Premier Cho Jung-tai (卓榮泰) at the end of last month approved the allocation of a record NT$647 billion (US$20.42 billion), about 2.5 percent of GDP, for defense spending for fiscal year 2025. The premier also approved a submarine development project to build seven vessels from next year to 2038, which is estimated to cost NT$284 billion.
While the legislature’s Procedure Committee on Tuesday voted against scheduling a debate on the budget, opposition legislators said the reason was due to items omitted by the Cabinet, such as increasing logging compensation for indigenous people. However, the submarine program was not raised as an objection.
Once the budget does reach the Procedure Committee, legislators are expected to hotly debate funding the program, as the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party have signaled significant reservations about supporting the project due to its projected timeline for completion, costs and appropriateness for the nation’s defense strategy.
Opposition lawmakers, such as KMT Legislator Ma Wen-chun (馬文君), have said that while they are willing to support defense spending increases, the submarine program needs further scrutiny. The government is seeking budget approval for seven additional submarines, even though the Hai Kun (海鯤), or “Narwhal,” which is the prototype the other models would be based on, is still undergoing sea tests and would not be delivered until November next year.
However, the government said it is seeking long-term funding for the project to ensure stability so contractors would commit to the project, adding that legislators who are threatening to vote down the program threaten its long-term viability.
The ministry “seeks to provide certainty and signals that the plan would not change regardless of developments at the Legislative Yuan or political circumstances,” said Lin Ying-yu (林穎佑), an assistant professor of international affairs and strategic studies at Tamkang University.
However, legislators such as Ma have also questioned the strategic soundness of committing so much money to procure an outdated, symmetric technology when asymmetric and more agile platforms such as uncrewed systems might be more effective in defending the nation.
This is a view shared by many defense analysts.
Taiwan should learn lessons from Ukraine’s fight against Russia and build an “anti-navy,” Jared McKinney and Reiss Oltman said in a recent opinion article for Nikkei Asia.
Ukraine has succeeded in destroying much of Russia’s vaunted Black Sea fleet “without a submarine and at a cost of much less than US$8 billion” through a “mosquito fleet” of asymmetric platforms, such B-2 drones, Neptune anti-ship missiles, Harpoon anti-ship missiles and uncrewed submarine vehicles, they said.
Taiwan’s money would be better spent in funding thousands of smaller platforms, creating a “decentered force” that could be procured quickly, rather than a handful of vulnerable symmetric platforms that are not scheduled to be ready until the end of the next decade, they added.
However, defense experts such as Institute for National Defense and Security Research fellow Su Tzu-yun (蘇紫雲) still say the submarine program would be an important addition to the nation’s defense capabilities, especially in shutting off the Bashi Strait or Miyako Strait and preventing enemy aircraft carriers from encircling Taiwan in the event of an attack. The submarines could also be used to break through a blockade.
It remains to be seen if the budget is passed or in what form, but so long as criticisms are made in good faith and discussions set aside partisan politics, with the national interest and strategic clarity firmly in mind, debate over the submarine program is an example of a healthy democracy at work.
In the event of a war with China, Taiwan has some surprisingly tough defenses that could make it as difficult to tackle as a porcupine: A shoreline dotted with swamps, rocks and concrete barriers; conscription for all adult men; highways and airports that are built to double as hardened combat facilities. This porcupine has a soft underbelly, though, and the war in Iran is exposing it: energy. About 39,000 ships dock at Taiwan’s ports each year, more than the 30,000 that transit the Strait of Hormuz. About one-fifth of their inbound tonnage is coal, oil, refined fuels and liquefied natural gas (LNG),
To counter the CCP’s escalating threats, Taiwan must build a national consensus and demonstrate the capability and the will to fight. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) often leans on a seductive mantra to soften its threats, such as “Chinese do not kill Chinese.” The slogan is designed to frame territorial conquest (annexation) as a domestic family matter. A look at the historical ledger reveals a different truth. For the CCP, being labeled “family” has never been a guarantee of safety; it has been the primary prerequisite for state-sanctioned slaughter. From the forced starvation of 150,000 civilians at the Siege of Changchun
The two major opposition parties, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), jointly announced on Tuesday last week that former TPP lawmaker Chang Chi-kai (張啟楷) would be their joint candidate for Chiayi mayor, following polling conducted earlier this month. It is the first case of blue-white (KMT-TPP) cooperation in selecting a joint candidate under an agreement signed by their chairpersons last month. KMT and TPP supporters have blamed their 2024 presidential election loss on failing to decide on a joint candidate, which ended in a dramatic breakdown with participants pointing fingers, calling polls unfair, sobbing and walking
In the opening remarks of her meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in the Great Hall of the People in Beijing on Friday, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) framed her visit as a historic occasion. In his own remarks, Xi had also emphasized the history of the relationship between the KMT and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Where they differed was that Cheng’s account, while flawed by its omissions, at least partially corresponded to reality. The meeting was certainly historic, albeit not in the way that Cheng and Xi were signaling, and not from the perspective
RSS