Taiwan’s worst-case scenario
In 2001, Richard L. Russell of the US National Defense University published an article in Parameters, the US Army War College quarterly. He devised a scenario where China launched a “surprise attack” on Taiwan. Beginning with a bolt-from-the-blue barrage of hundreds of missiles to “decapitate” Taiwan’s command-and-control facilities and air bases, China then dispatched transport aircraft to deliver paratroopers to secure those disabled bases. By striking hard and fast, China could swiftly control Taiwan before any US force came to Taiwan’s aid.
Although it was generally believed at the time that China’s lack of sea and air transport capability and its relatively outdated weapons systems — compared to Taiwan’s — would make it very difficult for it to conquer its so-call “renegade province,” Russell noted that Pearl Harbor, Germany’s attack on the Soviet Union and North Korea’s invasion of South Korea were all successful surprise attacks. He emphasized that “improbable is not a synonym for impossible.”
In 2001, China had about 240 missiles aimed at Taiwan. Now the number has reached more than 1,400 and their accuracy has greatly improved. With more than a decade of doubt-digit military budget growth, China’s military capability is completely different than in 2001. In October, Taiwan’s defense ministry for the first time publicly admitted that if the two sides were to go to war, China was capable of deterring foreign militaries from assisting Taiwan, meaning that the cross-strait military balance has irreversibly shifted in China’s favor.
A report issued last year by the RAND Corporation, the most famous US military think tank, also held the same daunting view, warning that “the growing size and quality of China’s missile arsenal, along with other advances in Chinese military capabilities, call into question the US’ and Taiwan’s ability to defend the island against a large-scale Chinese attack,” and also that with its military edge, “any Chinese impatience with the pace of movement toward Beijing’s objective raises the danger of a major cross-strait crisis.”
In other words, China’s overwhelming military power dominates the cross-strait security situation, the apparent “status quo” is precarious and the time for democratically governed Taiwan is ticking.
However, Taiwan’s government relentlessly speeds up economic integration with China through all kinds of cooperation, investments and engagements, all measures that receive China’s warm welcome. President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) emphasizes that these policies are to boost Taiwan’s economy and prevent it from being marginalized.
To save Taiwan from marginalization is a critical issue but the Ma government’s solution based on progressively relying on its greatest security concern rather than on other friendly nations is not only risky but also leaves Taiwan in a desperate situation. Strategically speaking, nothing is better for China than to manipulate Taiwan’s economy to achieve its goal of “peaceful unification.” The more Taiwan depends on China economically, the easier it could be forced to unify with China.
Time magazine said the US has just experienced a decade from hell. Unfortunately, for Taiwan, its nightmare is getting worse. Actually, Taiwan’s deteriorating defensive capabilities have mainly been caused by the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) eight-year opposition of US arms sales before the power shift in 2008. And after a year in power, the KMT government is putting Taiwan’s economy at China’s disposal.
If President Ma doesn’t rectify this misguided policy immediately, the consequences will be grave and his failure to reverse the dire situation would be unforgivable.
TU HO-TING
Taipei
Learn about the ECFA
In the words of Premier Wu Den-yih (吳敦義), the proposed economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA) is like a rose. It smells good but has thorns.
An ECFA could help Taiwanese businesses raise their competitiveness by challenging Chinese firms. Maybe they could even discover their own Blue Ocean strategies. An increase in Taiwan’s GDP could also be expected.
However, an ECFA may increase Taiwan’s economic dependence on the Chinese market. The wages of Taiwanese workers may fall to balance their Chinese counterparts and some in certain industries may even lose their jobs.
Although some people may lose out during the implementation of the ECFA, Taiwan has to move on. And the signing of an ECFA may be the right way. Taiwanese products could be exported to China or through China to 13 other Asian countries without tariffs. That could mean “Made in Taiwan” may begin to compete with “Made in China” at the same price level.
Cross-strait economic ties would deepen as well as Taiwan’s links with the international market. What is needed are not protests against an ECFA but more knowledge of it.
JESSICA SU
Taipei
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.
In the 2022 book Danger Zone: The Coming Conflict with China, academics Hal Brands and Michael Beckley warned, against conventional wisdom, that it was not a rising China that the US and its allies had to fear, but a declining China. This is because “peaking powers” — nations at the peak of their relative power and staring over the precipice of decline — are particularly dangerous, as they might believe they only have a narrow window of opportunity to grab what they can before decline sets in, they said. The tailwinds that propelled China’s spectacular economic rise over the past