Ever since President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) was elected, demands that China remove the missiles it has aimed at Taiwan have been a hot topic. Most people know that in a military sense, removing the missiles is meaningless, but far fewer people have considered the real implication of this question: Would it hurt Taiwan’s security?
On July 9, Xiamen University’s Center for Taiwan Studies held a symposium on new breakthroughs in Taiwan studies giving special attention to mutual military trust. This was also the first time Chinese scholars proposed concrete ideas and conditions for an agreement on military safety and mutual trust between China and Taiwan, issuing eight articles and 43 clauses.
On July 30, Chinese Ministry of National Defense spokesman Geng Yansheng (耿雁生) said China might consider removing the missiles along the Fujian Province coast to spur the peaceful development of cross-strait relations. However, the basic premise of Geng’s comments was that Taiwan must first agree to the “one China” principle.
At that time, I looked into the situation in more detail and found that things are not as black and white as they may first appear.
Given that China could go even further in its soft approach of engaging in strategic talks while also intensifying its military approach, there are at least three possibilities in regards to removing the missiles.
The best approach would be for China to agree to remove the missiles and openly announce to the international community that it would not resort to military force to solve the Taiwan issue as long as Taiwan does not pursue independence. The second-best approach would involve removing the missiles and negotiating a mechanism for building mutual military trust based on the so-called “1992 consensus,” while the worst approach would be to remove the missiles and end cross-strait hostilities on the condition that Taiwan recognizes the “one China” principle.
Less than three months later, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao (溫家寶) said in New York on Sept. 22 that now that the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement has been signed and that cross-strait relations are increasingly close, the two sides can take steps in promoting mutual political and military trust. In his responses to questions from reporters, Wen said the missiles eventually would be removed. Noticeably, Wen did not insist on the “one China” principle.
Now, the non-issue of removing the missiles has become a real bargaining chip for China as it gives senior Chinese officials a lot of wiggle room when making political strategy.
At the same time, Taiwan’s Ministry of National Defense (MND) has become weak and marginalized in the process. Because Taiwan’s military strategy traditionally follows the government’s political strategy, even when senior members of the MND have different opinions or are unwilling to do something, it seems they have little choice but to passively follow along.
Recently, Mei Fu-hsing (梅復興), director of the US-based Taiwan Strait Security Research and Analysis Center, revealed that the US originally wanted to invite Taiwanese Minister of National Defense Kao Hua-chu (高華柱) to the US to take part in a US-Taiwan Defense Industry Conference and hold talks with senior US officials. This never happened because it was not supported by Taiwan’s US-based diplomats. The MND thus had to forgo the opportunity.
While officials deny this, it is clearly not just a rumor and offers proof of the extent to which the MND has been weakened and marginalized. In the future, I am afraid our last line of defense will be the will of Taiwan’s citizens.
Wang Jyh-perng is an associate research fellow at the Association for Managing Defense and Strategies.
TRANSLATED BY DREW CAMERON
The Chinese government on March 29 sent shock waves through the Tibetan Buddhist community by announcing the untimely death of one of its most revered spiritual figures, Hungkar Dorje Rinpoche. His sudden passing in Vietnam raised widespread suspicion and concern among his followers, who demanded an investigation. International human rights organization Human Rights Watch joined their call and urged a thorough investigation into his death, highlighting the potential involvement of the Chinese government. At just 56 years old, Rinpoche was influential not only as a spiritual leader, but also for his steadfast efforts to preserve and promote Tibetan identity and cultural
Former minister of culture Lung Ying-tai (龍應台) has long wielded influence through the power of words. Her articles once served as a moral compass for a society in transition. However, as her April 1 guest article in the New York Times, “The Clock Is Ticking for Taiwan,” makes all too clear, even celebrated prose can mislead when romanticism clouds political judgement. Lung crafts a narrative that is less an analysis of Taiwan’s geopolitical reality than an exercise in wistful nostalgia. As political scientists and international relations academics, we believe it is crucial to correct the misconceptions embedded in her article,
Strategic thinker Carl von Clausewitz has said that “war is politics by other means,” while investment guru Warren Buffett has said that “tariffs are an act of war.” Both aphorisms apply to China, which has long been engaged in a multifront political, economic and informational war against the US and the rest of the West. Kinetically also, China has launched the early stages of actual global conflict with its threats and aggressive moves against Taiwan, the Philippines and Japan, and its support for North Korea’s reckless actions against South Korea that could reignite the Korean War. Former US presidents Barack Obama
The pan-blue camp in the era after the rule of the two Chiangs — former presidents Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) and Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國) — can be roughly divided into two main factions: the “true blue,” who insist on opposing communism to protect the Republic of China (ROC), and the “red-blue,” who completely reject the current government and would rather collude with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to control Taiwan. The families of the former group suffered brutally under the hands of communist thugs in China. They know the CPP well and harbor a deep hatred for it — the two
RSS