A potential stockpile of munitions the US wants to establish in Taiwan has sparked controversy and concern within the ruling and opposition camps.
Earlier this month, Minister of National Defense Chiu Kuo-cheng (邱國正) confirmed speculation that the US is discussing the creation of such an arms reserve as a contingency for critical situations, not just in the Taiwan Strait, but around the western Pacific region.
Some opposition legislators have opposed the proposal, saying it could turn Taiwan into “East Asia’s ammunition room” and could speed the increase of tensions in the Taiwan Strait, compromising the nation’s safety and pushing Taiwan to the front line of war.
Such opposition is not only unconvincing, but also groundless and misleading.
The administration of US President Joe Biden is pushing to stockpile arms in Taiwan based on a professional security assessment.
Apart from the strategic function of hosting an arms supply in the event of a cross-strait war, such a move would deter the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) military aggression against Taiwan.
By extension, the maneuver would add some measure of security to the Indo-Pacific region.
Washington stores weapons and munitions on the territories of other Asian military allies on the advice of a security assessment — the US, Japan, South Korea and the Philippines — where US troops are stationed.
Although the US and Taiwan are not officially military allies, and US troops are not stationed in the country, the US Congress this year regardless passed a provision in the US National Defense Authorization Act for its military to store a cache of weapons in Taiwan.
The authorization is of great importance, showing that the Taiwan-US military relationship is moving toward a new milestone. Specifically, it shows that if the CCP invades or blockades Taiwan, the US could have difficulty transporting military supplies to Taiwan in a timely manner. Stockpiling munitions in advance of an attack would seemsto be a necessary precautionary measure.
The US has been stockpiling weapons around Asia according to its overall strategic considerations. The arms are not limited to local use, as they could be sent to nearby countries in times of conflict. Crucially, weapons stockpiled in Japan, South Korea or the Philippines could support Taiwan if a cross-strait war were to occur.
Similarly, a war in the Korean Peninsula could benefit from munitions stored in Taiwan. If the US engages in war with North Korea, allies such as South Korea and Japan might participate in the effort against a common enemy. Taiwan’s alliance with the US and the local arms cache would bolster security in Northeast Asia.
Since the invasion of Ukraine, the Taiwan Strait and the Korean Peninsula have been identified and watched as places where a similar conflict might occur.
Whether the CCP invades Taiwan is an issue of concern to the US and its democratic allies, because the nation’s strategic position is crucial to global security interests.
Based on these factors, the US security assessment of Taiwan concluded that a stockpile of munitions in Taiwan is an urgent priority for contingency purposes. This pragmatic approach is likely to deter CCP ambitions around Taiwan, and effectively respond to potential emergencies in the strait.
Yao Chung-yuan is a professor and former deputy director of the Ministry of National Defense’s strategic planning department.
Translated by Eddy Chang
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