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
China’s supreme objective in a war across the Taiwan Strait is to incorporate Taiwan as a province of the People’s Republic. It follows, therefore, that international recognition of Taiwan’s de jure independence is a consummation that China’s leaders devoutly wish to avoid. By the same token, an American strategy to deny China that objective would complicate Beijing’s calculus and deter large-scale hostilities. For decades, China has cautioned “independence means war.” The opposite is also true: “war means independence.” A comprehensive strategy of denial would guarantee an outcome of de jure independence for Taiwan in the event of Chinese invasion or
A recent Taipei Times editorial (“A targeted bilingual policy,” March 12, page 8) questioned how the Ministry of Education can justify spending NT$151 million (US$4.74 million) when the spotlighted achievements are English speech competitions and campus tours. It is a fair question, but it focuses on the wrong issue. The problem is not last year’s outcomes failing to meet the bilingual education vision; the issue is that the ministry has abandoned the program that originally justified such a large expenditure. In the early years of Bilingual 2030, the ministry’s K-12 Administration promoted the Bilingual Instruction in Select Domains Program (部分領域課程雙語教學實施計畫).
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) earlier this month said it is necessary for her to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and it would be a “huge boost” to the party’s local election results in November, but many KMT members have expressed different opinions, indicating a struggle between different groups in the party. Since Cheng was elected as party chairwoman in October last year, she has repeatedly expressed support for increased exchanges with China, saying that it would bring peace and prosperity to Taiwan, and that a meeting with Xi in Beijing takes priority over meeting
Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs spokesman for maritime affairs Rogelio Villanueva on Monday said that Manila’s claims in the South China Sea are backed by international law. Villanueva was responding to a social media post by the Chinese embassy alleging that a former Philippine ambassador in 1990 had written a letter to a German radio operator stating that the Scarborough Shoal (Huangyan Island, 黃岩島) did not fall within Manila’s territory. “Sovereignty is not merely claimed, it is exercised,” Villanueva said. The Philippines won a landmark case at the Permanent Court of Arbitration in 2016 that found China’s sweeping claim of sovereignty in
RSS