US President Barack Obama’s administration announced on Sept. 21 that it would upgrade Taiwan’s F-16A/Bs instead of selling it F-16C/Ds. This decision set off heated exchanges between Taiwan’s ruling and opposition parties. The Ministry of National Defense and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs said the upgrades “would prove to be even better than the F-16C/D jets.” The opposition party accused the ruling party of blowing its own trumpet and said its logic was flawed.
US arms sales to Taiwan touch on the sensitive issue of relations between Taiwan, the US and China, and media outlets around the world always pay close attention. However, Washington’s promise to provide Taiwan with adequate military equipment, as stated in the Taiwan Relations Act, to deter a Chinese attack has increasingly come into question, with a number of US academics and politicians suggesting that the US should abandon Taiwan. George Washington University professor Charles Glaser expressed such views in his article entitled “Will China’s Rise Lead to War?” in the March/April edition of Foreign Affairs. Views like this mean the latest arms deal has gained particular attention.
The Sept. 24 issue of The Economist featured an article entitled “Dim sum for China: Why America should not walk away from Taiwan,” which said there were two main arguments used to justify US desertion of Taiwan. First, under President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) cross-strait relations are better than in the past. According to this view, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) is more nationalistic than the KMT, and there are worries that if Taiwan declares independence, the US “risks being dragged into conflict, even nuclear war.”
Second, even without war, Taiwan would still be an obstacle to better Sino-US relations. Giving China what it wants — such as Taiwan — could be exchanged for Sino-US cooperation “on a host of issues ranging from nuclear proliferation to climate change.”
Rebutting the first argument, the article said that DPP Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) “is a lot more moderate than Mr Chen [former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁)].” In addition, it said that while the younger DPP politicians may be nationalistic, they are also pragmatic and understand that continued US support is crucial.
The article said that if the US abandoned Taiwan, it would essentially be conceding to China’s intentions to annex Taiwan and that this would not be beneficial to improving US-China relations. It said that a look at China’s diplomatic history shows that it only respects powerful nations. Furthermore, “appeasement would also probably increase China’s appetite for regional domination” since its “core interests” in the area are growing continuously, it said. This could “lead the region’s democracies to worry that America might be willing to let them swing too,” it said, adding “that is why, as long as China insists on the right to use force in Taiwan, America should continue to support the island.”
A capable government focuses on economic development when it knows it has guaranteed the nation’s security; it does not blindly pursue economic benefit at the risk of undermining the nation. Taiwan’s national defense should be based on a “Taiwan consensus” that includes both the governing and the opposition camps. The failure to obtain F-16C/Ds is a setback, further widening the gap in military power between China and Taiwan. Hopefully, the government would stick to its promise to continue pushing the US to sell F-16C/Ds and submarines. Otherwise, with China continuing to threaten Taiwan militarily and blocking its arms purchase, Taiwan can only wait to be pushed around.
Liu Shun-ming has a master’s degree in public policy and management from Carnegie Mellon University.
TRANSLATED BY DREW CAMERON
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers