Over the past month, multiple public figures in the US have raised calls to arm Taiwanese as a deterrent against China. The idea has not gained realistic traction within Taiwan, although it has garnered some media attention.
The first of these comments came from former US national security adviser Robert O’Brien. Speaking in Taiwan on March 24, he said that having 1 million Taiwanese on “every corner and in every apartment block” armed with AK-47 assault rifles would deter the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) from attempting an invasion.
“Think how rattled it would make the leadership of the CCP if they knew that if they invaded, there would be 1 million Taiwanese with an AK-47,” he said. “Those legitimate concerns around gun ownership concerns or gun safety pale in comparison when we look at the war crimes that have taken place.”
A couple of weeks later on April 14, Republican presidential candidate and entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy made a similar call to raucous cheers at the annual gathering of the US’ National Rifle Association (NRA) in Indianapolis, Indiana.
“You want China not to invade Taiwan? Here is something we can do: The NRA can open its branch next time in Taiwan,” Ramaswamy said. “And you want to stop [Chinese President] Xi Jinping (習近平) from invading Taiwan, put a gun in every Taiwanese household, have them defend themselves. Let’s see what Xi Jinping does then.”
Although O’Brien was more metered in his rhetoric than Ramaswamy — acknowledging a Taiwanese aversion to guns and suggesting public armories or personal safes to store them — both are operating from a culturally specific perspective that says far more about US politics than it does about Taiwan’s defense.
There is a difference between “deterrence through strength,” as many US politicians advocate, and flooding the streets with firearms. As a grouping of islands, Taiwan is more concerned about air and sea attacks than street skirmishes. A full landing by Chinese troops would be exceedingly difficult, and it would come later in a conflict, if at all. Until then, the average citizen could hardly be expected to shoot a missile out of the air with their personal AR-15, nor would Xi feel threatened by them.
What widespread gun ownership would do is make daily life in Taiwan far less safe. The damage wrought by gun violence in the US hardly needs reminding, but bears repeating. Americans own considerably more guns than anyone else in the world, even outnumbering the population, with 120.5 firearms for every 100 people. The US has 18 times more violent gun deaths than other developed countries. With data as clear as this, no wonder other countries have little appetite for guns, Taiwan included.
Although poorly considered, there is a kernel of truth to O’Brien’s and Ramaswamy’s advice. Most Taiwanese men who went through compulsory military service would say they are still not confident in their ability to use a firearm in a combat situation. Luckily, making training more practical is part of ongoing military reforms, with firing exercises now including shooting from different positions and in diverse situations. Most Taiwanese would also agree that better training and communication on what citizens should do in a conflict is sorely needed. While there are certainly more discussions to be had, they require more nuance and situational understanding than just “give them guns.”
Just last week, videos were widely shared online of a 17-year-old shooting up a closed pawn shop beside a bustling street in New Taipei City’s Tucheng District (土城) with a modified submachine gun. The incongruity of the incident was shocking for a country relatively safe from gun violence. If this is the kind of scene that would become more common in an armed society, it is hard to imagine anyone championing the cause.
There is much evidence that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is sending soldiers from the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to support Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — and is learning lessons for a future war against Taiwan. Until now, the CCP has claimed that they have not sent PLA personnel to support Russian aggression. On 18 April, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelinskiy announced that the CCP is supplying war supplies such as gunpowder, artillery, and weapons subcomponents to Russia. When Zelinskiy announced on 9 April that the Ukrainian Army had captured two Chinese nationals fighting with Russians on the front line with details
Within Taiwan’s education system exists a long-standing and deep-rooted culture of falsification. In the past month, a large number of “ghost signatures” — signatures using the names of deceased people — appeared on recall petitions submitted by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) against Democratic Progressive Party legislators Rosalia Wu (吳思瑤) and Wu Pei-yi (吳沛憶). An investigation revealed a high degree of overlap between the deceased signatories and the KMT’s membership roster. It also showed that documents had been forged. However, that culture of cheating and fabrication did not just appear out of thin air — it is linked to the
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), joined by the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), held a protest on Saturday on Ketagalan Boulevard in Taipei. They were essentially standing for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), which is anxious about the mass recall campaign against KMT legislators. President William Lai (賴清德) said that if the opposition parties truly wanted to fight dictatorship, they should do so in Tiananmen Square — and at the very least, refrain from groveling to Chinese officials during their visits to China, alluding to meetings between KMT members and Chinese authorities. Now that China has been defined as a foreign hostile force,
On April 19, former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) gave a public speech, his first in about 17 years. During the address at the Ketagalan Institute in Taipei, Chen’s words were vague and his tone was sour. He said that democracy should not be used as an echo chamber for a single politician, that people must be tolerant of other views, that the president should not act as a dictator and that the judiciary should not get involved in politics. He then went on to say that others with different opinions should not be criticized as “XX fellow travelers,” in reference to