President William Lai (賴清德) on Wednesday last week announced a plan to invest an additional NT$1.25 trillion (US$39.8 billion) in military spending to procure advanced defense systems over the next eight years, and outlined two major plans and concrete steps to defend democratic Taiwan in the face of China’s intensifying threat.
While Lai’s plans for boosting the country’s national security have been praised by many US lawmakers, former defense officials, academics and the American Institute in Taiwan, the US’ de facto embassy in Taiwan, they were not equally welcomed by all Taiwanese, particularly among the opposition parties.
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) on the same day said Lai was “playing with fire” by pledging to increase Taiwan’s defense budget, and that his plans are “an investment in war” that would transform Taiwan into an arms factory, as she urged him to refrain from becoming a “troublemaker.”
Cheng’s “playing with fire” rhetoric echoed a phrase Beijing frequently uses to criticize foreign policies it deems to be provocative to China, and most often on Lai, who it has labeled a “separatist” pushing for “Taiwan independence.”
The KMT said that the proposed special defense spending, alongside other special budgets, would exceed the nation’s debt ceiling, leaving a huge debt to future generations, and that it would crowd out spending on social welfare, education and infrastructure.
The Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), which has sided with the KMT on almost all policies and bills since lawmakers took office in February last year and vowed to collaborate in future elections, was a bit softer in its criticism, saying that it would strictly review defense spending.
The KMT and the TPP blasted Lai for what they called “instilling fear” in the civilian population by saying that Beijing has a goal of reaching the military capability to take Taiwan by 2027.
They demanded that Lai explain how he received intelligence about Beijing’s plans for 2027 and expressed their speculations that Lai’s remark was just meant to trigger a “sense of national subjugation” among the public for the ruling Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) political gain, especially in the upcoming elections.
When the Ministry of National Defense published and distributed a printed version of its updated crisis response guidebook titled In Case of Crisis: Taiwan’s National Public Safety Guide early last month, the KMT criticized the government as “wasting taxpayers’ money” and “inciting panic” among the people.
It is disturbing to see how the KMT, the largest opposition party, seems to be deliberately trying to close the public off from understanding geopolitical reality.
Global military expenditure last year increased by 9.4 percent from 2023, the steepest year-on-year rise since the end of the Cold War, data from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute showed. Military spending in Europe rose by 17 percent, and several countries in Central and Western Europe saw unprecedented rises as they implemented new spending pledges and large-scale procurement plans, prompted by the war in Ukraine.
In East Asia, in response to China’s three decades of military expenditure growth, which doubled in the past decade, with an average annual growth rate of about 7.5 percent, and intensified gray zone activities, its neighboring countries, including Japan and India, accelerated their military build-up as they feel a threat to their national security.
Moreover, the KMT at times even seems to be trying to “deceive” the public by ignoring and refusing to condemn China’s widespread and systemic violations of human rights, its provocative actions that threaten stability in the Indo-Pacific region, not just against Taiwan, and its help in sustaining Russia’s war in Ukraine.
The KMT fundamentally rejects the idea of communicating evidence-based information of what Taiwan is facing with the public, and refuses to discuss the nation’s practical preparedness (such as critical infrastructure protection, stockpiling emergency supplies and evacuation training) to enhance societal resilience for worst-case scenarios, which are not limited to war, but include earthquakes or climate disasters as well.
There is no doubt that nobody wants a war, nor does anyone want to see a global arms race with trade-offs across various sectors, but “wishful thinking” and “absolute pacifism” could be dangerous. Not building up a nation’s self-defense capabilities and merely calling for “peace” does not guarantee aggressors would leave it alone, especially when facing a country that has repeatedly said it “absolutely will not” rule out using force to bring Taiwan under its control.
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
The Hong Kong government on Monday gazetted sweeping amendments to the implementation rules of Article 43 of its National Security Law. There was no legislative debate, no public consultation and no transition period. By the time the ink dried on the gazette, the new powers were already in force. This move effectively bypassed Hong Kong’s Legislative Council. The rules were enacted by the Hong Kong chief executive, in conjunction with the Committee for Safeguarding National Security — a body shielded from judicial review and accountable only to Beijing. What is presented as “procedural refinement” is, in substance, a shift away from
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
The shifting geopolitical tectonic plates of this year have placed Beijing in a profound strategic dilemma. As Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) prepares for a high-stakes summit with US President Donald Trump, the traditional power dynamics of the China-Japan-US triangle have been destabilized by the diplomatic success of Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi in Washington. For the Chinese leadership, the anxiety is two-fold: There is a visceral fear of being encircled by a hardened security alliance, and a secondary risk of being left in a vulnerable position by a transactional deal between Washington and Tokyo that might inadvertently empower Japan
RSS