The West’s resolute response in supporting Ukraine came as a surprise to the Kremlin, as well as many analysts who argued that the West was in decline. There is no doubt that the US and its NATO allies have shown a political unity not seen since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelenskiy, too, has defied people’s expectations and risen to the occasion to face down a country 28 times larger than his own. Rapid changes in global events reveal the best and worst in leaders, institutions and ourselves.
The West in the past few months has faced an uncomfortable reality, as its rapid response to supply Ukraine with armaments has left its arsenals at risk of running dry. A larger problem looms: replenishing the acute shortage would take years.
The shortage in the West’s “arsenal of democracy” should be of utmost concern to Taiwan. Nothing guarantees Beijing will not repeat the actions of its Russian partner of no limits. Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) has never ruled out the use of force to secure “reunification.” With Taipei’s military equipment mostly imported, and primarily from the US, diversifying the nation’s sources of armaments is essential to prepare for confrontation.
One case from Ukraine’s situation should serve as a warning for Taiwan. The Economist reported that Washington produces about 180,000 155mm artillery shells annually, while Europe produced 300,000 last year. The sum of this is short of what Ukraine utilizes in three months.
Taiwan’s overreliance on foreign military imports is not unknown to domestic policymakers. One of the Ministry of National Defense’s guiding principles of arms procurement has been the need to develop the domestic defense research-and-development industry. Despite this principle, 23 percent of the military’s weapons come from foreign sources.
In September last year, US President Joe Biden’s administration approved a US$1.1 billion arms sale to Taiwan, including systems such as anti-ship missiles and air-to-air missiles. Over the past 10 years, the US has approved upward of US$20 billion in arms sales.
However, US industrial and procurement issues have lengthened the timeline in which these systems are to be delivered. For example, a sale of F-16s — approved in 2019 — is estimated to arrive in Taiwan in 2026.
Certain US lawmakers have blamed material support to Ukraine as the cause for weapons shortages, but reports have suggested that the oligarchical nature of the US defense industry is the main reason for procurement issues. Since the 1990s, the number of main defense companies has been shrinking, falling from 51 to just five in the past 30 years.
Two other Ministry of National Defense procurement principles are that arms from foreign sources should be acquired directly from manufacturers and that supply sources should be diversified. The aforementioned oligopoly not only has consequences for the US military’s supply, but also for the Taiwanese military’s fighting capabilities.
In Taiwan, there are two main defense companies that are able to design and produce indigenous weapon systems: the Chungshan Institute of Science and Technology and Aerospace Industrial Development Corp. While there are smaller companies that contribute to the domestic defense industry, the two main companies with control over the industry might discourage competition and innovation.
Although the US and Taiwan have issues in their defense industries, there are ways to ensure that Taiwan is prepared for any surprises.
The US has some of the best military technology in the world, with state-of-the-art aircraft such as the F-35 coming from US manufacturers. The US should share certain technologies with Taiwanese defense companies, helping the domestic defense industry produce cutting-edge military equipment. While US security concerns would not permit the sharing of all of its military technology secrets, areas of the Taiwanese domestic defense industry that are lacking could be supplemented with US technical sharing.
The US should also license out the production of certain military equipment such as naval mines, missiles and other systems that the US produces. That would allow Taiwan to ease its reliance on imports as well as skip the line when it comes to receiving US weaponry, by allowing it to produce the systems domestically.
However, these propositions cannot be implemented effectively without Taiwan raising its defense budget. Taipei only spends 2.4 percent of its GDP on defense. For a nation under constant threat of invasion, this is woefully low. Countries such as Israel have been spending just over 5 percent since 2010 and Ukraine, prior to Russia’s invasion, was spending 3.8 percent.
Taiwan should raise this figure. It would not only allow it to purchase more weapons for defense, but also bolster the domestic defense industry. This increase in spending would also incentivize younger talent to join the defense industry, as more contracts to local companies would bring in more money.
While it might be in the interest of each country to bolster their arsenals, it might also pave the way for greater dangers ahead. International relations students might be familiar with the “security dilemma,” in which one state’s quest for security is perceived by another as a threat.
This is already exemplified most terrifyingly by Russian President Vladimir Putin’s decision to suspend Russia’s participation in the New START nuclear treaty. A renewed arms race, conventional and unconventional, would be a fixture of this new era of great power rivalry.
In the not too distant future — if we have not blown each other up — when the West reaches its current demands, a surplus of conventional weapons might find eager consumers in conflict zones ranging from the jungles of Myanmar to the ruinous desert towns of Yemen. Overcoming weapons shortages might only perpetuate conflict throughout the world, and not least heightening tensions across the Taiwan Strait, but it is the only good policy that states can pursue without taking the risk of trusting adversaries.
Nigel Li resides in Moscow and writes about current affairs on the blog A Singaporean in Moscow. Kai Suherwan, an international relations student in Washington, is a division chief at American University’s Pericles Institute and writes about defense issues in the Indo-Pacific region.
A gap appears to be emerging between Washington’s foreign policy elites and the broader American public on how the United States should respond to China’s rise. From my vantage working at a think tank in Washington, DC, and through regular travel around the United States, I increasingly experience two distinct discussions. This divergence — between America’s elite hawkishness and public caution — may become one of the least appreciated and most consequential external factors influencing Taiwan’s security environment in the years ahead. Within the American policy community, the dominant view of China has grown unmistakably tough. Many members of Congress, as
After declaring Iran’s military “gone,” US President Donald Trump appealed to the UK, France, Japan and South Korea — as well as China, Iran’s strategic partner — to send minesweepers and naval forces to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. When allies balked, the request turned into a warning: NATO would face “a very bad” future if it refused. The prevailing wisdom is that Trump faces a credibility problem: having spent years insulting allies, he finds they would not rally when he needs them. That is true, but superficial, as though a structural collapse could be caused by wounded feelings. Something
Former Taipei mayor and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) founding chairman Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) was sentenced to 17 years in prison on Thursday, making headlines across major media. However, another case linked to the TPP — the indictment of Chinese immigrant Xu Chunying (徐春鶯) for alleged violations of the Anti-Infiltration Act (反滲透法) on Tuesday — has also stirred up heated discussions. Born in Shanghai, Xu became a resident of Taiwan through marriage in 1993. Currently the director of the Taiwan New Immigrant Development Association, she was elected to serve as legislator-at-large for the TPP in 2023, but was later charged with involvement
Out of 64 participating universities in this year’s Stars Program — through which schools directly recommend their top students to universities for admission — only 19 filled their admissions quotas. There were 922 vacancies, down more than 200 from last year; top universities had 37 unfilled places, 40 fewer than last year. The original purpose of the Stars Program was to expand admissions to a wider range of students. However, certain departments at elite universities that failed to meet their admissions quotas are not improving. Vacancies at top universities are linked to students’ program preferences on their applications, but inappropriate admission
RSS