America’s arms sales to Taiwan

Delicate dance

America balances old commitments with new priorities

Sep 24th 2011 | BEIJING AND TAIPEI| from the print edition

A BEIJING newspaper recently declared that America and China “risk misinterpreting each other and forcing an unexpected showdown”. Fearful of this, America has trodden warily in its consideration of how to improve Taiwan’s ageing fleet of fighter jets. Its decision, announced in Washington on September 21st, is a compromise that will avert an immediate showdown but leave Taiwan feeling hardly any more secure.

The deal is to upgrade Taiwan’s 145 F-16 A/B jets at a cost of $5.9 billion. The island will not, at least for the time being, get the 66 new F-16 C/D fighters that it (and some American legislators) had wanted. American officials, anxious to placate China, Taiwan and politicians at home, have been spinning this decision in ways aimed at satisfying all three parties.

To the Chinese, it is being presented as a step short of what officials in Beijing say is a dangerous red line. For the Taiwanese, and American congressmen, the message is that upgraded A/Bs are much the same as C/Ds anyway, and that Taiwan will get more advanced fighters than it had asked for, at a lower cost. (Texans hoping for thousands of extra jobs building new C/Ds at Lockheed Martin’s F-16 production lines in their state will still be disappointed.) Taiwan’s 20-year-old F-16s make up more than a third of its fighters. Some 60 other jets are Vietnam-war era F-5s mainly used for training, and hardly fit for that—another two F-5s crashed on September 13th, the latest in a string of such incidents.

The Chinese have ranted in response, as they do over every American arms sale to Taiwan. But the Americans are hoping that China’s longer-term reaction this time will be somewhat more restrained. A sale of brand new F-16s would have been difficult for the Chinese government to ignore. It has long been peeved by America’s perceived failure to live up to its 1982 commitment to cut weapons sales to the island. Part of that accord required both countries to “create conditions conducive” to achieving a “final settlement” of the arms issue—hardly fulfilled, American officials say, by China’s military build-up on the coast facing Taiwan. After the original sale of F-16s to Taiwan in 1992, a furious China sold medium-range missiles to Pakistan, snubbing American efforts to curb their spread in unstable regions. The sale of $6.4 billion- worth of American arms to Taiwan in January 2010 caused China to cut off military ties for months. Military-to-military relations are likely to be affected again this time but, many analysts say, less severely.

For President Ma Ying-jeou of Taiwan, the outcome will be little surprise and no great blow. In recent years, rapid improvements in China’s fighter fleet have eroded the island’s long-held belief that it could dominate the skies over the Taiwan Strait. Against China’s 300-400 Russian-designed SU-27 and SU-30 fighters, even 66 new F-16s would probably have been too little to reverse the trend. And China’s increasingly accurate missiles (more than 1,000 of them pointing at Taiwan) could damage Taiwan’s air bases, making it difficult for the island even to deploy its fighter jets.

Since taking office in 2008, Mr Ma has worked hard to improve cross-strait ties. China wants him to win another term in the next presidential election in January, but that could constrain China’s options. Global Times, a Beijing newspaper, said on September 17th that China used to seek revenge on America after arms sales to Taiwan. This time, it said, “it should also include Taipei, as Beijing has more leverage on the island”. But the article was referring to the possibility of America selling new F-16s. It is unlikely that the Communist Party would want to restrict the cross-strait economic interaction that Mr Ma has championed, since it believes such links give it increased influence over the island. Punishing Taiwan economically would play into the hands of the opposition Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), which is far more suspiciousof China and the benefits of open trade with it.

The DPP will try to convince voters that America’s rejection of any sale of new F-16s is a sign that Mr Ma’s efforts to strengthen ties with America (as well as with China) have not worked. The announcement comes at an awkward time for Mr Ma, who is in a tight contest in the presidential race against the DPP’s Tsai Ing-wen, a former head of cross-strait affairs, who takes a softer line on China than many in her party. Mr Ma’s prospects were dealt a potential blow on September 20th by the decision of James Soong, a former heavyweight in Mr Ma’s own party, the Kuomintang (KMT), to run against him, potentially splitting the KMT vote.

Some politicians in America are showing their support for Mr Ma. An unidentified senior official in Washington, quoted in the Financial Times, said a few days before the F-16 deal that Ms Tsai’s China policy could threaten cross-strait stability. The motives of this official have been hotly debated in Taiwan, with some suggesting the remarks were aimed at soothing China before the announcement.

America’s coolness towards the previous Taiwanese president, Chen Shui-bian of the DPP (now in jail for corruption), helped to persuade officials in Beijing that despite the arms sales, America was no backer of the DPP’s more militant wing. Encouraged by Mr Chen, DPP hardliners want to move closer towards outright independence. America is prepared to risk approaching red lines on arms sales. But it has little doubt that a formal separation from China by Taiwan could mean war.

from the print edition | Asia

·         Recommend

·         Submit to reddit

·         inShare0

Be the first to comment

Want more? Subscribe to The Economist and get the weeks most relevant news and analysis.

這篇是陪同期Leader回應的（2018,08,05補充）

The United States and Taiwan

Dim sum for China

Why America should not walk away from Taiwan

Sep 24th 2011 | from the print edition

EVER since the Nationalist KMT, the losing side in the Chinese civil war, fled to Taiwan in 1949, China’s Communist rulers have reserved the right to take back by force what they see as a renegade province. When America broke off diplomatic relations with Taiwan in 1979 and recognised China instead, Congress passed a law obliging the administration to “provide Taiwan with arms of a defensive character” to guard against a hostile mainland.

That support seems to be wobbling. This week Barack Obama agreed to refurbish Taiwan’s ageing fleet of F-16 fighter jets (see article), but Chinese objections made the deal less advantageous than it would have been. Meanwhile, a small but influential chorus of academics and policymakers is arguing that these should be America’s last arms sales to Taiwan.

What has changed to justify this shift? Little in Taiwan itself. These days the country is a thriving democracy, worthier of support than the dictatorship it was when American backing was rock solid. Nor does Taiwan look better able to defend itself. The main shift in the military balance across the Taiwan Strait in recent years has been a massive one in China’s favour. More than 1,000 missiles on its eastern seaboard now point at Taiwan, and China’s navy and air force have hugely expanded. Refitting the old F-16s is a token gesture, and China knows it.

Turning a paler shade of green

Two main arguments are made in America to justify abandoning Taiwan. The first is that its ally is now a strategic liability. Under the “blue” (KMT) president, Ma Ying-jeou, cross-straits relations are better than they have ever been. But the “green” opposition is more nationalistic. The fear is that one day Taiwan will make a formal declaration of independence. China says it will respond to that with force. Some inAmerica fret that in backing Taiwan, the United States risks being dragged into conflict, even nuclear war.

How realistic is that fear? Under the previous green president, Chen Shui-bian, Taiwan’s relations with both China and America plumbed new lows. Mr Chen’s successor as leader of the greens, Tsai Ing-wen, is running against Mr Ma in the presidential election in January. But she is a lot more moderate than Mr Chen, and the provocateurs who want to declare formal independence are mainly old and fading. Younger green politicians may be nationalistic, but they seem more pragmatic and understand the imperative of American support.

The second argument is that, even if it never came to war, Taiwan would still be an obstacle to better Sino-American relations. Give China what it wants, runs this line of thinking, and it will co-operate more on a host of issues ranging from nuclear proliferation to climate change. Rather than provoking China by arming Taiwan and patrolling the seas, it would be better to placate it, and throw it the morsel of Taiwan.

But to walk away from Taiwan would in effect mean ceding to China the terms of unification. Over the long run, that will not improve Sino-American relations. Five thousand years of Chinese diplomatic history suggest it is more likely to respect a strong state than a weak and vacillating one. Appeasement would also probably increase China’s appetite for regional domination. Its “core interests” in the area seem to be growing. To Chinese military planners, Taiwan is a potential base from which to push out into the Pacific. At minimum, that would unsettle Japan to the north and the Philippines to the south.

Strong American backing for Taiwan has served the region well so far. It has improved, rather than damaged, cross-straits relations, for Mr Ma would never have felt able to open up to China without it, and it has been the foundation for half a century of peace and security throughout East Asia (see Banyan). To abandon Taiwan now would bring out the worst in China, and lead the region’s democracies to worry that America might be willing to let them swing too. That is why, as long as China insists on the right to use force in Taiwan, America should continue to support the island.

from the print edition | Leaders

·         Recommended

·         4

·         Submit to reddit

·         inShare0

筆者當時回應如下：

Delicate dance

Sep 25th 2011, 16:07

I have read east wind’s comments, not only chatting on air but also continuing saying the followings.

Since these three good essays concerned of Taiwan Issue posted in this week’s issue including “America’s arms sales to Taiwan”, “The United States and Taiwan” and “Where Asia Lefts his Hearts” for at least three days, many comments by from the important to the nobody attacked each other’s points of view very much and funny, as if Taiwanese has limitless life any other race can deprive of. I think that there are two directions which Taiwan Issue includes. The first is the sovereigenty of Taiwan island while the second is Asian geopolitical power’s interaction among the United States’Uncle Sam toy ship, Japan’s kendo-samuri, and China’s Communist-Confucian dragon.

From the first point, we can find out the peace agreement of 1952 San Francisco, one of which said that Taiwan might owe Taiwan to China central government - in this agreement representing Chiang Kai-Shek’s exiled Republic of China still recognized as the only legal centre in China. Then in 1971, the People’s Republic of China was given the China seat in the United Nations, replacing Chiang’s regime. So under international law, Taiwan and Peng-Hu should abide by the lead of Chinese Communist Beijing. That is to say, Taiwan nowadays “must” accept Xi Jin-Ping and Li Ke-Qiang’s rule, One China-Two System, instead of live under dead constitution anymore. But from the contrast point - the indigenous Taiwanese that they never know what the real China is or that they think Taiwan can live with self-esteem only when building “Republic of Taiwan” through referendum. Moreover, Taiwanese media often release their so-called and self-centred “news” too blurrly and impratically. That’s why in Taiwan there are always two groups arguing with each other.

And the second point is that the big power’s expanding or diminishing to affect Taiwan’s future. After Washington D.C. broke the formal relations with Taipei in 1979, Washington has saled weapons to Taipei for fortifying the defensive line on western Pacific Ocean. After the fall of Berlin Wall, this line became one of the strategy for the United States to balance themselves and China or Japan. In the present Asia, the United States makes more and more intelligent use of the foreign means controlling Tokyo and Beijing more and more precisely, letting these two big political capital be limited to the advanced development. These three capial is playing Libra in order to reach new empires’ era. Among this three-authority structure, Taipei is just a chess only to see these three play games very jocularly, just can do “purchase” this action and cannot bargain these weapons. For some time, Washington has taken effect the arms sales to Taiwan almost every year while Beijing always delivered the protest and revenge to Washington.

In this year’s sales case, Ma Ying-Jeou lists the two propose - the upgrade of F-16 A/B and the purchase of F-16 C/D. The advanced F-16 C/D is rejected manly by the Republican assembly. In reality, Taiwan’s air force cannot win over People’s Liberation Army’s after about 2008 not only due to the inability of Ma but also the rapid development of PLA even if Taipei gets these 66 F-16C/D or double of these which can load the threatened nuclear weapon rather than F-16 A/B. According to the Asian Wall Street Journal on Sep.21, 2011, the compare in navy and air force between Taiwan and mainland China indicates that Taiwan would be easily attacked and can hold the control no more than one week. PLA’s SU series is more active than F-16 A/B and PLA is turning the original thought of using missiles first to the order of battleship such as newly-joined carrier. Taiwan, called as the unsinkable carrier of the United States, is gradually losing yesterday’s glory in Pacific Ocean. Unlike Ma Ying-Jeou who only can jog and show his faked muscle to Taiwan, the former President Chen Shui-Bian had the ability to order these pilots directly and just needed one thousand air forces personel to maintain the defense of Taiwan, as we see the dry-run demanded by the U.S. former President George W. Bush for anti-terrorism in 2003’s Tainan.

    Recommended

    3

    Report

    Permalink

這篇在寫的時候，馬吳配和英嘉配：馬英九搭檔吳敦義對上蔡英文搭配蘇嘉全，已經激烈地進行之中，當期經濟學人雜誌及網站的其它官方部落格新聞貼了共三篇提及馬英九仍然認為雖然有偏一個中國的九二共識，體制上「我們不得不還是要向美國購買軍事武器，以擁有自己的國防武力」，這個預算得歐巴馬政府及美國當時國會的通過，引起討論的如可搭載核彈頭的F-16A/B有升級在台灣內部偏無爭議而C/D是否也要一併提出有很大的問題，買了還是些許有和北京敵對的意思，不過如此一來會使馬的連任偏向符合國內憲法。這讓筆者拿起蘇愷來比試一番。其實就政治立場而言，若說要進行內政上的合併準備，就是不會再有購買武器的清單，頂多要求以和平進程方式及注意台灣當地民眾與內地一般民眾公民權平等無異。此次馬的選舉考慮就個人來說很聰明，又得到了仍然以中華民國國民為正統自居的支持，後來險勝。馬同時打的這個美中台三方角力戲佔了一次便宜，而蔡英文的柔性訴求，小英便當，台三線戀戀之旅及派系統合均告失敗。可見雖然前幾年經濟不穩定，物價開始飛漲，而ECFA有些許開放及兩岸觀光為主的大幅度民商往來，台灣民眾在這次2012選舉中偏不會在意低度成長的隱憂，選民情緒化的表現減損民主度; 其實投給蔡英文更差，蔡並沒有作多大政策上的重點突破，偏以廣告包裝方式及稍柔的台灣主體意識，就選舉技術來說相形見絀許多。蔡均不及國民黨馬英九的個人性格魅力和當年民進黨陳水扁的口才與邏輯。

以後提及類似的主題時，會長話短說，誇飾詞和文詞雕飾像「United States’Uncle Sam toy ship, Japan’s kendo-samuri, and China’s Communist-Confucian dragon」要減少。