The question of whether China Airlines should buy aircraft from Boeing or Airbus is creating controversy in Taiwan. There is nothing unusual about such a dispute. What is strange, however, is that while controversy rages and the US and Europe have gotten involved, no one has pointed out that China has taken the use of what we might call "aircraft-purchase diplomacy" to the extreme, buying more than 100 planes over the last 10 years.
Since the Tiananmen massacre China has used various aircraft purchases to sow dissension between the US and Europe in order to break its own diplomatic isolation. Every time the US would discuss whether to continue granting China most-favored-nation status, or when Chinese leaders are about to visit the US and expect to be pressured on human-rights issues, Beijing has tried to pressure the US by waving aircraft orders around.
Orders for Boeing aircraft have been an important part of this strategy, and Boeing has therefore lobbied the White House, stressing the importance of Sino-US relations. To break out of the difficult situation created by the boycott by major Western nations of former premier Li Peng (
Unificationists in Taiwan have never blamed China for its total politicization of trade. But with China making every effort to sideline Taiwan diplomatically, these people have become righteousness personified, blaming the government for trying to find ways of making an aircraft purchase improve Taiwan's diplomatic situation. In the end, their argument is just an attempt to help China isolate Taiwan by sowing discord between Taiwan and the West.
They say that by buying aircraft from the US, Taiwan is turning France into an enemy. Isn't this tantamount to sowing discord between Taiwan and France? Why would the loss of one single contract turn France into an enemy? Apart from these 10 planes, are there no other
factors influencing the relationship between Taiwan and France? Is there no other possible business to be done between Taiwan and France, no other areas where the two can cooperate?
These unificationists argue that Taiwan is a US pawn, a bastard son of America. They forget that if it weren't for US military and US economic aid, or for the US Seventh Fleet patrolling the Taiwan Strait, they would have become the bastard sons of China a long time ago and some of them might even have met an early death. For them to now talk about pawns and bastard sons is not just a matter of sowing dissension between Taiwan and the US, it is also a matter of ingratitude.
Right now, who would like nothing more than a severing of ties between Taiwan and the US? Who is it who would dearly love to see an end to relations between Taiwan and Europe? China, of course. It is incomprehensible that these people undermine Taiwan while calling themselves Taiwanese.
Today, the US is Taiwan's most powerful ally. When China carried out military exercises aimed at Taiwan, even firing missiles over the island, other countries were afraid to say anything. It was the US that dispatched an aircraft carrier to put an end to China's provocations.
When China continues to expand its weapons arsenal in an attempt to attack Taiwan, European countries are afraid to sell arms to Taiwan and the US is the only one providing Taipei with new arms. The Taiwan Relations Act guarantees the relationship between the US and Taiwan. This guarantee is important for Tai-wan's security. What legislation have other countries passed?
In this situation, it is of course necessary to consider US interests as much as possible. As long as Boeing doesn't offer a ridiculously high price and as long as there aren't any major quality concerns over Boeing aircraft, Taiwan should buy from Boeing. This does not mean a severing of relations with France, however. As for violating WTO principles of "political intervention," isn't the Europeans' failure to sell arms to Taiwan also a form of political intervention?
Paul Lin is a political commentator based in New York.
Translated by Perry Svensson
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS