American Institute in Taiwan Director Stephen Young's comments last week urging the legislature to pass the arms procurement bill this fall sent many politicians into an uproar. The ensuing slew of wild criticism has included accusations that he interfered with Taiwan's domestic affairs and demands that he be deported, as well as personal attacks that he is only concerned with US interests and was acting as its "arms dealer."
It's easy to draw parallels between these politicians and China's intensely nationalistic online community of "angry youths." But of course it isn't Taiwanese nationalism that drives them, but Chinese nationalism.
Do Young's comments really constitute interference in Taiwan's domestic affairs? The US' proposed arms sale is permitted under its Taiwan Relations Act. Taiwan has never objected to this, and in fact has strongly welcomed it. During its time in power, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) bought much of the nation's weaponry from the US.
If one looks at the current arms deal as a simple business transaction, how is it unreasonable for a seller to offer the buyer a last chance to make the purchase after he or she has gone back on promises and dragged out the negotiations?
How could this be construed as "political interference?" Opposition politicians could always come out and say clearly that they don't want to buy the US' weapons and be done with it. But do they dare? In refusing to buy US arms, are they preparing to buy Chinese weapons instead, or perhaps getting ready to surrender to China?
As for the claims that Young is just a US arms dealer, China claimed in the 1950s and 1960s that that was the US' motivation for starting wars. In digging up this excuse, Taiwanese politicians opposed to the arms budget have only hurt themselves by revealing the true weakness of their position. Isn't the Lafayette frigate scandal a classic example of collusion between the KMT and China to purchase arms? This is just an attempt to distract attention from the pan-blue camp's own crimes.
Is there a case of a truly foolish arms purchase for Taiwan to study? Certainly. In August last year, China held joint military exercises with Russia in an apparent attempt to intimidate Taiwan, Japan and the US. It was also a business opportunity for Russia to display its "advanced weaponry" for potential Chinese buyers. After the Chinese military saw Russia's Ilyushin-76MD transport aircraft and Ilyushin-78 mid-air refuelers, it immediately signed a US$1.5 billion order and made a down payment without even going to inspect the production facilities.
The contract clearly stipulated that the aircraft should be delivered by the summer of this year, but as yet there is still no sign of them. Russian newspapers have reported that the manufacturing plant in Uzbekistan has lost many of its skilled workers and now doesn't have the human resources to produce large batches of the aircraft.
Does China have the guts to turn on Russia? Of course not. Russia is its old pal. Is there any doubt that People's Liberation Army generals have lined their own pockets during the deal? Now Chinese President Hu Jintao (
People First Party Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜) has repeatedly called the current arms package "stupid," questioning why the US won't sell Taiwan the AEGIS-class warships he claims it needs.
But if the US were to give Soong his AEGIS fleet, the US would be the one making the foolish sale.
First of all, US policy has always been to sell Taiwan the arms it needs to defend itself, not to make it more powerful than the Chinese army.
If that had happened, Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) would long ago have tried to take back China with Soong's father, former lieutenant-general Soong Ta (宋達).
Second, arms-producing countries do not normally give their advanced weapons to others, in order to safeguard their own security. This is common sense.
With certain Taiwanese politicians joining forces with their Chinese supporters to force Taiwan into eventual unification, it would not only be stupid, but crazy as well, for the US to sell Taiwan its best weapons, since certain people would give them to Beijing as "tribute." Could the US be so crazy? Certainly not.
Paul Lin is a political commentator based in Taipei.
Translated by Marc Langer
In a stark reminder of China’s persistent territorial overreach, Pema Wangjom Thongdok, a woman from Arunachal Pradesh holding an Indian passport, was detained for 18 hours at Shanghai Pudong Airport on Nov. 24 last year. Chinese immigration officials allegedly informed her that her passport was “invalid” because she was “Chinese,” refusing to recognize her Indian citizenship and claiming Arunachal Pradesh as part of South Tibet. Officials had insisted that Thongdok, an Indian-origin UK resident traveling for a conference, was not Indian despite her valid documents. India lodged a strong diplomatic protest, summoning the Chinese charge d’affaires in Delhi and demanding
With the Year of the Snake reaching its conclusion on Monday next week, now is an opportune moment to reflect on the past year — a year marked by institutional strain and national resilience. For Taiwan, the Year of the Snake was a composite of political friction, economic momentum, social unease and strategic consolidation. In the political sphere, it was defined less by legislative productivity and more by partisan confrontation. The mass recall movement sought to remove 31 Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators following the passage of controversial bills that expanded legislative powers and imposed sweeping budget cuts. While the effort
When Hong Kong’s High Court sentenced newspaper owner Jimmy Lai (黎智英) to 20 years in prison this week, officials declared that his “heinous crimes” had long poisoned society and that his punishment represented justice restored. In their telling, Lai is the mastermind of Hong Kong’s unrest — the architect of a vast conspiracy that manipulated an otherwise contented population into defiance. They imply that removing him would lead to the return of stability. It is a politically convenient narrative — and a profoundly false one. Lai did not radicalize Hong Kong. He belonged to the same generation that fled from the Chinese
There is a story in India about a boy called Prahlad who was an ardent worshipper of Lord Narayana, whom his father considered an enemy. His son’s devotion vexed the father to the extent that he asked his sister, Holika, who could not be burned by fire, to sit with the boy in her lap and burn him to death. Prahlad knew about this evil plan, but sat in his aunt’s lap anyway. His faith won, as he remained unscathed by the fire, while his aunt was devoured by the flames. In some small way, Prahlad reminds me of Taiwan
RSS