On Tuesday last week, I was invited by my alma mater, Claremont Graduate School, to give a one-hour talk on US-China relations. Many students from master’s and doctoral programs attended. My graduate schoolmates, my dissertation advisers and my colleagues at California State University were also there.
In the follow-up discussion, most people in the audience said that Taiwan is not prepared for a potential military attack by China. They were also uncertain about Taiwan’s readiness to cope with attacks by the Chinese Communist Party. The option of “keeping the status quo” no longer exists and has not for some time, they said.
All things considered, the US should acknowledge this reality and Taiwan should reach a compromise with China before it is too late, they said.
Regrettably, I was not able to refute them on the spot.
They also found my deterrence theory problematic. Strategic deterrence is not easy to carry out, because the enemy would see every act as a provocation, they said.
If Taiwan lacks firm resolve, the strategy would bring it to a more perilous circumstance. Moreover, should Taiwan’s mandatory military service remain the same — that is, without being extended to two years — the situation would become even worse.
As the saying goes, “sending common people to war untrained is to throw them away.”
Later that night, I talked with a friend from Taiwan about what the audience said. My friend believed that those academics, most of whom are based in California, thought that way because economically, California depends on the China market.
While I find their attitude unhealthy, I do not think those US academics are biased. Their opinions are based entirely on their academic viewpoints. They might be wrong, but they are already tenured professors. Why would they care about who gets what and how?
Earlier this month, former chief of the general staff admiral Lee Hsi-ming (李喜明) was interviewed by CBS’ 60 Minutes. Not only did he call out for Taiwan to focus on arming itself to deter China, he was also concerned about whether Taiwanese would be prepared for war if one were to happen earlier than anticipated.
My colleagues said that if Taiwan is not — and will not — be ready, Taiwan and the US must think seriously about other solutions.
In the worst-case scenario, Taiwan would be not well prepared and China would not be deterred. The result is China, the US and Taiwan would have to bear the consequences.
Out of love for my motherland, Taiwan, I am extremely concerned.
I have said in previous essays that the future of Taiwan should be determined by the people of Taiwan, and my colleagues understand that they do not have a right to speak for Taiwan.
However, it is important to understand what those on the sidelines think.
They think that once China attacks, it does not matter how long Taiwan can hold out. What is important is demonstrating a powerful will to fight and prevent a war from happening. That is the spirit of deterrence: “It is deterrence, stupid.”
If we wait until war breaks out, it would be too late.
The strategy of deterrence has been greatly misunderstood in Taiwan. In colloquial terms, deterrence is not about self-assurance. It is more than believing in ourselves, more than claiming that we would fight the enemy at any cost. Deterrence is to realize that there is no going back, to display our strength, so that the intruders are deterred.
If our allies are unsure about our determination, how can we talk about deterring the enemy?
I do not have a right to speak on behalf of the people of Taiwan. Instead, I offer my observation from the perspective of a third party, as an honest and sincere friend.
Simon Tang is an adjunct professor at California State University, Fullerton.
Translated by Liu Yi-hung
In the event of a war with China, Taiwan has some surprisingly tough defenses that could make it as difficult to tackle as a porcupine: A shoreline dotted with swamps, rocks and concrete barriers; conscription for all adult men; highways and airports that are built to double as hardened combat facilities. This porcupine has a soft underbelly, though, and the war in Iran is exposing it: energy. About 39,000 ships dock at Taiwan’s ports each year, more than the 30,000 that transit the Strait of Hormuz. About one-fifth of their inbound tonnage is coal, oil, refined fuels and liquefied natural gas (LNG),
On Monday, the day before Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) departed on her visit to China, the party released a promotional video titled “Only with peace can we ‘lie flat’” to highlight its desire to have peace across the Taiwan Strait. However, its use of the expression “lie flat” (tang ping, 躺平) drew sarcastic comments, with critics saying it sounded as if the party was “bowing down” to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Amid the controversy over the opposition parties blocking proposed defense budgets, Cheng departed for China after receiving an invitation from the CCP, with a meeting with
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) is leading a delegation to China through Sunday. She is expected to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing tomorrow. That date coincides with the anniversary of the signing of the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA), which marked a cornerstone of Taiwan-US relations. Staging their meeting on this date makes it clear that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) intends to challenge the US and demonstrate its “authority” over Taiwan. Since the US severed official diplomatic relations with Taiwan in 1979, it has relied on the TRA as a legal basis for all
To counter the CCP’s escalating threats, Taiwan must build a national consensus and demonstrate the capability and the will to fight. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) often leans on a seductive mantra to soften its threats, such as “Chinese do not kill Chinese.” The slogan is designed to frame territorial conquest (annexation) as a domestic family matter. A look at the historical ledger reveals a different truth. For the CCP, being labeled “family” has never been a guarantee of safety; it has been the primary prerequisite for state-sanctioned slaughter. From the forced starvation of 150,000 civilians at the Siege of Changchun
RSS