Taiwan has some very peculiar "academics." Sometimes it seems like they can be so contradictory to common sense as to give both academics and science a bad name. ["Academics speak out against arms purchases," June 15, page 4]
When we ordinary people consider something to be "expensive," we usually mean one of a few things. First, we can't afford it. Second, there are better products at a cheaper price. Third, we don't really need it.
If we apply this common-sense approach to the arms purchase, the answer is obvious. First, rather than "we can't afford it," we can't really afford not to have it. If China succeeds in taking over Taiwan, all the foreign reserves, per capita income, state and personal property would be taken over by the communists. Can we afford not to make a token investment in arms purchases now, when otherwise we might lose it all? Second, clearly there is no other product out there to be bought. Third, the need to acquire these arms, when faced with increasing threats from China, has been repeatedly expressed by our elected government, nationalized military, and our best friends, the US.
The question of how expensive these arms are appears to be the focus of much debate. Are we to trust these "academics" or "legislators" who have no heart for Taiwan's survival, but a very big heart for China?
Chen Ming-chung
Chicago, Illinois
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
RSS