On Feb. 25, President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) made a very important policy announcement when he received Richard Bush, director of the Center for Northeast Asian Policy Studies at the Brookings Institution and former chairman of the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT). Chen publicly called on Taiwan, Japan and South Korea to actively respond to the US-initiated "theater missile defense" (TMD) system.
Commenting on North Korea's abrupt missile test right before the inauguration of South Korea President Roh Moo-hyun, Chen said the test highlighted the seriousness and significance of a TMD system. "North Korea fired a missile into the Sea of Japan. China has also deployed hundreds of ballistic missiles along its southeast coast. We should therefore face the problem seriously. Taiwan, Japan and South Korea must all respond to this actively and effectively," Chen said.
The South Korean government has decided not to build a TMD system due to its worries about irritating North Korea and other concerns. Japan and the US have studied a joint deployment of a TMD system for many years. North Korea's secret development of nuclear weapons, especially this latest missile test, will hasten the Japan-US TMD deployment.
When I visited Tokyo last month, some senior Japanese lawmakers told me that this was a pressing matter, and that the Japanese government should take national security as a priority, and it should not hesitate any longer due to its worries about irritating Beijing.
Former minister of national defense Chiang Chung-ling (蔣仲苓) used to portray a TMD system as a "money pit." Many in military circles also objected to the system due to its expense,which may crowd out the budget for other weapon systems. As a result, the government has adopted an ambiguous attitude toward the system over the past few years. Chen's statement clarified the government's stance. It's a clear policy announcement that deserves people's attention and full support.
China has deployed over 400 ballistic missiles aimed at Taiwan. According to the latest US intelligence information, the People's Liberation Army has hastened its missile deployment by adding an average of between 75 and 100 missiles per year. The total num-ber of missiles will exceed 650 by the year 2005.
Once Beijing decides to attack Taiwan, it will launch intensive missile attacks to destroy the nation's command, control, communication, computer, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (C4ISR) mechanisms. It will also damage major economic infrastructure, such as airports, ports, power plants and oil refineries. The government must urgently strengthen the nation's anti-missile forces in light of its limited missile-defense ability.
Mary Tighe, director of the Asian and Pacific affairs of the US Office of the Secretary of Defense, is scheduled to visit Taipei this month. She will have talks with the military on missile-defense issues. Such a visit has a significant meaning. Beijing has always objected to Taiwan-US missile defense cooperation. Chinese President Jiang Zemin (
Washington's insistence on strengthening its missile defense cooperation with Taipei is indeed rare and precious. In fact, when I visited Washington last month, I heard that some US officials dis-agreed with sending a top defense official to Taipei to discuss missile-defense issues. But the government stood by its decision.
Although Washington needs Beijing's support on the Iraq and North Korea crises, US officials repeatedly told Taiwanese legislators that the US will not gain Beijing's support at the cost of sacrificing Taiwan's safety and interest. Given Tighe's upcoming visit, we can tell that the US does value the improvement in Tai-wan's defense ability.
A massive amount of resources is needed for a TMD system-whether it's a "Theater Missile Defense"(戰區飛彈防禦) or a "Taiwan Missile Defense"(台灣飛彈防禦)system. The military should clearly explain to both the legislature and the public the significance and urgency of a TMD system in order to win support for the government's defense policy.
Strictly speaking, a TMD system is not just an anti-missile system. It has four major elements: First, it can strengthen Taiwan's early-warning system and C4ISR functions. The range of the early-warning radar system is limited, which restricts the scope and time to intercept China's missiles to about 90 seconds. After a long-range early-warning radar system is deployed, officials will be aware of a missile attack earlier and will have five more minutes to prepare.
Second, it can strengthen the nation's passive defense ability. Some US defense experts have repeatedly urged Taiwan to protect its C4ISR mechanisms by building underground or bomb-resistant facilities, and dispersing its command posts. This will reduce first-strike damage and will help the command, control and communication systems to survive.
Third, it can strengthen Tai-wan's active defense ability. For example, if the nation can deploy the Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) missiles in the next few years, they will expand searching and firing ranges several times those of the PAC-2 missiles, extending preparation time for war. The PAC-3 missiles are "hit-to-kill" missiles that can directly intercept and destroy any missile warheads.
Fourth, it can help Taiwan to develop a deterrent and offensive weapons.
Over the past six months, US defense officials have repeatedly told Taiwanese legislators who visited Washington that it's impossible for Taipei to guard itself against Beijing's missiles in light of the large number of missiles. Offense is the best defense. Hence, the nation must build offensive weapons that are capable of destroying China's missile bases, command, control, radar and other systems in an effort to deter Beijing's ambitions.
It should not be willing to bear China's first strike without hitting back due to its fears about irritating Beijing. A complete TMD system should include countermeasures and offensive forces that strengthen our deterrent and defensive capabilities. In terms of what kinds of offensive weapons should be developed, the legislature and society can have a rational debate in order to form a consensus.
Parris Chang is a DPP legislator.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
As the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its People’s Liberation Army (PLA) reach the point of confidence that they can start and win a war to destroy the democratic culture on Taiwan, any future decision to do so may likely be directly affected by the CCP’s ability to promote wars on the Korean Peninsula, in Europe, or, as most recently, on the Indian subcontinent. It stands to reason that the Trump Administration’s success early on May 10 to convince India and Pakistan to deescalate their four-day conventional military conflict, assessed to be close to a nuclear weapons exchange, also served to
After India’s punitive precision strikes targeting what New Delhi called nine terrorist sites inside Pakistan, reactions poured in from governments around the world. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) issued a statement on May 10, opposing terrorism and expressing concern about the growing tensions between India and Pakistan. The statement noticeably expressed support for the Indian government’s right to maintain its national security and act against terrorists. The ministry said that it “works closely with democratic partners worldwide in staunch opposition to international terrorism” and expressed “firm support for all legitimate and necessary actions taken by the government of India
The recent aerial clash between Pakistan and India offers a glimpse of how China is narrowing the gap in military airpower with the US. It is a warning not just for Washington, but for Taipei, too. Claims from both sides remain contested, but a broader picture is emerging among experts who track China’s air force and fighter jet development: Beijing’s defense systems are growing increasingly credible. Pakistan said its deployment of Chinese-manufactured J-10C fighters downed multiple Indian aircraft, although New Delhi denies this. There are caveats: Even if Islamabad’s claims are accurate, Beijing’s equipment does not offer a direct comparison
To recalibrate its Cold War alliances, the US adopted its “one China policy,” a diplomatic compromise meant to engage with China and end the Vietnam War, but which left Taiwan in a state of permanent limbo. Half a century later, the costs of that policy are mounting. Taiwan remains a democratic, technologically advanced nation of 23 million people, yet it is denied membership in international organizations and stripped of diplomatic recognition. Meanwhile, the PRC has weaponized the “one China” narrative to claim sovereignty over Taiwan, label the Taiwan Strait as its “internal waters” and threaten international shipping routes that carry more
RSS