US President George W. Bush’s administration formally notified Congress about an arms sales deal to Taiwan last Friday. Despite the proposed deal being a lot less than what Taiwan asked for, President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration is extremely grateful and has started to boast that the deal represents an end to the last eight years of arms deal bickering and a new era of confidence between Taiwan and Washington.
This is typical of the Ma government’s knack for twisting the truth and taking credit for things it shouldn’t. Really, all the new and “streamlined” proposal proves is that the Bush administration is worried about Ma’s pro-China policies.
The US had a reason for waiting until just before the recess of Congress — it wanted Minister of National Defense Chen Chao-min (陳肇敏) to publicly express the Ma administration’s determination to defend Taiwan while he was still on US soil.
Many of the government’s recent actions have made the US doubt the Ma administration’s commitment to protecting Taiwan. These actions have included placing cross-strait relations above other diplomatic relations, proposing eventual unification and even requesting that the US temporarily stop selling arms to Taiwan. These actions were outgrowths of the pan-blue camp’s efforts to block arms spending when the Democratic Progressive Party was in power.
If Taiwan is not determined to defend itself, why should the US play the bad guy and offend China by selling weapons to Taipei? Chen’s participation in the annual US-Taiwan Defense Industry Conference in Florida was not openly reported, but the speech he gave guaranteeing Taiwan’s determination to protect itself has been quoted at great lengths by the Central News Agency, thus making it part of the public record. This was the public commitment the US wanted to hear.
The arms deal does not include submarines, Black Hawk helicopters and the highly advanced F-16C/D that the US has repeatedly refused to offer. This shows that the US is now only willing to provide the most basic weapon systems to Taiwan for defensive purposes. The chance is probably all but gone that Taiwan will be allowed to buy the submarines that Bush in an unprecedented decision approved for sale and that former minister of national defense Lee Jye (李傑) made a top priority.
The Ma administration’s pro-China policies also make it even less likely that the F-16C/Ds will be sold to Taiwan.
The items included in this arms deal are items that the US has in inventory or that they can deliver within a relatively short time.
This allows the US to avoid making long-term commitments to Taiwan.
In addition to the Taiwan Relations Act, the US is bound by the commitments it made in the third of the three communiques it signed with China.
The Ma administration’s betrayal of sovereignty in the name of better cross-strait relations can be exploited by Beijing to demand that the US stop selling arms to Taiwan. China has voice repeated objections to arms sales. It argues that cross-strait relations are at a high point and says the US should not “interfere in China’s internal affairs.”
The dispute over arms sales within Taiwan and the mistrust between Taiwan and the US were created by KMT members. The US has now turned around with a much smaller arms package for Taiwan than hoped for and the Ma government is singing its own praises and taking credit for this “breakthrough.”
This is a prime example of the shameless and unscrupulous nature of the KMT.
Shen Chieh is a freelance writer.
TRANSLATED BY DREW CAMERON
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
RSS