The Force Awakens With US Arms Sales to Taiwan

Published in United Daily News
(Taiwan) on 19 December 2015
by Alexander Huang (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Nathan Hsu. Edited by Paul Lynch.
In 1978, when the People's Republic of China and the United States were negotiating the opening of official diplomatic relations, set for January of the following year, the issue of U.S. arms sales to Taiwan was left up in the air as a matter to be dealt with once relations had been established. Thirty-six years later, the United States has continued to sell arms to Taiwan, but there have been fundamental shifts in the balance of power and bilateral relationships within the larger three-way relationship between the United States, China and Taiwan.

Three months after the United States and China established official relations in 1979, the U.S. Congress passed the Taiwan Relations Act, setting a legal basis for the United States to continue to "make available to Taiwan such defense articles and defense services in such quantity as may be necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capability."

Additionally, in July 1982, one month prior to the signing of the Aug. 17 communiqué by the United States and China, President Ronald Reagan (via his U.S. representative in Taiwan James Lilley) gave Taiwanese President Chiang Ching-kuo "six assurances," promising that the United States had not yet agreed to set a date for ending arms sales to Taiwan, nor agreed to hold prior consultations with Beijing over the issue.

The key component behind these two statements was that "the President and Congress shall determine the nature and quantity of defense articles and services for Taiwan based solely upon their judgment of the needs of Taiwan."

This "determination" naturally left considerable space for flexible interpretation - a fact that the United States, Taiwan and China all understand well.

U.S. arms sales to Taiwan are a political issue. The United States has global and regional security interests and both conflicting and aligned bilateral trade interests with China to consider, as well as having to assess the impact on the peace and stability of Taiwan. Of course, the United States has also attempted to dictate Taiwan's foreign, national defense and cross-strait policies through arms sales, as well as use those weapons and armaments to constrain Taiwanese military strategy.

The arms sales also touch upon business interests. Over many years of U.S. military campaigns abroad, its weapons have all been tested in battle, and as such, enjoy a certain reputation for quality among the militaries of many nations and in the international arms market. Corporations within the U.S. arms industry gain revenue from arms sales, and their business is far-reaching. Taiwan's own national defense-related industries are underdeveloped, and must haggle and make decisions about U.S. arms sales while caught between being alternately derided as spendthrift or unable to close a deal; the pressure upon them being far greater than in any typical business transaction.

Arms purchases and weapons acquisitions are simply a necessity for modernizing national defense capabilities. Taiwan's attempts to procure arms from the United States cannot be offhandedly labeled as paying insurance fees for Taiwanese security, nor can they be broadly generalized as favors to U.S. arms dealers while ignoring the benefits of modernizing the military, developing skills and expanding horizons for military personnel, obtaining much-needed upgrades over old armaments, as well as maintaining a basic defensive war-fighting capability.

However, it has now been four years since the last arms sale to Taiwan, and the [fact that] the U.S. government has delayed its decision for so long is cause for some concern. Meanwhile, the purchase of submarines, which has received a rare consensus throughout the nation and among the three branches of the military, has been postponed indefinitely; one fears that future U.S. decisions on arms sales to Taiwan will only become more difficult. Now, with the Taiwanese presidential election approaching, prospects for cross-strait relations being up in the air, and the state's coffers far from full, we must stay alert and pragmatically reexamine changes in U.S. policy toward China and its evaluations of Chinese military strength, as well as the sum of its calculus on policy toward Taiwan.

For over 30 years, U.S. arms sales to Taiwan has been the most sensitive topic in relations between the United States, China and Taiwan, and regardless of what position either Taiwanese party may take or the amount and type of arms they wish the United States to sell, the maintenance and advancement of Taiwan's national defense forces cannot be cut short. In other words, we can assess these arms deals, but we cannot stymie the modernization of the military, nor see the efforts of those both within and without the government who have tirelessly negotiated with the United States come to naught.

While finding a peaceful resolution to the cross-strait dispute is our goal, strengthening our national defense forces is a necessary guarantor of peace for Taiwan. In the face of the complex international environment and security challenges of the future, we sorely need a debate on the weight and priority that must be apportioned between military purchases from other nations and our military autonomy. We must also minimize missteps in this limited window of opportunity, resolve to strengthen our war-fighting capabilities, and strive to achieve an "awakening of the force" within the Taiwanese military.

To quote a phrase from "Star Wars," as the Jedi knights say to each other: "May the Force be with you, always."

The author is an assistant professor at Tamkang University's Graduate Institute of International Affairs and Strategic Studies and chairman of the Council on Strategic and Wargaming Studies.


美國對台軍售,是一九七八年中華人民共和國與美國談判在隔年元月建立正式外交關係時,一項懸而未決但約定先建交後處理的議題。卅六年後的今天,美國仍然持續對台軍售,只是美中台三組雙邊關係與綜合實力對比,已然有根本性的移轉。
美 國對台軍售的基礎在於一九七九年美中建交三個月,國會即制定通過的「台灣關係法」,為美國持續「使台灣能夠獲得數量足以使其維持足夠的自衛能力的防衛物資 及技術服務」奠立法源;以及美中雙方於一九八二年簽署「八一七公報」之前一個月,雷根總統透過駐台代表李潔明大使,向蔣經國總統提出「六項保證」,承諾美 國並未同意在對台軍售上設定終止期限,也不會與北京事前諮商。
然兩項對台軍售決策依據關鍵,在於「美國總統和國會將依據他們對台灣防衛需要的判斷」。這個「判斷」,自然有相當的操作槓桿與彈性空間,美中台都了然於胸。
美國對台軍售是政治議題。美國有全球與區域安全的利益,有美中戰略對局以及雙邊商貿利益考量,有維繫台海穩定與和平的估算。當然美方也有透過軍售制導我外交、國防、兩岸政策,以及藉武器裝備約束軍事戰略的意圖。
對 台軍售自然涉及商業利益。美軍連年海外征戰,武器裝備均歷經實戰驗證,在多國軍方心目中與國際軍品市場上,享有一定的品質聲譽。美國軍事工業集團透過軍售 獲取營收,生意經普世皆然。我國自身國防工業能力不足,在對美軍購上,自須在被罵凱子與買賣不成之間,反覆拿捏,咬牙決策,壓力遠比一般商業交易為重。
軍 事採購與武器獲得本是國防現代化之必要。我們爭取美國對台軍售,不能膚淺的認定是為台灣安全繳保護費,也不能一概視為圖利美國軍火商,而忽略了武獲本身對 於軍事持續現代化、人員視野開拓與能力建構、更新老舊武器裝備之急迫性,以及維繫基本防衛戰力與不墜之必要性的正面積極意義。
然而眼見距離 上次對台軍售決策,美國政府竟延宕四年而難決,怎不令人寒天冰水?而難得達成全國及三軍共識,一致爭取多年的潛艦購案仍遙遙無期,未來美方對台軍售「判 斷」只怕更難!如今在我國即將進行總統大選、兩岸關係前景難料、社稷府庫貧乏不濟之時,我們確應警覺並務實地的重新檢視美國對中政策思維變化與軍力評估, 以及對台政策的多重算計。
卅餘年來,美國對台軍售始終是美中台最敏感議題,無論朝野國人所持立場觀點,或針對美國同意供售武器品項質量的偏好,然國防武力的維持與精進,不能中斷。換言之,我們可以評價軍售案,但不能遲滯國軍現代化,也不可抹殺政府內外,不斷與美方鏖戰交涉同仁們的努力。
和 平解決兩岸爭端,雖然是我們追求的目標,但強化國防武力絕對是維持台海和平的必要後盾。面對未來複雜的國際環境與安全挑戰,我們亟需辯論對外軍購與國防自 主的比重與優先排序,也要在有限的機遇之窗中,自我要求有智慧地少犯錯誤,有決心地強化戰力,勉力探求國軍的「原力覺醒」。
以電影《星際大戰》來隱喻,套用絕地武士彼此的勉勵:「May the Force be with you, always」。
(作者為淡江大學戰略研究所助理教授,戰略暨兵棋研究協會理事長)
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Topics

Poland: Meloni in the White House. Has Trump Forgotten Poland?*

Germany: US Companies in Tariff Crisis: Planning Impossible, Price Increases Necessary

Japan: US Administration Losing Credibility 3 Months into Policy of Threats

Mauritius: Could Trump Be Leading the World into Recession?

India: World in Flux: India Must See Bigger Trade Picture

Palestine: US vs. Ansarallah: Will Trump Launch a Ground War in Yemen for Israel?

Ukraine: Trump Faces Uneasy Choices on Russia’s War as His ‘Compromise Strategy’ Is Failing

Related Articles

Germany: US Companies in Tariff Crisis: Planning Impossible, Price Increases Necessary

Hong Kong: Can US Tariffs Targeting Hong Kong’s ‘Very Survival’ Really Choke the Life out of It?

Cuba: Trump, Panama and the Canal

China: White House Peddling Snake Oil as Medicine

China: Prime Take: How Do Americans View US Tariff Hikes?