“We are so disappointed in the United States,” a Taiwanese defense official said over the weekend, reacting to confirmation that Taipei would not be sold the F-16C/D aircraft it has been seeking from the US since 2007.
While the sense of disappointment with Washington is perfectly understandable, another actor in the saga deserves equal condemnation, if not more: the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). It was the KMT, enjoying a majority in the legislature during then--president Chen Shui-bian’s (陳水扁) administration, that blocked the budgets that would have allowed Taiwan to continue modernizing its armed forces.
Two possible scenarios present themselves here. Either the KMT undermined Taiwan’s defense apparatus as part of a plan to demonstrate, when it regained office in 2008, that it was stronger on defense than its predecessor, only to be caught wrong-footed when the backlog reached more than US$12 billion. Or it knew all along that this would happen and proceeded by orchestrating a gradual erosion of the nation’s deterrent capability.
Either way, the end result is the same. Taiwan today finds itself in a very difficult position when it comes to its ability to defend itself against aggression from China.
Try as it might to signal strength and determination by talking about Taiwan’s new “aircraft carrier killer,” the fact is, advanced fighter aircraft remain a key component of national defense. Now that the Air Force will not be getting the 66 F-16C/Ds — which were intended to replace F-5s and Mirage 2000s that need to be decommissioned — not only will the force not be comprised of more modern aircraft, but it will have to be reduced in size, unless the nearly obsolete aircraft are kept in service.
When it comes to countering a Chinese attack, both qualitative and quantitative elements in the armed forces are important. As the opening round of a Chinese invasion would likely involve a missile attack against the country’s air bases, fewer aircraft to start with means fewer will survive an attack and be available for operations over the Taiwan Strait.
On the qualitative side, rumors that only one of the two wings of ageing F-16A/Bs are to be modernized also means that nearly half of what remains of the nation’s most advanced combat aircraft will very soon fall far behind the new models of aircraft being developed and deployed by the People’s Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF). By some accounts, the PLAAF could have close to 1,000 3+, 4th and 4+ generation fighters and up to two 5th generation fighters entering production.
For the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) inept handling of the arms sales issue presents an opportunity as the two parties head into January’s presidential and legislative elections. This will be a chance for DPP Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) and her advisers to show that Ma’s “flexible” China policy and claim to better ties with the US have failed miserably. This will require more than recrimination, however, and the DPP camp will have to come up with viable alternatives for national defense, or a proposed change in approach with Washington.
Conversely, if the second scenario — that of a planned weakening of the military by the KMT — applies, this new situation could also provide the KMT with ammunition against the DPP. It could claim that because of US intransigence, a weakened Taiwan would be at greater risk under the DPP and that Taipei is left with little choice but to seek even closer relations with Beijing to avoid war.
Ironically for the US, the decision not to provide Taiwan with the weapons it needs to defend itself makes it more likely that in the event of war in the Taiwan Strait, it would have to send troops to defend the small democracy. Unless, of course, Washington has given up its role as a champion of liberty.
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
RSS