Reports HAVE indicated that the US is planning to halt arms sales to Taiwan, and it is meaningless to discuss responsibility at this stage of the game. Perhaps the government should start brainstorming and try to come up with some ways to coax the White House to change it’s mind.
President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and key national security officials have been more active recently in talks with the US about arms sales. They know that if US President George W. Bush’s administration freezes arms sales to Taiwan, they will face even greater difficulty restarting sales after the election of either Republican presidential candidate John McCain or Democrat rival Barack Obama.
In the past, the Democrats have approved fewer arms deals with Taiwan than the Republicans. Theoretically, a US president should decide the time, quality and quantity of arms sales in accordance with the Taiwan Relations Act.
However, the US president has great discretionary powers. Therefore, even if he does nothing, he does not violate the law. Take former presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, both Democrats. They seldom sold advanced weapons to Taiwan and Clinton even considered temporarily stopping all sales of weapon parts to Taiwan after then-president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) made his controversial “state-to-state” statement.
As for Republican presidents, although Ronald Reagan was forced to sign the 1982 Sino-US Joint Communique; because of changes in the international situation, he still sold a number of important weapons systems to Taiwan and allowed Taiwan to build the Indigenous Defense Fighter with US help. In addition, George Bush sold Taiwan F-16A/Bs and E-2T early warning aircraft and George W. Bush approved eight arms deals at once.
Washington has been sending various messages through different channels, making it safe to say that the US is not interested in blocking arms sales to Taiwan. On the contrary, the US wants the Ma administration to officially declare its stance on arms procurement.
First of all, American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) Director Stephen Young has been in close contact with leaders of both the pan-blue and pan-green camps, making every effort to push through arms sales. The alleged misunderstanding between Taipei and Washington is a great insult to Young. Washington sent former White House chief of staff Andrew Card to congratulate Ma at his inauguration and AIT Chairman Raymond Burghardt has visited Taiwan twice since the presidential election. Washington should understand Ma’s determination to increase Taiwan’s defense budget to 3 percent of GDP and his stance on arms sales.
During former president Chen Shui-bian’s (陳水扁) administration, Chen purposely tied the three most expensive arms deals together: submarines, anti-submarine aircraft and Patriot missiles.
The Democratic Progressive Party even talked about selling government-owned land and issuing government bonds to finance the procurements. The pan-blue camp had no choice but to boycott the deals and some US officials took this to mean that they were against arms sales. Through partisan negotiations, the legislature finally passed a three-in-one procurement package after reducing the total value and establishing an annual budget for it. It is highly unlikely that Washington is unaware of the budget the legislature passed.
When Chen pushed for the UN membership referendum ahead of the presidential election, the Bush administration refused to sell F-16C/Ds and froze other arms sales to Taiwan, so as not to affect Sino-US cooperation and to avoid escalating the North Korean nuclear crisis. However, things are different now. The US sincerely hopes that Taiwan can strengthen its defense capabilities and therefore it should not freeze arms sales. Otherwise, why would Ma increase Taiwan’s defense budget?
The US hopes that Taiwan will strengthen its defense capacity on the one hand, while improving cross-strait relations on the other. From its own experience, Washington knows that national strength is the biggest bargaining chip in negotiations. In an interview with the Wall Street Journal last month, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said that as Taiwan improves relations with China, we must not forget that the US is still an important ally of Taiwan. Her comment was made intentionally to show that arms sales to Taiwan remain open. Beijing is trying to “systematize” the freeze of arms sales through US Ambassador to China Clark Randt and Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs Yang Jiechi (楊潔箎). China has always wanted to interfere with US arms sales to Taiwan and would certainly stick its nose in given the chance. Nevertheless, in accordance with Reagan’s six assurances to Taipei, Washington must not allow Beijing to interfere with arms deals between the US and Taiwan.
Based on past experience, when the US makes a decision, it can simply inform Taiwan without giving any explanation. Yet Washington allowed Ma to send key security, military and diplomatic officials to participate in the Taiwan-US military meeting in Monterey, California, which opened on Monday. It has also allowed a delegation from the Foreign and National Defense Committee of the Legislative Yuan to visit Washington and meet US security and defense officials later this month, showing that the US has not closed the door on arms sales to Taiwan.
It is difficult for Taiwan to make its stance on arms sales known because we do not have control over the matter. Taiwan should not allow Washington to demand sky-high prices or offer weapons systems that do not meet our defense needs. Making Washington understand Taiwan’s determination and need for improving our military without hurting the long-term friendship between the US and Taiwan will require great diplomatic and political skill.
Edward Chen is a professor in Tamkang University’s Graduate Institute of American Studies.
Translated by Eddy Chang
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS