Taiwan forced to square the circle on national defense

Defense cuts. Procurement sources drying up. A modernizing Chinese military. Can Taiwan meet its defense needs under the prevailing system?

Earlier this month, the Ministry of National Defense announced plans to cut troop levels by 9,200 in light of “warmer” ties with China, saying the measure would not jeopardize national defense because Taiwan was seeking “more advanced” and “high-tech” weapons.

However, with five consecutive years of shrinking defense budgets, more than US$13 billion in arms purchases still in the pipeline, a modernizing Chinese military and a US administration that appears increasingly reluctant to provide Taiwan with the weapons it needs, is the ministry’s optimism realistic or merely a smokescreen?

When asked to comment on the state of Taiwan’s defenses and how the nation could do more with a limited budget, in several instances, several defense experts made the case against high-profile expensive platforms in favor of smaller, relatively inexpensive and in many cases domestically produced asymmetrical options.

“Taiwan is on a peacetime footing budget-wise, even as its strategic plight worsens,” said James Holmes, associate professor of strategy at the US Naval War College and co-author of Red Star Over the Pacific.

“Three percent of GDP is not a serious budget for a nation facing mortal peril,” Holmes said of the goal set by President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), which has not been reached as the level of spending has dropped since Ma came into office in 2008, settling at about 2.2 percent of GDP for the current financial year.

In Holmes’ view, the Ma administration is allowing numbers to drive strategy and determined structure.

“The notion of substituting technology for large numbers of bodies is a seductive one, but is Taipei just trying to justify predetermined budget cuts or has it developed a strategy of island defense that can be executed with far fewer troops?” he asked.

My analysis piece, published today in the Taipei Times, continues here with more comments by Minnick, Holmes, Cliff, Fisher and Murray.

PRC missile could render PAC-3s obsolete

A new type of ballistic missile, added to intelligence on short-range missiles with submunitions, does not bode well for Taiwan’s even most advanced missile interceptor

A new longer-range ballistic missile allegedly deployed by China and the introduction of multiple warhead capabilities could render obsolete Taiwan’s most advanced missile interceptors, analysts said yesterday.

National Security Bureau (NSB) Director Tsai Der-sheng (蔡得勝) told the legislature on Wednesday that China had recently begun deploying Dong Feng-16 (DF-16, 東風16) ballistic missiles with a range of between 800km and 1,000km, and that some were targeting Taiwan.

One US expert with years of experience monitoring developments in China’s missile arsenal told the Taipei Times that while literature on the DF-16 was scarce, the fact that a different designation had been referenced implied that the system was sufficiently different from existing missiles.

Another, Rick Fisher, a senior fellow at the International Assessment and Strategy Center in Washington, said chances the DF-16 is the “real deal” were high, adding that the new system would likely incorporate advances in solid rocket fuel, guidance and warhead design. He admitted this was the first time he had seen references to the DF-16 designation.

Alarmingly, the faster re-entry of a longer-range ballistic missile such as the DF-16 would greatly reduce the effectiveness of Taiwan’s PAC-3 missile interceptors that were acquired at great cost from the US and which are still in the process of being deployed.

My article, published today in the Taipei Times, continues here.

Experts question Wu’s nuclear facts

AEC and Taipower said Wu Den-yih’s assurances about the safety of Taiwan’s nuclear power plants were mistaken. However, few officials dared to go on the record contradicting him

Officials yesterday were at a loss to explain a mix-up by Premier Wu Den-yih (吳敦義), who told the legislature on Tuesday that the nation’s three operational nuclear plants were “much safer” than those in Japan because they were “fourth generation” — something both Taiwan Power Co (Taipower) and the Atomic Energy Council (AEC) have said is wrong.

“The Fukushima Dai-ichi [-nuclear power] plant was equipped with a third-generation [reactor], while Taiwan’s nuclear power plants operate fourth-generation ones,” Wu told the legislature, claiming that this alone made Taiwan’s plants safer.

However, as the Taipei Times reported yesterday, fourth-generation reactors are not expected to be commercially viable for another two decades and an investigation has shown that the types of -reactors used at the Japanese plant are very similar to those in Taiwan.

Asked for comment on the discrepancy, a senior Government Information Office official who was not authorized to speak to the media said: “Wu could have made a mistake,” referring further inquiries to the AEC.

For its part, the council said Wu was either misinformed or that information was “lost in translation.”

“Perhaps it is just a misunderstanding. Perhaps the premier was referring to the boiling water reactor types and mistook them for the generation variants,” said Chang Shin (張欣), an official at the council’s Department of Nuclear Regulation.

My article with Vincent Y. Chao, published today in the Taipei Times, continues here, with lots more information on why the premier was wrong.

Interestingly, though I made sure the details of where Wu was wrong were passed on to Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislators, they have yet to corner Wu and force him to explain why he provided the misleading information to the legislature, and ultimately to the public. As the main opposition party, the DPP should be relentless when government officials mislead the public on issues of fundamental importance.

Based on the AEC’s “official” explanation, Wu could have mistaken BWR-3 (at Fukushima) and BWR-4 (at Taiwan’s No. 1 plant) as meaning “third” and “fourth” generation, but this makes no sense, as the reactor at the No. 2 (Kuosheng) plant is a BWR-6, which by that logic would have led Wu to claim that Taiwan had “sixth-generation” reactors. Furthermore, what would he have made of the PWR and ABWR reactors at the No. 3 and No. 4 plants, which have no number after the acronym. Again, by that logic, the latter two plants would be “no-generation,” which makes no sense at all.

Premier Wu wrong/lies about nuclear reactors [UPDATED]

The premier told the legislature that nuclear power plants in Taiwan were safer than the one that risks blowing up in Japan, but there’s a problem with one key aspect of his argument — it’s based on wrong information

My investigation in May and June last for a story on how management at the No. 2 nuclear power plant (Kuosheng) in Wanli (萬里), New Taipei City, was treating its suppression pool forced me to do a lot of reading about nuclear safety, types of reactors and the state of affairs in Taiwan all matters of nuclear energy.

Little wonder, then, that as I was going through a story filed by one of my reporters earlier today on comments by Premier Wu Den-yih (吳敦義) in the legislature, I immediately sensed something was wrong with his words of comfort and optimistic views of how Taiwan would fare following a calamity of the type that hit Japan last Friday.

As deputy news chief, it was therefore my responsibility to get back to my reporter and make sure she had all her facts right. After she assured me that she did, I asked her to contact nuclear authorities to determine whether the premier was misinformed or lying to us. I still don’t know which one it was, but one thing is certain: Wu’s assurances were based on the wrong information, information that, furthermore, has already found its way into Chinese-language media.

Today’s Taipei Times has full coverage of Wu’s comments in the legislature, as well as my part on where he was wrong and therefore risked misleading the public. What follows is a more detailed take on the part of the article that I wrote:

Asked in the legislature to comment on the safety of the three nuclear power plants in operation — the No. 1 (Chinshan) and No. 2 (Kuosheng) plants in New Taipei City and No. 3 (Maanshan) in Pingtung County — Wu said all three were “much safer” than Fukushima Dai-ichi, which has been the object of international concern following a series of explosions and a possible meltdown.

Asked by Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator John Chiang (蔣孝嚴) whether the three nuclear plants were earthquake-resistant, Wu said: “I can not be so sure, as a country like Japan, which is more advanced than us, failed to avert this disaster.”

“However, the Fukushima plant was equipped with a third-generation [reactor] while Taiwan’s nuclear power plants operate fourth-generation [sic] ones,” Wu said. Chinese-language media have already made references to the presence of “fourth-generation” reactors in Taiwan, and that’s what made me sit up. According to the literature on nuclear energy, fourth-generation reactors are still in the research phase and will not be commercially operational for another two decades or so (2030, by some estimates). Only the Very High Temperature Reactor (VHTR), also known as the Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP), will be launched prior to 2030, and still, it is not expected to be completed before 2021. There are reactors known as Gen-III+ and Gen-III++, but those are not used in Taiwan either.

I then asked my reporter to contact Taipower Corp, which operates nuclear plants in Taiwan. Their chief of public relations confirmed that the premier was wrong and that there was no fourth-generation nuclear reactor in Taiwan. In fact, there isn’t even a third-generation reactor in operation.

In fact, the Atomic Energy Council Web site tells us that the No. 1 power plant uses a BWR-4 (boiling water, second-generation) reactor; the No. 2 plant a BWR-6 (second-generation) reactor; the No. 3 a PWR (pressurized water, second-generation) reactor; and the No. 4 (Lungmen) will use an ABWR (advanced boiling water, third-generation) reactor. [This article initially referred to the BWR-6 and and PWR as third-generation, but subsequent information obtained from the AEC confirms that they are still second-generation variants, as are the reactors at Fukushima Dai-ichi.]


Units 2, 3, 4, and 5 at Fukushima Dai-ichi all have BWR-4 reactors similar to that at the No. 1 plant in Taiwan, though their manufacturers differ (GE, Toshiba, Hitachi and Toshiba respectively in Japan, and Westinghouse in Taiwan). The partial core metldown at Unit 2 of the Three Mile Island Nuclear Station in Pennsylvania on March 28, 1979, involved a PWR. Chernobyl used a different type of reactor known as RMBK (the Russian acronym for high-power channel-type reactor).

In other words, none of Taiwan’s reactors are “much safer” and Wu is either lying through his teeth to downplay public anxieties, or someone’s feeding him the wrong information. This, my friends, is what investigative journalism is all about: questioning assumptions and not simply regurgitating whatever the authorities tell us — especially when the Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) administration is concerned.

Time to end silly internal divisions

Even in times of crisis, Japanese political parties can barely summon the kind of bipartisan unity needed to address the situation. There are lessons for Taiwan in this

No sooner had Japan’s opposition parties proffered their unity in the midst of the national emergency following last week’s powerful earthquake than the same players were resuming the finger pointing and sniping of old, nipping cheers over bipartisan cooperation in the bud and showing why Japan and other regional democracies have been at a standstill.

Initially there was reason for optimism that the political landscape could have been fundamentally altered after the magnitude of the catastrophe became more obvious to all. Amid what Tokyo has called the worst calamity to hit the nation since World War II, the Democratic Party of Japan and its main rival, the Liberal Democratic Party, decided to put differences aside and agreed to discuss an emergency tax increase to fund disaster relief.

As related bills must be passed by April 1 to ensure the swift implementation of the massive relief package that will be required for reconstruction, such unity was essential, and on Sunday Japan’s second-largest opposition party, the New Komeito, said it was also willing to cooperate.

This contrasted sharply with the situation on Friday, where hours before the magnitude 8.9 earthquake hit off the east coast of Japan, sparking a major tsunami, both opposition parties were calling for the resignation of Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan, seen as deeply unpopular and accused of illegally receiving campaign funds.

My editorial, published today in the Taipei Times, continues here.

UPDATE:

Sadly, it looks like Democratic Progressive Party legislators couldn’t help it and now have accused President Ma Ying-jeou of going to a hot spring on the night of the catastrophic earthquake in Japan. Echoes of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators berating Kaohsiung Mayor Chen Chu over her afternoon nap in the midst of Typhoon Fanapi last year.

Of course, this silly finger-pointing — the very target of my editorial above — pales in comparison to comments by Chao Chih-hsun (趙志勳), office director to KMT Legislator Huang Chao-shun (黃昭順), at the weekend, who wrote on Facebook that he would “even like to attack Tokyo and kill tens of millions of people” and that Japan should “return the Diaoyutai Islands (釣魚台), then we will consider giving aid … Let the bastards Hui [former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝)] and Ling [Japan-based Taiwan independence advocate Alice King (金美齡)] pay; it’s [Japan] their motherland.”

Politics, politics … whether the poison finds its source in short-term gain or the nefarious wells of hatred, they all too often smother humanity and compassion.

A post-US Pacific?

Australian magazine The Diplomat asked me earlier this week to comment on a recent special commentary by Rupert Hammond-Chambers, President of the US-Taiwan Business Trade Council, on the future of US security guarantees to Taiwan and the North American giant’s involvement in East Asia. Jason Miks’ account of our exchange is available here.

US academic draws heavy fire for article

Two assistant professors  at the US Naval War College and the president of the US-Taiwan Business Council added their voices to the chorus of criticism leveled at a US academic who argues the US should abandon Taiwan

Criticism of an article by George Washington University professor Charles Glaser in the current issue of Foreign Affairs magazine was evident yesterday, as rebuttals to his article were published in two influential publications.

Writing in The Diplomat, James Holmes and Toshi Yoshihara, both associate professors of strategy at the US Naval War College, said that ceding territory to land-hungry powers was a “morally bankrupt enterprise” that can only represent a temporary fix.

In an article titled “Will China’s Rise Lead to War? Why Realism Does Not Mean Pessimism,” Glaser said that to avoid a costly arms race between the US and China and to ensure Beijing’s cooperation on a number of disputes in Asia, Washington should accommodate Beijing by backing away from its security commitment to Taiwan.

Glaser further said that when a power has “limited territorial goals,” meeting those demands might not lead to further demands, but rather reduced tensions.

“But buying peace with land has been tried many times before — with ephemeral results at best,” Holmes and Yoshihara wrote of Glaser’s grand bargain in their article “Getting Real About Taiwan.”

Glaser’s position is based on the view that “structural forces” in the Asia-Pacific region are limiting friction between major powers — in this case, the US, China, Japan and India. As such, Washington and Beijing should be in a position to reach arrangements through mutual concessions, a position the authors appear to agree on.

My article, published today in the Taipei Times, continues here, with more by Holmes and Yoshihara (who grew up in Taipei) and Rupert Hammond-Chambers in the Wall Street Journal.

Tar and feathers on Ma for killings

The Ma administration claims it cannot abolish the death penalty because of public calls to address criminality. However, study after study has shown that no correlation exists between capital punishment and the incidence of violent crime. Why retain it?

For an administration that has bought into the concept of “soft power,” President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) Cabinet shot itself in the foot on Friday by executing five death-row inmates, bringing the number of state executions in the past year to nine.

The government defended its action by repeating its claim that while it hopes to eventually abolish the death penalty, public sentiment favors retaining it. In other words, the administration is not guilty. Its hands were tied and, champion of democracy that it is, it had no choice but to listen to the public, even if it meant joining the ranks of the few “rogue” states that continue to defy the global trend toward abolition of capital punishment.

This rationalization contrasts sharply with other instances where, despite substantial public opposition, the Ma administration forged ahead with controversial policies, saying it knew what was in the best interest of the public. Therefore, what we are dealing with is not so much a democratic government, but one that uses democratic tools very selectively and only when it is convenient to do so.

Fully aware of opposition at home and of the sensitive timing of the executions — coming little more than a month after an investigation showed that an airman had been wrongfully convicted and put to death in 1997 — the administration also proceeded with the executions knowing that it would spark angry reactions among its allies.

My editorial, published today in the Taipei Times, continnues here.

Realism does not mean inhumanity

An article that proposes ceding Taiwan to China for the purpose of securing Beijing’s acquiescence on other contentious matters highlights the author’s deeply flawed understanding of Taiwan, China and East Asia — and in the process dehumanizes the 23 million people who inhabit democratic Taiwan

As the world adjusts to the rise of China, a growing number of political commentators have proposed that to avoid an arms race with Beijing and to secure its cooperation on various challenges, the US should “cede” Taiwan by revising its long--standing security commitment.

Most recently, Charles Glaser, writing in the establishment Foreign Affairs, made such a case, approaching the matter from what he described as a realist, albeit not pessimistic, perspective.

The gist of his argument stems from two assumptions. First is the belief that ongoing improvements in China’s military capabilities could make it likelier to escalate in a conflict scenario, which, if it were to get out of hand, could turn nuclear. Added to this is the belief that any attempt by the US to ensure a balance of power over Taiwan would spark an arms race.

The second assumption is that the neutralization of Taiwan (to which we will turn later) would open the door for Chinese cooperation on other difficult matters, such as the South and East China seas and other territorial disputes.

At the intersection of those assumptions lies the conclusion that it would be in the US’ best interest — both in terms of avoiding armed conflict with China and ensuring its cooperation on regional and global matters — to negate the point of contention that, according to Glaser’s view, creates -distortions in the relationship. In other words, Taiwan.

My op-ed, published today in the Taipei Times, continues here.

US commitment deteriorating: report

The Obama administration so far has only notified weapons systems that addressed the threat Taiwan was facing back in April 2001, with little sign that greater commitment is coming

US policy on Taiwan under US President Barack Obama has taken a “hazardous” turn that appears to be moving toward support for Beijing’s interpretation of its core interests, the US-Taiwan Business Council said in a special commentary released on Monday.

The Obama administration appears to be “telegraphing its willingness to moderate legacy Taiwan support and cede more control to China in the dynamics and direction of cross-strait affairs,” said the report, titled The American Defense Commitment to Taiwan Continues to Deteriorate.

For the first time in about a decade, the US has the opportunity to reassess Taiwan’s defense requirements and future US security support for its longtime ally, the commentary said.

Although last year “started off strong on Taiwan defense issues,” with the Jan. 29 notification to Congress of five separate arms sales programs worth US$6.4 billion, the programs “were not intrinsically controversial,” since the great bulk of the money involved UH-60 Black Hawk utility helicopters and PAC-III missile defense batteries. Those items were leftovers from former US president George W. Bush’s April 2001 arms package, it said.

Another notification in August involved a small US$250 million package to upgrade radars on Taiwan’s Indigenous Defense Fighter — again a non-controversial program.

“On both occasions the arms sales notified were originally intended to address the military threat posed by China dating back before April 2001,” the report said.

My article, published today in the Taipei Times, continues here.

TFCC appalled by treatment of foreign journalists in China

As China continues its crackdown on foreign reporters who are trying to do their job, the Taiwan Foreign Correspondents Club called Beijing to account

The Taiwan Foreign Correspondents Club (TFCC) yesterday said it was “concerned” and “appalled” by the violent measures used by the Chinese security apparatus against foreign journalists reporting planned anti-government protests in Beijing at the weekend.

Amid sporadic calls for political reform throughout China inspired by the “Jasmine Revolution” in Tunisia and public revolts across northern Africa and parts of the Middle East, Beijing in the past week launched a major security clampdown on a number of cities.

“At least one video journalist who was trying to do his job on Sunday was beaten by plainclothes policemen who confiscated his camera and videotape,” the TFCC wrote. “More than a dozen journalists in the area had problems, including being manhandled, pushed, detained and delayed by uniformed police and others.”

Among them were several Taiwanese and Hong Kong journalists, who were also detained, it said. The Liberty Times reported on Monday that two Taiwanese reporters with SET TV were taken away by police for questioning, one of whom, a photographer, had to by dragged by policemen.

“The TFCC, on behalf of its members, condemns such violence and calls on the Beijing government to ensure the safety of all reporters and their staff in China,” the release said. “We call on the Taiwan government and ... [P]resident [Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九)] to denounce such attacks.”

“We note with relief that journalists in Taiwan are now generally not subject to government interference when covering protests, such as the most recent ones on February 28 [the 64th anniversary of the 228 Incident],” it said.

Abandon Taiwan: US academic

Sounding very much like Henry Kissinger back in the 1970s, Charles Glaser argues that the US should be willing to sacrifice Taiwan for the sake of better relations with China

An article in the current issue of the influential Foreign Affairs magazine argues that to avoid military competition between the US and a rising China, Washington should consider making concessions to Beijing, including the possibility of backing away from its commitment to Taiwan.

In the article, titled “Will China’s Rise Lead to War? Why Realism Does Not Mean Pessimism,” Charles Glaser, a professor of political science and international affairs and director of the Institute for Security and Conflict Studies at George Washington University’s Elliott School of International Affairs, argues that the rise of China will be “the most important international relations story of the twenty-first century.”

Glaser’s article makes the case for a “nuanced version of realism” that would avoid unnecessary competition — and perhaps armed conflict — between the US and China.

While the prospects of avoiding “intense military competition and war” between the US and China may be od, China’s rise will nevertheless require some changes in US policy, he argues. Such adjustments, he claims, should include backing away from security commitments to Taiwan.

My article, published today in the Taipei Times, continues here.

Great cross-strait misconceptions

The longer Taiwanese and Chinese who support cross-strait economic liberalization continue to talk past each other, the more painful it will be when both realize that their expectations cannot be met

For all its vaunted benefits, the growing economic relationship across the Taiwan Strait seems to be premised on false assumptions that could eventually derail dialogue and engender dangerous frustrations.

On one side is China, which has made no secret of its belief that increasing the flow of economic interaction and investment across the Strait would, according to some law of economic determinism, win the hearts and minds of Taiwanese and reconcile them to the idea of unification.

Despite claims by President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration that cross-strait economic integration does not undermine Taiwan’s sovereignty, Beijing has consistently reminded the world that the process itself is a means to bring about unification.

Whether Ma and his officials believe their own claims or are too naive to see through Zhongnanhai’s strategy is beside the point, as in Beijing’s eyes the coveted end goal remains the same, regardless of Taipei’s complicity.

In Taiwan, many supporters of greater economic activity across the Strait, from farmers to leaders of large corporations, have also approached the process from the wrong angle.

My editorial, published today in the Taipei Times, continues here.

RFA on edge as VOA heads for the block

While all the attention has focused on the likely cuts at the VOA Chinese service, Radio Free Asia, which is expected to fill the vacuum left by its sister service, faces cuts of its own, albeit hidden ones

Proposed budget cuts at Voice of America (VOA), which could spell the end of all its Mandarin shortwave broadcasts and cost dozens of jobs, are leaving Radio Free Asia (RFA), the US’ other main broadcaster to China, hoping for the best.

Earlier this month, the US’ Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) — which is responsible for all US government or government-sponsored, non-military international broadcasting — announced a US$8 million restructuring plan for VOA, a move that, if approved by Congress, would see the elimination on Oct. 1 of traditional radio and TV broadcasting in Mandarin — and an end to all Cantonese operations — by the almost seven-decades-old broadcaster.

As VOA employees reel at the news, the Taipei Times asked RFA, another US broadcaster with a long history of supporting freedom and human rights in China, to share its views on those -developments and what they mean for the future of broadcasting into China.

“The proposed cuts send the message that VOA is changing its strategic approach to Chinese distribution in a challenging economic environment,” RFA president Libby Liu said in an interview from Washington on Wednesday. “If there was an unlimited budget, I’m sure VOA and RFA would be increasing rather than reducing the resources we dedicate to bringing accurate news and information to those who seek it in all of our markets — including China.”

Asked about the vacuum that would be created if the cuts at VOA were approved by Congress, Liu said RFA would be in a position to pick up some of the responsibilities.

“The cuts of VOA, if approved, will create an opportunity for RFA to move our shortwave broadcast hours to higher listening hours, which is what is proposed in the FY [fiscal year] 2012 president’s budget submission” by the BBG, she said.

However, the budget proposal does not altogether spare RFA, which would face constraints of its own.

“Even as RFA could benefit by moving to better listening hours, the RFA Mandarin effort would sustain significant reductions in both broadcast hours and frequencies,” Liu said.

My article, published today in the Taipei Times, continues here.

Megaports Initiative installations completed at Kaohsiung Harbor

More than 90 percent of global commerce is transported through the maritime shipping network via cargo containers, with about 500 million twenty-foot-equivalent units transiting the globe annually

The American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) yesterday announced that the installation of equipment to detect radiation at Kaohsiung Harbor had been completed, bringing Taiwan online as part of global efforts to combat the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

Under the auspices of the US Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Safety Administration (NNSA), the Second Line of Defense Megaports Initiative provides radiation detection equipment and training at major ports worldwide to strengthen the capability of the international community to detect and interdict trafficking in nuclear material through maritime shipping.

Better known by its shorter name, the Megaports Initiative equips ports with radiation portal monitors for the detection of radiation, handheld devices to identify radioactive isotope, optical character recognition technology to identify containers, communications equipment to send data to a central alarm station, as well as training and technical support.

The Megaports Initiative, which brings in customs, law enforcement, port authorities, terminal operators and other government agencies, is now operational in 34 ports worldwide, with work under way at 18 other ports in Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean, Europe, the Middle East and Africa. The Megaports Initiative seeks to equip 100 seaports with radiation detection systems by 2016, scanning about 50 percent of global maritime containerized cargo and more than 80 percent of US-bound container traffic.

My article, published today in the Taipei Times, continues here.

Taiwan shakes hands with the devil

Whatever approach is taken, helping democratize China cannot be accomplished by ignoring the transgressions of the Chinese Communist Party

President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) has often said that rapprochement with Beijing would, over time, have a salutary effect on the political situation in China, a theory predicated on the assumption that democracy can be transferred by osmosis.

Although this strategy is worth considering, it also imposes responsibilities on the actor seeking to change the other party. Among them is the need to use carrots and sticks in equal measure.

It is one thing for countries to look the other way when all they seek are lucrative deals with China. Reprehensible as this may be, a narrow, self--interest-first approach to China dovetails perfectly with Beijing’s loathing for foreign meddling in its domestic affairs. In most cases, both parties are perfectly happy to operate under this arrangement.

For some years now, academics and government officials have claimed that market capitalism would force China to democratize, even if this only occurred over time.

However, it is becoming increasingly apparent that the Chinese Communist Party has managed to embrace capitalism while keeping its hand firmly on the levers of power. What this means, therefore, is that democratizing requires a more sustained and multifaceted approach.

The Ma administration’s strategy could be just that, as it presumes to be in a position to “improve” China. In other words, while other governments can easily separate business from politics, Ma’s strategy of engagement calls, in theory, for a more refined approach.

However, Taipei has so far failed to comment on Beijing’s poor human rights record, with engagement continuing apace even when China broke the tacit rules that underpin Ma’s strategy.

My editorial, published today in the Taipei Times, continues here.

VOA Chinese service employees furious as end looms

The atmosphere at the VOA Chinese service was not altogether positive prior to the announcement earlier this month of the likely cessation of shortwave broadcasts on Oct. 1. Sources told the Taipei Times that management would on occasion put pressure on show hosts to be more 'neutral' vis-a-vis China

“There’s a lot of anger,” said an employee at the Voice of America (VOA) Chinese service who, like dozens of others, could find herself out of a job if plans by the US government to drastically cut its funding proceed as planned.

Under a proposed restructuring plan, the US Broadcasting Board of Governors’ (BBG) budget submission for the VOA Mandarin service for the next fiscal year would include a US$8 million cut, which would be achieved in large part by eliminating traditional radio and TV broadcasting and shifting to a Web-only platform utilizing new media technologies. In addition, VOA’s Cantonese service would be eliminated altogether, with Radio Free Asia continuing broadcasts in the language.

The budget, which has been submitted to US Congress, has yet to be approved. If the cost-saving measures are approved, the VOA Chinese service would go off the air on Oct. 1 — which would coincide with National Day in the People’s Republic of China.

As the US Congress debates the matter, angered employees at the VOA Chinese service have launched a petition drive and plan to send letters to Congress, as part of efforts that are being replicated by a number of individuals and groups — including a prominent US-based human rights organization — that oppose the service’s likely fate.

However, even prior to the announcement morale at the service had long been suffering, sources at VOA told the Taipei Times in an interview on Thursday night, speaking on condition of anonymity given the sensitivity of their positions.

My feature article, published today in the Taipei Times, continues here.

AIT confirms US role in major spy investigation

While Taiwan, with Washington’s help, conducts a probe in the nation’s worst spying scandal in 50 years, a source said the damage to the Taiwan-US alliance would be marginal

The American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) yesterday confirmed to the Taipei Times that US authorities are assisting Taiwan with an investigation into the activities of General Lo Hsien-che (羅賢哲, left), who was arrested last month on suspicion of spying for China.

Lo’s espionage activity, described as possibly the worst spy case to hit Taiwan in the past half century, is believed to have begun in 2004 when he was recruited by Chinese intelligence while he was posted in Thailand. News of the arrest sparked fears that Taiwan’s military might have been severely compromised, especially its command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (C4ISR) systems, to which Lo is believed to have had access.

As the great majority of defense platforms used by Taiwan’s military are acquired from the US, there has also been speculation that the developments could have negative repercussions on US-Taiwan military relations at a time when US President Barack Obama’s administration already appears reluctant to release additional arms packages to Taipei.

One possible casualty, some analysts claim, could be the politically sensitive sale of F-16C/D aircraft to Taiwan.

Following announcements by the military that a probe into Lo’s actions has been launched, AIT spokesperson Sheila Paskman told the Taipei Times by telephone that US authorities were assisting with the investigation, without specifying the level of assistance or which agency was involved.

My article, published today in the Taipei Times, continues here.

New alliance targeting CCP ‘villains’

Among the more than 11,000 Chinese Communist Party officials appearing on a blacklist for their human right violations is Liaoning Governor Chen Zhenggao, who arrived in Taiwan for a visit on Tuesday

A new alliance launched in Taipei on Tuesday last week has reportedly compiled a list of more than 11,000 Chinese Communist Party (CCP) officials it says should be barred from visiting Taiwan for the role they have played in human rights abuses in China.

The “No CCP Villain International Alliance,” which comprises groups such as the Victims of Investment in China Association (VICA), the Taiwan Friends of Tibet and the Falun Gong Human Rights Lawyers Working Group, as well as human rights activists and individuals who were persecuted by Chinese authorities, has handed its list to Democratic Progressive Party Legislator Chen Ting-fei (陳亭妃), who is expected to pass it on to the National Immigration Agency (NIA) and the Mainland Affairs Council (MAC), the Epoch Times reported on Monday.

The legislature passed a resolution in early December barring known CCP human rights abusers entry into Taiwan. The resolution, co-introduced by Chen and adopted by parties on both sides of the aisle, requires government authorities — including the MAC and the NIA — to deny Chinese officials who are known to have been involved in human rights abuses entry into Taiwan.

Greater Kaohsiung and Chiayi, as well as Changhua, Hualien, Miaoli and Yunlin counties, have adopted similar, albeit separate, resolutions.

Despite the measures, later that month Beijing Deputy Mayor Ji Lin (吉林) was allowed to visit the country despite claims by rights organizations that he had played a key role in the repression of Falun Gong practitioners since 1998.

My article, published today in the Taipei Times, continues here.

Ex-NSC official warns on ‘overreaction’ to spy case

As Beijing continues its zero-sum game with Taiwan, a former adviser to President Ma had one prescription for Taipei: do nothing

A former National Security Council (NSC) official yesterday said Taipei needs to be very careful about how it responds to a major espionage case involving China lest it impact other issues.

Philip Yang (楊永明), a senior adviser at the NSC from 2008 until last year and now a professor of political science at National Taiwan University, told the Taiwan Foreign Correspondents’ Club that the arrest last month of Major General Lo Hsien-che (羅賢哲) on espionage charges served as a reminder that despite warming relations across the Taiwan Strait, in the military and intelligence spheres, “Taiwan and China remain locked in a Cold War mindset.”

However, despite the seriousness of the charges against Lo — whose actions since he began spying for China in 2004 could have severely compromised Taiwan’s national security and its ties with the US military — Yang said President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration should choose its response carefully to avoid “overspill.”

Asked by the Taipei Times if Taipei could perhaps retaliate by canceling a visit to Taiwan next week by Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait Chairman Chen Yunlin (陳雲林), Yang said the controversy should not be linked to other areas of engagement with China, adding that escalation could have “domestic implications.”

So far, the Ma administration has yet to officially complain to Beijing over the Lo incident and China’s refusal to draw down its military posture. This silence is in stark contrast to the way in which Taipei reacted to a decision by the Philippines earlier this month to deport, at Beijing’s request, 14 Taiwanese fraud suspects to China despite opposition by Taiwanese officials.

My article, published today in the Taipei Times, continues here.