot other nations do the same?
Given China's hasty buildup of ballistic missiles, advanced fighter aircraft and attempts to create a "blue water" navy, isn't it prudent for Taiwan to field weapons that can destroy Beijing's warmaking capability before it is too late? Or does Washington believe the only nations that may defend themselves are those armed with costly, US-made weapons?
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry