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.
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
In the 2022 book Danger Zone: The Coming Conflict with China, academics Hal Brands and Michael Beckley warned, against conventional wisdom, that it was not a rising China that the US and its allies had to fear, but a declining China. This is because “peaking powers” — nations at the peak of their relative power and staring over the precipice of decline — are particularly dangerous, as they might believe they only have a narrow window of opportunity to grab what they can before decline sets in, they said. The tailwinds that propelled China’s spectacular economic rise over the past