Hegemonic Warfare Watch: Taiwan in the Pivot

Michael Mazza over at AEI argues that Taiwan has a crucial role in the US "pivot" toward Asia....

Yet Taiwan can take steps to ensure that US forces would have access to the island’s facilities during a time of crisis, even in the absence of a formal access agreement. Taiwan, for example, could invest in infrastructure that would enable the island to serve as a logistics hub for US forces in the event of a conflict to the island’s north or in the South China Sea. Along similar lines, Taiwan might stockpile supplies that would be of use to American forces operating in the region. Doing so would complicate China’s war planning, improve deterrence, and enhance America’s ability to come to the aid of Taiwan and other allies during an emergency, all without provoking Beijing in the way that formal access arrangements or actual US presence would.

Mazza also argues that the best way Taiwan could help "the pivot" is to beef up its own defenses so it can hold off China longer.

It's more interesting to consider whether Taiwan would get involved as a supply base in a US-China conflict over islands in the South China Sea. "Taiwan" as such has no claim to any of the islands that the ROC claims, and the ROC claim is the same as Beijing's -- the whole of the South China Sea belongs to the ROC. If the US enforces another nation's sovereignty in the area then that would bring the US into conflict with the ROC. The pragmatic thing for Taipei to do would be to quietly help the US and harvest that big economic stimulus. One could easily see a DPP government doing that, but a KMT government might balk at helping the US hack away its China fantasies. Reviews like Mazza's show how stupid and short-sighted the US was to support Ma Ying-jeou, in effect helping Beijing over the long run in many different ways.

Meanwhile Taipei, ever working on never getting the fighters it needs, is now asking for F-35s.

Washington, July 10 (CNA) A delegation from the Taiwan-US Inter-Parliamentary Amity Association of Taiwan's Legislature said Wednesday in Washington that Taiwan wants to purchase advanced F-35 fighter jets that best suit its defense needs.

If we wouldn't sell them F-16s, why on earth would we sell them F-35s? This constant mention of F-35s is just another delaying tactic to prevent the island from ever getting fighters.

Keep an eye on the China-Russian reconciliation aimed at the US. Joint military exercises. Brr.... this should last about as long as it takes Moscow and Beijing to start feuding over who owns Central Asia. But the weapons transfers from Russia to China have a profound effect on Taiwan's defense situation...
_______________
Daily Links:

• Phils-Taiwan fishery meeting tied to shooting, investigation
• If the Chinese economy has hard landing, who is most exposed?
• Soulik kills two
• Taiwan-New Zealand sign free trade pact (WSJ). Note the background paragraph, it's just horrible. Taiwan and China HAVE NOT agreed they are part of the same China for the past twenty years, and they did not split in 1949. Hello, nuances. The pact....
  

  Wednesday's pact calls for Taiwan to lower tariffs on virtually all its imports from New Zealand, including meat, dairy products and kiwi, over the next four years. Tariffs on fresh and long-life milk and ground deer antlers—popular in Chinese medicine as a growth tonic, arthritis treatment and even as an aphrodisiac, among other uses—will be phased out over a longer period, 12 years, to protect Taiwanese farmers from a flood of cheaper imports. New Zealand, in turn, will eliminate tariffs on Taiwanese electronic goods.

  "ground deer antlers." Yeesh. Meanwhile commentary in TT argues that NZ products threaten Taiwan farmers. Probably not very much. 
• Transparency International totally screws up corruption survey, still defending it. There's a news story in this, international media people.
• My man Drew goes from Hualien to I-lan via Taroko. Awesome ride, awesome write-up

_______________________
[Taiwan] Don't miss the comments below! And check out my blog and its sidebars for events, links to previous posts and picture posts, and scores of links to other Taiwan blogs and forums!

When will the American Left learn about Taiwan? Eli Clifton in The Nation

What is wrong with the US Left on Taiwan and China? Too often, my fellow lefties are peering at East Asia through thick Cold War goggles. The latest example of the ignorant Cold War lenses that shape the thinking of the US is Eli Clifton's godawful article in The Nation this week.

Just skim it; it's largely a waste of time. Instead pick up J Michael Cole's excellent rebuke of Clifton's commentary at The Diplomat:

Those are perfectly legitimate questions, and we’re all for transparency in the funding of research institutions — especially when it comes from abroad. The problem is that the article’s claims are based on two assumptions that belie a poor understanding of the think tank world and, more importantly, the maddeningly complex workings of U.S.-Taiwan relations.

On the first issue: U.S. think tanks receive funding from a plethora of governments, institutions, foundations, universities, and individuals. Some of those donors, for various reasons, choose to remain anonymous. For example, the Brookings Institution’s 2012 annual report shows one anonymous donor in the $1,000,000-$2,499,999 category, and three in the $500,000-999,999 range — the same bracket as the “problematic” TECRO identified in the article. That same year, TECRO’s donated between US$250,000-US$499,999 to Brookings, which is hardly a strident advocate of U.S. arms sales to Taiwan. Like a lot of other foreign entities, the Taiwanese government funds a number of other think tanks in the U.S. There is nothing unusual, or even illegal, in this.

Moreover, while the article focuses on TECRO’s financial contributions to AEI, it makes absolutely no mention of the much more substantial — and oftentimes less transparent — donations to U.S. think tanks and academic institutions by the People’s Republic of China (PRC) government, wealthy Chinese individuals, or corporations with strong business interests in China (to that we can also add the co-optation of retired U.S. generals and government officials via highly lucrative corporate positions). Nor is it said that through those institutions, the PRC is attempting to sever U.S.-Taiwan ties, end U.S. arms sales to the island, and encourage the perception that the “re-unification” of Taiwan and China is inevitable, by force if necessary, even if this goes against the wishes of Taiwan’s 23 million people.

In short, by being so selective, the article completely omits the tremendous influence that the much stronger party in the dispute, China, has on U.S. policy on Taiwan.

The second major problem with the article is that it assumes that TECRO was using its (presumably un-kosher) influence on AEI to push for arms sales — especially 66 F-16C/Ds — at a time when, as anyone who follows U.S.-Taiwan relations closely would know, Taipei was dragging its feet on arms sales and, later on, seemed to be doing everything in its power to kill the F-16 program. In other words, rather than dictate to the researchers at AEI, Taiwan was funding analysts that were growing increasingly critical of and impatient with Taipei’s passive attitude to arms procurement — the exact opposite of what the article claims.

Of course China is omitted, that practically goes without saying. Argh. The idea that TECRO wants arms sales is part of the Cold War view that lefties still use to assess East Asia, also present in Lee Fang's piece from last year which makes exactly the errors that Clifton does. In this upside-down view of the universe, F-16 sales to Taiwan "militarize" the conflict between China and Taiwan, while apparently there is nothing China can ever do to militarize the conflict....

Walter Lohman observed that Brookings, also a recipient of TECRO funding, hosted DPP Chairman and likely presidential candidate Su Tseng-chang at a reception a couple of weeks ago, which is certainly not something the KMT-run government wants to see, yet TECRO gives money to Brookings. Some friends of mine who were there told me Su was warmly received... good!

The other reason this article peeved me, in addition to its by-now bog-standard Leftish ignorance of Taiwan, is that all the stuff that Cole writes about is available on this and other political blogs, including Cole's own, as well as in the local media. Clifton didn't have to do much, just send around emails to us and we'd have been happy to explain everything to him. *sigh* Why ever do they think we blog?

Great work, J. Michael.
_______________________
[Taiwan] Don't miss the comments below! And check out my blog and its sidebars for events, links to previous posts and picture posts, and scores of links to other Taiwan blogs and forums!

F-16s: the eternal sunshine of our spotless media

Always a pretty view above the Liyu Reservoir in Miaoli.

Leonard Shelby: If we talk for too long, I'll forget how we started. Next time I see you, I'm not gonna remember this conversation. I don't even know if I've met you before.

According to AFP, we've arrived at a turning point....

Taiwan's Defence Minister Kao Hua-chu said for the first time Monday that Taipei will not necessarily take the deal even if Washington gives the nod.

"Our demand has changed following the announcement of the upgrade project. The jet fighters we buy in the future have to outperform the F-16 upgrades if we (are) to convince the tax payers," he told parliament.

Analysts said the remark marks a key shift in Taipei's approach to the arms deal that has apparently been held off due to Washington's concerns about reaction from Beijing.

A key shift? AFP is only off by about a year. Last May, J Michael Cole published a piece in The Diplomat on the F-35s (which Taipei has been making noises about since 2006). He observed:

The F-35 could therefore become a convenient tool to kill the F-16C/D program while maintaining the politically useful illusion that Taipei remains committed to national defense. While there’s no doubt that requests for the advanced aircraft are heartfelt within the military, there’s reason to doubt that the same applies to Taiwan’s National Security Council and the Presidential Office.

This Administration doesn't want fighters. The US doesn't want to sell them. As many longtime observers have noted -- the kind of observer AFP will never cite -- the whole thing is a charade whose purpose is to delay, delay, delay. The function of the F-35s is to introduce more delay. If pigs flew and the US offered Taiwan F-35s, Taipei would immediately start balking, complaining about the budget, or arguing that it needs even more advanced warp drive craft equipped with phasers and transporters. The entire "debate" is an illusion designed to cover the fact that the KMT didn't want fighters, which is why they prevented the special defense budget from reaching the floor of the legislature over 60 times during the Chen Administration. But in the Memento Media world, the long time preferences of the KMT on this issue simply don't exist.
_______________________
[Taiwan] Don't miss the comments below! And check out my blog and its sidebars for events, links to previous posts and picture posts, and scores of links to other Taiwan blogs and forums!

Collective Security, Collective Blame

The always admirable James Holmes has a piece in The Diplomat this week that exemplifies one of the major problems with commentators on Taiwan: blaming Taiwan for its defense problems:

And second, the organizer exercised his prerogative as big kahuna of the event and posed the final question: aren't those of us who take Taipei to task for doing too little for the island's defense really objecting to the outcomes of the past two presidential elections, which installed a leadership committed to cross-strait rapprochement? Not really, quoth the Naval Diplomat. For one thing, military preparedness hasn't been a strong suit of either KMT or DPP governments in quite some time. It's hard to fault the electorate for bipartisan foibles. But at the same time — flipping the question around to U.S. politics — America is under no obligation to expend inordinate numbers of lives, ships and aircraft, and taxpayer dollars attempting to recoup bad strategic decisions on Taiwan's part. That's true whether those decisions were made democratically or not.

Which loops back around to my major theme for the Wilson Center gathering. Taiwan must do what it can to provide for its own defense while helping U.S. forces come to its rescue. Or, it can live with the consequences of inaction. Trusting to the goodwill of a big, nearby power that vows to snuff out your political existence would be a fateful choice — not one I would make.

It's useful to blame Taiwan, but let's face it:

• The DPP government requested 66 F-16s. Both the Bush and Obama Administrations refused to sell them. The DPP government did accept other weapons packages from the US. If Taipei lacks fighters, it is because the US won't sell them. Not because we didn't ask. 
• We don't have electric submarines because the US won't build them. Why? Well, the story circulating was that it was because the US navy is in love with nuclear subs and doesn't want Congress to find out how cheap and quiet electric boats are and thus, doesn't want the US to develop an electric boat building capacity. Which leads to my next point....
• Down the memory hole: the Arms Freeze (read the whole post) during the Bush Administration, which evinced little concern about how such a freeze might affect Taiwan's defense posture in the years to come. 
• One of the fundamentals of Taipei's defense problems is Europe. We've become so used to it that we no longer even think about it when we criticize Taipei, but the uselessness of Europe has been devastating for Taiwan -- we can't purchase European arms when the US is unwilling to sell and we can't play off sellers against one another to obtain better deals. Nor can we obtain items such as electric submarines which the US does not make. Oh well, at least Europe is still enforcing the arms embargo. For now. 
• US analysts consistently supported the KMT and above all, twice supported the election of President Ma, whose policy is to put the island into China's orbit and to reduce the military. Ma promised that military expenditures would be 3% of GDP; none of Ma's US supporters have held him to this or criticized him for not reaching that level. When the KMT objected to the special weapons purchase and prevented it from the reaching the floor of the legislature over 60 times during the Chen Administration, the US response was not to mete out any punishment to the KMT. Behavior that is rewarded is repeated, Washington!
• The internal contradictions of the US position: the DPP was crucified in the US Establishment media for "provoking Beijing." Hello! Arms sales "provoke" Beijing. If the US wants Taiwan to do more in its own defense, then it has to stop pressuring Taiwan to not "provoke Beijing." Not to mention stop internalizing Beijing's propaganda frame of "being provoked" as if it were an actual analytical standpoint. This only highlights how we need more pushback from Washington against Beijing's propaganda nonsense.  
• The US has reduced mil-mil contacts with Taiwan as well as senior official visits. Since the US puts an apparent low value on Taiwan's defense needs.....
• Finally, Taiwan has a significant defense industry that churns out a number of important systems, including cruise missiles, light armored vehicles, and fast attack vessels. If the US wants Taiwan to expand its munitions manufacturing base and production output, it might consider the purchase some finished systems from Taiwan, in addition to its usual purchases of parts and components from local OEM firms. That would be a big morale booster for the island's industry (external validation from the US is always A Big Deal) as well as provide capital that could underwrite expansion of production lines.

_______________________
[Taiwan] Don't miss the comments below! And check out my blog and its sidebars for events, links to previous posts and picture posts, and scores of links to other Taiwan blogs and forums! Delenda est, baby.

J Michael Cole in The Diplomat

Panorama of Taitung and its basin from Rte 197.

Over at The Diplomat in its flashpoints blog, the intrepid J Michael Cole of the Taipei Times has a piece on how the F-35 can be used to ensure that the F-16s never arrive....

Whether the international consortium, led by Lockheed Martin Corp, will eventually succeed in making the troubled [F-35] work is an intellectual exercise that has already been carried out elsewhere. What is already known, however, is that the aircraft has become prohibitively expensive. Furthermore, and more relevant in the present case, the F-35 involves systems and attributes that could make the U.S. extremely reluctant to sell the aircraft to Taiwan, for fear that the advanced technology would be transferred to China. Despite improving relations in the Taiwan Strait in recent years, China continues to aggressively target the Taiwanese military and would undoubtedly make a platform such as the F-35B a primary target of such activity.

Meanwhile, other options, such as the Eurofighter Typhoon and the Dassault Rafale, remain off the table, as the EU doesn’t want to risk Beijing’s wrath by selling arms to Taiwan.

The F-35 could therefore become a convenient tool to kill the F-16C/D program while maintaining the politically useful illusion that Taipei remains committed to national defense. While there’s no doubt that requests for the advanced aircraft are heartfelt within the military, there’s reason to doubt that the same applies to Taiwan’s National Security Council and the Presidential Office.

What he means is that pursuit of the F-16 can now be quietly abandoned with the announcement that the F-35 is now the target. Since the F-35 will never be sold to Taiwan, as J Michael notes, pursuit of the F-35 is tantamount to a decision not to buy new fighters at all. While the KMT and President Ma have made lots of right-sounding noises, it seems pretty clear, at least to this observer, that they do not want Taiwan to have any new fighters, given that they killed discussion of the bill to purchase the fighters over 60 times in the legislature, including when Ma was Chairman of the KMT.....
_______________________
[Taiwan] Don't miss the comments below! And check out my blog and its sidebars for events, links to previous posts and picture posts, and scores of links to other Taiwan blogs and forums! Delenda est, baby.

What do stock market taxes and F-16s have in common?

I have the terrible feeling that, because I am wearing a white beard and am sitting in the back of the theatre, you expect me to tell you the truth about something. These are the cheap seats, not Mount Sinai. -- Orson Welles

No need to go to The Avengers when we've gotten a steady flow of theater right here in our domestic politics. First the KMT staged a play as pious as any medieval Mystery Play on the proposed new taxes on income derived from securities transactions....

The Executive Yuan yesterday suffered a setback to a major policy for a second consecutive day when Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators refused to place on the legislative agenda an amendment imposing taxes on income earned from securities.

One of the KMT legislators, Wu Yu-sheng, proposed delaying a review of the amendments, blaming it on being overwhelmed with the beef mess. But who is Wu?

Wu, who has been labeled a loyal soldier of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), yesterday said the “KMT caucus will not do whatever the executive branch wants the caucus to do from now on.”

“The caucus will act at our discretion if the executive branch fails to communicate with lawmakers before a major policy is made,” Wu said.

So... question to my readers: when the "loyal soldier" of President Ma opposes President Ma's policies, is it because he has switched sides, or is it because Ma wants him to? This way the Administration can say it pushed the law but oh so sorry our recalcitrant legislature decided to thumb its nose at us and isn't it a shame that no one can control those unruly lawmakers? [cue crocodile tears]. And lo and behold....

With one month left before the legislative session enters the summer recess, it appears unlikely that the amendments to the Income Tax Act (所得稅法) and the Income Basic Tax Act (所得基本稅額條例) will clear the legislative floor this session.

Alas, the revisions are delayed until the next legislative session. What a pity, eh?

Another bit of theater displayed this week was the F-16s. Remember them? Sometime back in the Qing Dynasty the Taiwan government decided it needed F-16s and sent a letter to the US government asking for 66 F-16s. Well, here we are years later and still no F-16s. No sooner did Obama announce that the US might sell Taiwan a few F-16s the KMT broke out in a cold sweat. Diversion! The prospect of F-35s is raised! No hope of that, but the idea makes a nifty dislocation. Further news came out: the budget might not be there for the new aircraft!

Oscars for everyone! As a longtime observer noted, whenever the US moves forward on the F-16s, the KMT has a sudden bout of budget indigestion, and whenever Taiwan presses on the F-16s, the US refuses to sell. The only problem is determining whether the cooperation is planned in advance or whether both sides are simply acting out roles they both know so well there is no need to notify the other guy in advance.

Yes, Taiwan, what a delightful place to live, so many plays staged for our benefit.
_______________________
[Taiwan] Don't miss the comments below! And check out my blog and its sidebars for events, links to previous posts and picture posts, and scores of links to other Taiwan blogs and forums! Delenda est, baby.

Tuesday Night Flights

I've erected an ersatz standing desk in my office. Really quite wonderful. Only problems so far is that there is no room for me to do other work like grading papers -- so this can't be a long-term solution -- and my hands have to relearn where the keyboard is! Because of my schedule I seldom use it for more than two hours at a stretch, thus pads and other foot supports don't seem to be necessary, so far.

The East Asia Forum, which often has interesting articles, hosted a piece this week by Carlyle Thayer that was supportive of the F-16 decision. There aren't any particularly good or interesting insights, but rather, it shows once again how Beijing-centric thinking has captured the minds of so many analysts. Consider:

The announcement of the arms sale could not come at a more delicate time. President Obama faces re-election in November. Taiwan will hold presidential elections in January. And China will embark...

Be serious. It's ALWAYS a delicate time in Sino-American relations. Something is always happening, and if nothing were happening, Thayer would sententiously scribe: "Sino-American relations are going really well and we shouldn't disturb them with new arms sales." There's simply no situation in which arms sales aren't going to be perturbing, because Beijing wants to make them that way. Repeat: it's not the situation, it's the policy of Beijing.

Selling F-16 C/Ds to Taiwan would almost certainly rupture currently improving Sino–American relations and inflict collateral damage on improved cross-straits relations championed by Taiwan’s President Ma Ying-jeou.

It is quite clear that F-16 C/D sales would likely unleash domestic and nationalist forces in both China and the United States. Moderates in both countries would come under pressure to adopt a more confrontational stance. It is hard to see how undermining current positive security trends would contribute to improving the regional security environment in general and Taiwan’s security in particular.

More on Ma in a moment. More interesting is the upside-down understanding of moderates vs hardliners. The F-16 denial is a huge victory, not for "moderates" who share identical goals with hardliners, but the hardliners who have seen their policy of deliberate displays of anger, threats and continuous military buildup rewarded by a US retreat. It's debatable whether 66 F-16s would really be all that helpful, but there's no question of the symbolism that failure to sell F-16s shows.

In other words: what exactly did the US get for its kow-tow? Beijing promised not to be angry and take its toys and go home. Until next time. Note to policymakers: you don't make the monster smaller by feeding it.

Thayer writes further down:

A harsher response by China risks disrupting a number of diplomatic engagements scheduled later in the year such as the APEC Summit in Honolulu and the East Asia Summit in Bali. The effects of deteriorating Sino-American relations would be quickly felt across the Asia Pacific and almost certainly exacerbate tensions in the South China Sea. Depending on how badly this played out, Asia could enter a new Cold War.

No really -- the writer feels that temporary annual meetings are more important than long-term impairment of the security of an ally. No really -- meetings are more important than military hardware. I kid you not.

Moreover, if F-16s really aren't necessary, there is no need to pose the argument in terms of how Beijing is going to react. You could just say simply: F-16s aren't the solution and remain silent on how Beijing will respond. In other words, when you write that we shouldn't sell F-16s because Beijing will "become angry", you're implicitly affirming that selling F-16s is actually a good idea from the standpoint of Taiwan's defense.

Tensions are already in a long-term rise in the South China Sea -- they aren't going to get better. Perhaps the Cold War hasn't arrived yet, but what we're in right now is a pretty good imitation.

Re Ma Ying-jeou: The Hill reported a fascinating nugget: the Ma Administration is still lobbying for the F-16s. The article provides a list of firms and individuals lobbying for Taiwan on the Hill. Note this paragraph:

“Considering Taiwan would only use these planes for defensive purposes, it was a short-sighted blunder on the administration’s part not to sell Taiwan the new planes,” Sean King, vice president of Park Strategies, told The Hill. “We can’t let ourselves be bullied by Beijing. After all, the United States is mainland China’s No. 1 nation-state export market. Beijing needs us more than we sometimes realize.”

Park Strategies is very close to the Administration; when its office opened in Taipei a couple of years ago, President Ma showed up in person at the opening [MT: Nope, was Vincent Siew. Ma met with the head of Park, former Sen D'Amato, the next day]. I have heard that Park is involved in handling some of the big financial players in the US that are backing the Ma Administration. Given that the KMT blocked the F-16s for years under the Chen Administration, whether or not the Administration is sincere in these efforts to get F-16s is debatable. They had to have known years ago, like everyone else, that they weren't coming. Perhaps they've had a change of heart....

Ending on an upbeat note: the consistently good Philip Bowring identifies the fundamental contradiction at the heart of US Taiwan policy; namely, its interconnection with other areas of Chinese territorial expansion. I've made the same point many times on this blog. Bowring's analysis is spot on:

And Washington's kowtow to Beijing ignores the broader strategic picture in the region where the interests of the non-Chinese players in East Asia figure. To start with, South Korea and Russia will not be happy with greater Chinese dominance in the region. They may not say it out loud for fear of offending China but they have every interest in the status quo where Taiwan is independent and continues to defend itself.

Then there are the concerns of those nations in the South China Sea. The Philippines, Vietnam and Malaysia are all opposed to China's claims to the sea and its islands. Vietnam has already opened its port facilities to U.S. naval vessels, while Indonesia and Singapore have strengthened their defense ties. What's more, Manila and Hanoi have become especially outspoken in defense of their territorial claims in the past few months.

A visit to Japan last week by Philippine President Benigno Aquino ended with a communiqué strongly supporting a multilateral approach to the sea issue, compliance with freedom of navigation and a "legally binding code of conduct consistent with established international law." This was a none-too-veiled attack on China's claims and Beijing's insistence on bilateral negotiations to solve disputes in the region. Beijing, not surprisingly, reacted strongly; it warned Manila and Tokyo to be careful of exacerbating tensions.

Taiwan supporters should emphasize the interconnectedness of Taiwan with Beijing's other territorial demands when they point out how important Taiwan is to the US. Taiwan is important not only for itself, but for what it means to the other nations around it as well.
_________________
Daily Links:

• President Ma calls for more democracy in China, but the piece is really about the election and is a sturdy summary.
• In case you didn't know ECFA sucked, here's more.
• Taichung Jazz Festival Oct 15-23. Shooting for a million visitors!

_______________________
[Taiwan] Don't miss the comments below! And check out my blog and its sidebars for events, links to previous posts and picture posts, and scores of links to other Taiwan blogs and forums! Delenda est, baby.

F-16 Sale Round Up

A slew of stuff came out today in response to the decisions on the F-16s (most recent post). Hard to keep up, in fact.

Several things struck me. First, there is now a sizable backlash in Congress and in the media against the Obama position and this backlash is indirectly raising Taiwan's profile in the US. Too convenient by half -- far too many people waited until the decision was already imminent before speaking. Nevertheless, it is good to see Taiwan mentioned at the national level in the US, with potential Presidential candidate Mitt Romney got involved:

Political opponents quickly pounced on the decision. Republican Sen. John Cornyn from Texas, where the new F-16 planes would be built, declared it a "capitulation" to China that should be met with concern by U.S. allies everywhere. Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney declared it a show of "weak leadership in foreign policy."

People are always asking why we should press for stuff that is never going to be delivered. Mitt R gave us the answer: because by doing so, we raise Taiwan's profile and create space for other beneficial actions to take place. And you never know -- maybe the horse will learn to sing.

Second, the Far Eastern Sweet Potato described just how awesome the upgrade package really is, including weapons system previously denied Taiwan:

At first sight, the upgrade package is pretty impressive and includes some items that surprised quite a few analysts. It confirms, among other things, that Taiwan will be getting Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar — either Raytheon Corp’s Raytheon Advanced Combat Radar (RACR), or Northrop Grumman Corp’s Scalable Agile Beam Radar (SABR).

The Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) also for the first time released GBU-31 and GBU-38 Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM) laser-guided bombs, which the US had hitherto denied Taiwan, given their offensive nature. The GBU-54 laser-guided JDAM, the GBU-10 Enhanced PAVEWAY II and GBU-24 Enhanced PAVEWAY III are also reportedly options for Taiwan.

Added to CBU-105 Sensor Fused Weapons, AIM-9X Sidewinder air-to-air missiles, Embedded Global Positioning System Inertial Navigation Systems, the Terma ALQ-213 Electronic Warfare Management System and helmet-mounted cueing systems, the upgrade is pretty muscular.

The JDAMs allow fighters in the Strait to strike 500 miles (800 kms) into China, and had previously been withheld from Taiwan. The helmet mounted cueing systems means that pilots can direct attacks with a nod of their head, leaving their hands free to fly the plane.

Sounds great, he says, but it doesn't yet meet Taiwan's needs. But, as he points out, China bristles with surface to air missiles that can obviate the threat from the JDAMs, some so good they can kill Taiwan aircraft almost as soon as they have left the runway. The other problem is that Taiwan won't be the one to start hostilities, while China is likely to begin with a missile blitz that will severely damage Taiwan's ability to sortie airstrikes.

Third, even though the upgrade looks great on paper, there are other issues. Walter Lohman of Heritage remarked on Facebook that new fighters would probably have been delivered more quickly than the upgrades. It will be years until all 145 fighters are upgraded, by which time China will probably have teleportation and phaser technology. Rupert Hammond-Chambers of the US-Taiwan Business Council observed that:

The U.S.-Taiwan Business Council, whose members include arms maker Lockheed Martin, said the correct approach would be to have both programs running sequentially, so that new F-16 C/Ds would be delivered to Taiwan before it starts pulling front-line F-16 A/Bs out of operations. "As presently structured, Taiwan will actually see a reduction in the number of operational F-16s over the next 10 years," council president Rupert Hammond-Chambers said.

Defense News reported that the Ministry of National Defense (MND) said the budget would take 12 years (!) to implement.

Fourth, the deal is widely read by observers to be an attempt to keep Beijing placated. Gerrit van der Wees of FAPA described it in a piece for The Diplomat as a lose-lose deal that simply annoys Beijing while failing to truly help Taipei. Paul Mozur and Jeremy Page in the WSJ take a similar line: the deal reflects the growing US feeling that defending Taiwan is becoming more difficult and costly. They also argue that...

A U.S. decision to sell Taiwan upgrades of old fighter jets, rather than new planes, reflects a fresh reality in the region: All sides are calculating that the island is increasingly indefensible to an attack by China, and are banking on closer economic ties as a path to resolving historic tensions.

As if on cue, Robert Sutter, the longtime US government Taiwan specialist, sounded another warning in the Taipei Times today that Taiwanese simply do not understand Washington's declining support for Taiwan. He said that "...eroding US support was one of three sets of factors that would ultimately determine Taiwan’s future, along with China’s ever-growing strength and Taiwan’s inherent weakness." Unfortunately locals appear to have an almost mystical belief in US power while at the same time, a highly provincial point of view that lacks understanding of the behavior of foreign powers. Come to think of it, that describes just about everyone on earth.....

In other words, Sutter is saying that Taiwan is doomed. And for those of you who think that Taiwan should surrender now and get the best deal possible, wrong again. China can rewrite the deal Darth Vader style any time it likes once Taiwan is in its power ("I have altered the deal pray; I do not alter it any further"). The best choice is to stay out of Beijing's clutches as long as possible... because, dammit, the horse may learn to sing....

John Tkacik in the Washington Times describes the situation in DC from a thoroughly conservative perspective....

This is where bureaucratic “animosities” come in. President Obama’s top Asia advisers in the National Security Council (NSC), Daniel R. Russel and Evan S. Medeiros, are firmly pro-China, or at least do not believe anything - anything at all - is worth a confrontation with the Chinese. At the State Department, Kurt Campbell, assistant secretary for East Asia and the Pacific, and his team are firmly pro-everybody-else in Asia, or at least they do not see how the United States can sustain its core interests globally - human rights, democracy, freedom, fair trade, freedom of the seas and airspace, access to resources and a world safe from the rampant proliferation of nuclear weapons and their delivery systems - by abjuring its global leadership.

Taiwan is not a small part of America’s security architecture. For 60 years, since 1951, the United States has maintained a robust defense and trade relationship with Taiwan that has been a key link in America’s network of security cooperation and alliances in the Western Pacific. The broad question debated in the Obama administration is whether the United States will withdraw from Asia in the face of China’s inexorable military rise. Mr. Obama’s NSC apparently thinks the United States should simply bow to Chinese expansion, while State and Defense see Taiwan as emblematic of America’s commitments to the rest of Asia, from Japan and Australia through Southeast Asia to India. When asked about the Obama administration’s reluctance to sell the new F-16C/Ds to Taiwan, State people caution that the administration has not ruled out consideration of new jets for Taiwan at some point.

It should be noted that, like Presidential policy teams before them, several individuals on Obama's staff have worked at consulting firms that do business in China. Both Tkacik in this piece and former AIT head Nat Bellocchi ripped the NSC official who phoned in the hatchet job on Tsai Ing-wen in FT last week.

Meanwhile, about the promise to sell F-16s at some unspecified later date, along with swampland in Florida and a lovely old bridge near NY city, Jens Kastner argued in an Asia Times piece that it could just happen. For one thing, as the 2012 election approaches Obama could simply reverse the decision if it becomes a major election issue. I don't get a sense that anyone seriously thinks it could occur.  But then China is also transitioning leadership next year and may not want conflict with the US during that time. Further, we still have the F-16s as a way to punish China if it gets frisky in some other aspect of the China-US relationship or with US allies.

Global Security fielded a media report today that said the Pentagon is recommending that Taiwan get Vertical Takeoff and Landing (VTOL) jets such as the F-35 or the Harrier for use if/when China craters Taiwan's runways during a conflict, tacitly conceding that even new F-16s would be useless.

Looking at the deal from a local perspective.... a key point neglected in all media reports save Peter Lee's at Counterpunch (link below) is that the KMT Administration doesn't want F-16s. For years under the Chen Administration it blocked them from reaching the floor of the legislature -- 66 times. It blocked them when Ma Ying-jeou, now the President, was Chairman of the KMT and had promised the US that he would get the sale moving in the legislature. Surely analysts in the Obama Administration must know this, and they must also know that Taiwan's military budget remains stagnant and paying for new aircraft is really out of the question. Ma has also violated his pledge to get military spending up to 3% of GDP.

Hence, as one observer put it, this looks like a deal arranged in Taipei, Washington and Beijing to make everyone happy. So far China is making noise but nothing concrete has happened, as WaPo notes in its report. Yet Beijing warns that there will be fallout. Victory oft makes the winner more arrogant than wise.....

Meanwhile the Taiwan dollar had its biggest drop in a decade today on grim US economic news. Taiwan shares also fell. Boeing seeks half the Chinese plane market, and GM wants to cooperate on electric cars. These economic factors -- Taiwan is at the mercy of global economic trends, and the US is dependent on China's market -- are just as important in assessing the future of Taiwan as China's possession of hundreds of advanced fighters and a growing navy and missile force.

REFS: State Department Background Briefing. The always quality Peter Lee in Counterpunch with a very long review piece on the F-16s, mentioning what few commentators have -- that Ma does not appear to want the F-16s.
______________________
Daily Links:

• From China Reform Monitor: "Taiwan's Ministry of National Defense (MND) is deploying a new missile system capable of hitting airports and harbors along China’s southeastern coast. Production of the “Wan Chien” or “Ten Thousand Swords” missile system will be installed on upgraded Ching-kuo Indigenous Defense Fighters produced between 2014 and 2018." (original story)
• China's navy is aimed at its South China Sea rivals, not the US, so it doesn't need a big navy.
• Blast from the past: 2006 FPIF piece arguing that Taiwan's case for independence is better than Beijing's for annexation.

_______________________
[Taiwan] Don't miss the comments below! And check out my blog and its sidebars for events, links to previous posts and picture posts, and scores of links to other Taiwan blogs and forums! Delenda est, baby.

State Dept: 145 = 145 + 66

Here is the transcript. Note the strange math there:

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:

I do not, but it's before the end of the week. Assuming -- so let me start this again.

Assuming the reports leaked about the proposal to refurbish F-16s are true -- and that obviously can't be confirmed even on background until a formal congressional notification later this week -- weapons sales to Taiwan since 2009 will be greater than in the previous four years, and they will be double the sales that occurred between 2004 and 2008.

And assuming the decision is to upgrade F-16 A/B, they will provide essentially the same quality as new F-16 C/D aircraft at a far cheaper price. And Taiwan would stand to get 145 A/Bs versus only 66 C/Ds. And we're obviously prepared to consider further sales in the future.

In addition, the Administration has taken strong steps to deepen relations with Taiwan» in concrete ways beyond this dossier, including Visa Waiver Program, education initiatives, «trade» and energy initiatives, and helping «Taiwan to have more access to international fora like the World Health Organization.

Yes, that's right, 145 upgraded planes is equal to 145 planes plus 66 new and better planes (nothing stops the US from selling upgrade packages along with new aircraft). Sure.... But it is clear what the decision is, though they piously did not rule out selling planes to Taiwan in the future. The official also awarded the Administration credit for the old arms package that was finally delivered a couple of years ago. Puh-lease.

As Josh Rogin at The Cable noted in his remarks today, the Administration is taking a lot of heat for this decision. Sen. Coryn of Texas continued his legislative push for F-16 sales, helpful to his constituents and Lockheed, a major donor.

UPDATE: Reuters has a list of the electronics and equipment for the upgrade, which actually does make the A/B models far better weapons platforms.

A U.S.-based expert on Taiwan's military who asked not to be named said the air-to-air hardware included "basically everything" Taipei had sought, including the latest version of heat-seeking Raytheon Co AIM-9X Sidewinder missiles and all-weather-capable AIM-120C7 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air missiles, or AMRAAM.


The deal also includes state-of-the-art active, electronically scanned array, or AESA, radar, said the expert who spoke anonymously to protect access to sensitive information.

But numbers count too. 145 better aircraft are not the same as 211 better aircraft.

COMMENT: dragged up from the depths of the comment stream: HaHa

Michael, you have a typo in your title. The State Department appears to be saying that 145 > 145 + 66, not equals. After all, it's cheaper! By that logic, 0 upgrades and no new planes would be best of all.

_______________________
[Taiwan] Don't miss the comments below! And check out my blog and its sidebars for events, links to previous posts and picture posts, and scores of links to other Taiwan blogs and forums! Delenda est, baby.

Sunday shorts: F-16 deftness, DPP media Follies

On the F-16 denial..... the Obama Administration has shown a bit of cleverness. Note that the WH has not made an official and public announcement that Taiwan is getting only upgrades, not new aircraft. The news has been leaked again and again over the last few months, so everyone knows what the situation is. But for those wondering what Beijing's reaction is going to be... what exactly is there for Beijing to react TO? After all, the Administration is merely talking to Congress. Nobody in the Administration has said anything, nothing is well defined, only one or two Congressmen have held press conferences to complain. Very interesting the way its been handled. The question is whether it was intentionally handled in this way.

And, just to remind you, doncha just love the way that years of KMT opposition to the F-16 sale has gone right down the memory hole since Ma came to power?

As for Beijing, if their foreign policymakers are smart, they will do nothing but make the usual pro forma noises. The Chinese reaction will be a good test of whether arrogance is running ahead of brains in Beijing.

AP sexed up the title and point of view of its most recent piece on Tsai Ing-wen: Taiwan opposition chief open to China unification. The reality was actually laid out in the piece itself:

"I've said I do not exclude any possibility," Tsai was quoted as saying when asked whether she is open to unification with China. "As long as there is public support, Taiwan and China's future relations can remain open (to any possibility)."

Tsai's condition appears to be a difficult one to fulfill, at least for now. Taiwanese public opinion polls consistently show that only a small minority of the island's 23 million people support unification with China.

It was kind of AP to rely that reality in the piece as well as Tsai's "condition" (which is not a condition but the very essence of democracy).

AP described Tsai's position as a "radical departure" which is -- not to put too fine a point on it -- utter bullshit. Things must have been high pressured there at the AP office for them to have forgotten that it is DPP boilerplate to say that the Party would support annexing Taiwan to China if its people did, and for them not have found the time to run a few Google searches for past statements on the topic that suggest a similar flexibility. For example from 2004:

TIME: Do you accept the idea of eventual unification with China?Chen: Currently, there are two separate, independent countries across the Taiwan Strait, neither of which has jurisdiction over the other. But who knows if these two separate countries might become one over time? We do not exclude any possibilities for the future.

Chen made such statements several times (Chen in Der Spiegel 2007, Figaro 2006, even LTH 1996). Other DPP politicians have been all over the map -- anyone remember the Shen Fu-hsiung's proposal for a China-Taiwan commonwealth? But I guess DPP Candidate Makes Boilerplate Answer to Silly Repetitive Query is a less interesting headline.... and I guess, after seven years of operating this blog, I should be expecting constructions like this. It's pretty clear that the next few months of the Tsai campaign is going to be a media shitstorm, if this week is any guide. UPDATE: The Tsai campaign criticized AP's "overinterpretation" and located Tsai's remarks in the long tradition of DPP boilerplate that AP was too lazy to go out and find.

In a related tale, I am saddened to report that the DPP ham-handedness with the western media, which we saw so often in the 2008 presidential campaign, is alive and well in the current rendition of the DPP campaign. I am told that a major western media outlet, with major reporter, was looking to interview Tsai during her trip to the US. Somehow, the senior level DPP media handlers couldn't make it happen. Heads need to be thumped over there -- Tsai was not interviewed by any major media publication in the US, which should have been considered mandatory. How can Tsai fix relations with the US if the US doesn't know she exists?

Some other things -- I spent the latter half of August and the beginning of September running around the nation and talking to people. Taichung is the center of the island's live music scene. I met younger people all over the island who are in bands, or have friends in bands, and who are peeved at KMT mayor Jason Hu for disrupting Taichung's bar scene over the last few months. Central Taiwan is judged by both parties to be a major battleground.....
_______________________
[Taiwan] Don't miss the comments below! And check out my blog and its sidebars for events, links to previous posts and picture posts, and scores of links to other Taiwan blogs and forums! Delenda est, baby.http://news.yahoo.com/taiwan-opposition-chief-open-china-unification-072409796.html

Washington on the move: The Taiwan Policy Act of 2011

A view of the Beinan Cultural Park outside Taitung city. The mock-up house was used by young boys of the Beinan people, I think. They were sent to live there for three years as part of an initiation rite. 

Important legislative actions afoot in Congress. In addition to the Taiwan Airpower Modernization Act introduced by Sens. Coryn and Menendez (text of bill), this week Cong. Ros-Lethinen has introduced the Taiwan Policy Act of 2011. According to the Formosa Foundation, which hosts the text of the bill here, it represents an attempt to significantly upgrade US relations with Taiwan. Terri Giles, the Executive Director of the Foundation, sent this around:

The Chair of the U.S. House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Ileana Ros-Lethinen (R-FL), today introduced a significant piece of legislation that clarifies the United States policy toward Taiwan and enhances its oversight in the implementation of the Taiwan Relations Act. The Taiwan Policy Act of 2011 is cosponsored by Congressman Ed Royce (R-CA), Steve Chabot (R-OH), Mario Diaz Balart (R-FL), Robert Andrews (D-NJ) and Dan Burton (R-IN).

The Taiwan Policy Act of 2011 aims to “strengthen and clarify the commercial, cultural and other relations between the people of the United States and the people of Taiwan, as codified in the Taiwan Relations Act, and for other purposes.” The bill underscores the policy of the United States is to “support Taiwan, Taiwan’s democracy, and the human rights of its people.” Notably, the bill states that it shall be the policy of the United States to strengthen the Defense of Taiwan, to revitalize trade and investment ties with Taiwan, to support Taiwan’s meaningful participation in the international organization, and to encourage visits by cabinet level officials between both countries.

Taiwan is strategically essential to the United States and this piece of legislation is a vital step in reinforcing our commitment to our democratic partner and ally.

The Formosa Foundation has worked closely with Congresswoman Ros-Lethinen and other members of Congress to bring the important issues of Taiwan policy to the top of the agenda in Washington and to the attention of the American people. In June, Ros-Lehtinen assured over two hundred participants at a Formosa Foundation community event that “it is strongly in America’s national interest to re-energize and upgrade relations between our two peoples and our two great democracies. In my capacity as chairperson of the Foreign Affairs Committee, I hope to do just that in the weeks and months ahead.” Today she put her words into action.

We are extremely grateful that Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen has introduced this historical bill to call attention to Taiwan’s important to the United States. We urge you to contact your House representative asking for their support of the Taiwan Policy Act of 2011.

DPP presidential candidate Tsai Ing-wen spoke at AEI the other day (video). I heard that Sen Inouye, Chair of the Senate Defense Appropriations Committee, showed up to greet Tsai at a reception in the Rayburn Room that evening. Could bode well for Congressional movement on the F-16s, and on Taiwan in general. Remember that though it is highly probable no F-16s will be sold, merely working on the issue helps raise Taiwan's profile.

The news of growing pro-Taiwan momentum in Congress was given new urgency by yet another F-5 crash in Taiwan yesterday. This time two of the ancient aircraft were lost. Taiwan's entire fleet of 60 F-5s was grounded as a result.

Apropo: Dean Cheng at Heritage observes the gap between DOD and the Obama Administration in assessing and responding to China's rise. Regrettably, Cheng does not put his finger on the real, urgent problem: ending our wasteful, stupid wars in the Middle East that are literally making the US trade a losing war in Afghanistan for Taiwan. Criminally stupid.
_______________________
[Taiwan] Don't miss the comments below! And check out my blog and its sidebars for events, links to previous posts and picture posts, and scores of links to other Taiwan blogs and forums! Delenda est, baby.

"Cornyn, Menendez Push to Mandate Sale of F-16 Fighters to Taiwan"

Sen. Coryn's office issued this press release:

+++++++++++++++++

Cornyn, Menendez Push to Mandate Sale of F-16 Fighters to Taiwan

Legislation Would Bolster Ability of Our Longstanding Strategic Partner to Defend Itself

WASHINGTON –U.S. Senators John Cornyn (R-TX) and Robert Menendez (D-NJ) today introduced legislation to require the Obama Administration to sell 66 new F-16C/D multirole fighter jets to Taiwan. The Taiwan Airpower Modernization Act of 2011 will help bring the United States into compliance with its legal obligations under the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979 to provide Taiwan with the military equipment it needs to maintain its self-defense capabilities.

“This sale is a win-win, in strengthening the national security of our friend Taiwan as well as our own, and supporting tens of thousands of jobs in the U.S.,” said Sen. Cornyn. “Saying no here would mean granting Communist China substantial sway over American foreign policy, putting us on a very slippery slope.”

“Providing the military resources Taiwan needs is in the vital security interest of Taiwan, the national security interest of the United States, and is compelled by the Taiwan Relations Act,” Sen. Menendez said. “Taiwanese pilots flying Taiwanese fighter aircraft manufactured in the United States represent the best first line of defense for our democratic ally, and delaying the decision to sell F-16s to Taiwan could result in the closure of the F-16 production line, which would cost New Jersey 750 manufacturing jobs.”

Several recent letters to the President have demonstrated overwhelming bipartisan congressional support for the sale of new F-16C/Ds to Taiwan. On August 1, 181 bipartisan House members sent a letter to President Obama calling on him to approve the sale of F-16 C/Ds to Taiwan. On May 26 a bipartisan letter signed by 45 Senators called on President Obama him to quickly notify Congress of the sale of 66 F-16C/Ds to Taiwan. Two other Senators have also written letters to the Administration in support of this sale.

A recent study done by a private consulting firm estimates that the sale of 66 new F-16 aircraft to Taiwan would generate approximately $8.7 billion in economic output and nearly 88,000 ‘person-years’ of employment across the U.S.

++++++++++++++++++

Reuters report.
Text of bill
_______________________
[Taiwan] Don't miss the comments below! And check out my blog and its sidebars for events, links to previous posts and picture posts, and scores of links to other Taiwan blogs and forums! Delenda est, baby.

J Michael hits a nerve

The old south wall at Anping Fort in Tainan.

J Michael Cole of the Taipei Times scored with a top-notch piece in the WSJ on how the Ma Administration's inability to clean house in its own military and intel ranks is impacting US willingness to sell Taipei weapons. An excerpt:

Much ink has been spilled in recent months over the Obama administration's reluctance to sell Taiwan the 66 F-16C/D fighters it has been requesting since 2007. A final decision is expected by Oct. 2, and while many observers predict that political considerations will lead Washington to nix the deal, another factor may be at work: the penetration of almost every sector of Taiwanese society by Chinese intelligence. For the U.S. government and defense manufacturers, any arms sale to Taiwan carries the risk that sensitive military technology will end up in Beijing.

This worry is not new. Anyone who has followed developments in Taiwan over the years knows how deeply Chinese forces have infiltrated Taiwan's military, especially its senior officers. For years American officials have looked on in amazement as newly retired Taiwanese generals traveled to China for a round of golf, were wined and dined by their counterparts in the People's Liberation Army, and no doubt had their inebriated brains picked for information.

Taiwan's reputation has not been helped by a string of embarrassing cases involving members of the armed forces or civilians who spied for China. Some of the programs compromised involved American assistance, such as the Po Sheng "Broad Victory" upgrade to the military's command and control infrastructure. Even more damaging are the instances when culprits got away with a light sentence. Earlier this year Lai Kun-chieh, a software engineer, received a mere slap on the wrist for attempting to pass information about the PAC-3 Patriot missile defense system to China.

Also puzzling is the apparent lack of coordination between border, airport, immigration, foreign affairs and defense agencies over the return to Taiwan this month of Ko-suen "Bill" Moo. Mr. Moo was a former top salesman for Lockheed Martin who was arrested in Miami in 2005 and sentenced to 6.5 years in jail for trying to sell, among other items, an entire F-16 engine to China. Taiwanese authorities failed to meet Mr. Moo at the airport on his arrival, despite being tipped off by the U.S., and haven't been able to track him down since. The 64-year-old, who was involved in the Po Sheng project, had close friends within the upper echelons of the Taiwanese air force. It is alleged that he was part of a small group within the Taiwanese Air Force known as the "gang of four," which included former Defense Minister Chen Chao-ming.

President Ma, recommended J Michael, needs to clean house. This problem has been festering for years and there has been little apparent progress. Anyone in Washington who wants to deny weapons sales to Taiwan can plausibly point to this issue as an excuse not to sell the island nation weapons.

The response, I've heard, has been quite intense. Reportedly the President himself was angered by the article and a KMT legislator said that Cole's work visa should be investigated. There was also some anger at the MND. It's hard to fathom why; whenever a Chinese spy is busted there is a flurry of articles saying that Chinese penetration of Taiwanese military and intelligence may affect its ability to procure advanced weapons. For example, from earlier this year when an ROC general was busted for schlepping secrets to China:

Taiwan has detained a major general on charges of providing military secrets to China, the defense ministry said Wednesday. Analysts said he may have compromised a vital military communications network that uses U.S. technology. The case is the most serious Taiwanese spy scandal in decades and could make the U.S. reluctant to share military technology with Taiwan

or from the Examiner:

However, Chinese penetration of ROC defenses is a concern to the United States and will likely be a factor in a decision whether or not to sell advanced F-16 fighter jets to the Chinese Nationalists exiled on Taiwan.

Etc etc etc. It's not like the effect of Chinese penetration of ROC security services wasn't known in the highest circles and it's not like it hasn't been said before. Recall this Lawrence Eyton piece from 2002 in the Asia Times on a similar spy case:

It also follows the release of an alarming statistic by the Ministry of National Defense according to which more than 3,000 former Taiwan military officers are now either doing business or working in "consultancies" in mainland China.

Apparently it's just not ok to draw attention to the problem in an essay length piece. Big loss of face, you know.

This also raises another issue: by not making an ostentatious attempt to clean house, is the Ma Administration, which doesn't want F-16s sold to Taiwan, deliberately handing Washington an excuse that would give it plausible deniability? Probably not; one should never attribute to maliciousness what can be explained by incompetence.
________________________
Daily Links:

• Don Rogers, a great friend of Taiwan, discussed in his college newsletter
• Rising cost of living slashes demand for adoptions.
• Victoria Linchong still needs financing for her pro-Taiwan film. See here and here for more information. 
• Economic weakness: SinoPac slashes forecast for growth to 4.7% this year.
• Eyedoc posts some great comments from Andrew K on aboriginal marriages, the Koxinga clan, and intermixing in pre-Qing Taiwan. 
• John Copper's piece in the National Interest on why the US needs Taiwan was picked up by Zack Beauchamp on Andrew Sullivan's blog. Zack, ya could have pointed out that Copper is a longtime supporter of the KMT and thus, while arguing that the US needs Taiwan, himself supports the party that wants to annex Taiwan to China. How's that again? BTW, for your question demanding evidence about why China would want to sail its subs off the coast of the US... please see recent history of Chinese warship sailings around Japan. Why should China want to sail in Japanese waters? And yet it does. Why does any expansionist state do what it does?
• Taipei Bike Film Festival Seeking submissions

_______________________ 
[Taiwan] Don't miss the comments below! And check out my blog and its sidebars for events, links to previous posts and picture posts, and scores of links to other Taiwan blogs and forums! Delenda est, baby.

Congress lurches toward F-16s as DoD reports

AP reports that Congress might actually bestir itself and sell the F-16s to Taiwan; it seems that this has strong support on both sides of the aisle.

In May, nearly half of the Democrat-led Senate sent a letter urging Obama to authorize the deal. There is likely even broader support in the Republican-controlled House.

Giving the green light would set back Obama's efforts to cultivate a stable, cooperative relationship with China, which has reacted to previous arms sales to Taiwan by cutting military ties with the U.S.

This paragraph really bothered me. The rest of the piece is just boilerplate Establishment reporting terminating in AP's "split in '49" nonsense. But I don't like the way it turns Congress into the villain and Obama into the hero; the situation is quite different.

I'm very curious to see how the sale is handled in Taiwan if Congress ever actually does manage to sell the F-16s to Taiwan. I imagine that the Obama Administration will use all its powers to prevent the sale and then to delay its realization. But what will the Ma Administration do? The money simply isn't there to purchase the aircraft at the moment. It might be opportune for the Ma Administration to be able to announce a big arms sale just prior to the election, though. And then drag it out for another few years.....

Meanwhile, the DoD gave its annual 2011 report to Congress this week. The big news was that China remains focused on Taiwan, is rapidly expanding its edge over Taiwan, and appears to be conducting cyberwarfare. As one wag I know remarked, the report appears to be a lagging indicator.
_______________________
[Taiwan] Don't miss the comments below! And check out my blog and its sidebars for events, links to previous posts and picture posts, and scores of links to other Taiwan blogs and forums! Delenda est, baby.

Bad News on F-16s =UPDATED=

Here's the deal: Defense News and the Taipei Times are both reporting a major military and symbolic blow to the island. We aren't getting the 66 F-16 C/D models that were requested under the Chen Administration. My readers always knew that, but more importantly, the upgrades of the existing F-16 A/B models will not be carried out in full. Only one of the two wings of the current group older aircraft will be upgraded.

Part of the issue is the conclusion in some circles that Chinese missiles would make short work of the fighters in the event of war. In any event China's advanced fighters, which outnumber all of Taiwan's fighters, are better than even the new/upgraded F-16s. Part of it also is the lack of funds for this in Taipei, a product in turn of the KMT's apparent program of weakening Taiwan's defenses. Ma of course never wanted the F-16s -- his party blocked them from reaching the floor of the legislature more than 60 times (yes, it is amazing how quickly that fact vanished from the media discourse once Ma became President. Also, remember Ma's promise to get military spending up to 3% of GDP?). But mostly, this decision appears to be driven by the Obama's Administration's fear of China and by the decline of the US since our purblind decisions to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. Had the Obama Administration taken even the tepid stand of insisting on refurbishing all the existing aircraft, the money could easily have been found. Instead we've handed our foreign policy off to Beijing.....

Even now it is not too late to give up our insane wars in the oil states and turn our hands to the future.

Ironically, the Obama Administration says US-Australia defense alliance will become more intimate. The contradictory position of the US is that it will hand over Taiwan to China but then beef up things elsewhere in anticipation of the coming war -- which could have been fought with Taiwan on the right side.

Perhaps the US simply seeks justification for pursuing a war strategy: "Look, we gave them Taiwan, but they still went on to claim _____." Or perhaps the US feels Taiwan will be more of a problem for Beijing within the fold than out. Or perhaps the US feels that by weakening Taiwan it can entice Beijing into attacking, creating moral justification for US intervention.

Or perhaps too many members of our policymaking class are doing business with China, and feel handing off Taipei will make Beijing turn up sweet.

AIT still denies that a decision has been made.

How will this play at home? The DPP might be able to make hay out of the KMT failure to protect the nation, and also out of how Ma hasn't restored good relations with the US. But the KMT could then retort that Taiwan now only has one realistic path, that of annexation, which the DPP isn't going to pursue.

Any way you look at it, this decision sends a powerful signal, not only to Taipei and Beijing, but also to Tokyo and other capitals in the region. Let's hope all this reporting is wrong and US officials are merely floating trial balloons....

ADDED: Gorden Chang on the US decision in Forbes.

Obama’s policy, as generous as it was, did not work. After China finally resumed relations—to the relief of American officials—General Chen Bingde, the chief of the PLA General Staff, came to Washington, where he arrogantly proceeded to lecture his hosts. He followed up last month’s performance by denouncing the United States in a 15-minute rant in front of our South Korean allies a few days later. The White House now seeks to avoid repeat shows of Chinese hostility.

Taiwan, however, needs the newer versions of the F-16 to defend itself. The Taiwan Relations Act essentially requires the United States to sell Taipei what it needs to do so. In the face of China’s arms buildup—the biggest and fastest in the world at this moment—Washington has lost the will to defend a democracy of 23 million people.

The Obama administration has no Taiwan policy—other than doing the minimum—so as not to enrage a “sensitive” China. The President should know better by now: his administration’s attempts to establish cooperative relations with Beijing in February and November 2009 directly led to increased Chinese aggressiveness. The first of those efforts—by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton—was immediately followed by an attack on an unarmed U.S. Navy reconnaissance vessel in international waters. The second—by then-National Security Council staffer Jeffrey Bader—came days before President Obama’s disastrous trip to Beijing.

One wonders to what extent China (and Taiwan) will become an issue in the US election.


UPDATE: The Patriot Pac IIIs approved by Obama in Jan of 2010 aren't coming either.

The United Daily News (UDN) cited military sources as saying that the Obama administration approved in January 2010 the sale of two additional Patriot Advanced Capability (PAC) III anti-missile systems to Taiwan, but the military has not yet signed the deal because the cost exceeds its budget by 40 percent.

The paper said the U.S. authorities have informed the military that if no progress is made on the project by the end of this year, the previously quoted prices for the systems would be invalidated and that the new prices could be even higher.

Because of the delay going back to the KMT refusal to permit the special arms purchase from being debated in the legislature, the cost of the missiles rose. The DPP needs to roast the KMT alive for this failure.

Nope, these missiles are on track!
_______________________
[Taiwan] Don't miss the comments below! And check out my blog and its sidebars for events, links to previous posts and picture posts, and scores of links to other Taiwan blogs and forums! Delenda est, baby.

Week Round up of Neat Stuff

Had a great time in Tainan this week, meeting with all kinds of wonderful people and visiting stores and shops all over the Greater Tainan area. More on that later.

So deepest apologies for the light blogging this week. So much going on....

First, Randy Schriver has a great piece in the Washington Times on the US policy of sacrificing all else to maintain a mil-mil relationship with China, a policy which, he says, is Bound to Fail:

As a previous senior director for policy toward the People's Republic of China (PRC) at the Pentagon, I once had responsibilities for managing U.S.-China military relations on behalf of two secretaries of defense. Through work at the Pentagon and subsequent work both in and out of government, I have watched closely as the military relationship with China has developed. To say the results from our efforts have been disappointing would be a gross understatement.

The United States is correct to want greater transparency from the PLA; to enhance the safety of operations in the Pacific; to demonstrate intentions and capabilities for deterrent effect against potential PRC provocations; to reduce the chance of miscalculation through candid dialogue; to seek cooperative approaches to challenges in the global commons; and to influence a younger generation of PLA officers. Yet we now have ample evidence gleaned from 30 years of data that we are further from, not closer to, these goals. Moreover, three decades of attempted engagement have conditioned Beijing to advance its own objectives by leveraging the continuing pursuits of the ardent suitor found in Washington.

Schriver is making points which I have made again and again on this blog -- it's nice to see them in print in Washington. Not much else you can about an article that is comprehensively right, except you should read it all.

President Ma was interviewed in WSJ this week.... note the description of Ma....

Mr. Ma, 61 years old, took office in May 2008 after winning the island's fourth direct election for president. He received a doctorate in law of the sea and international economic law from Harvard Law School in 1981, before he returned to Taiwan and started as the English interpreter for then-president Chiang Ching-kuo. He rose to minister of justice and then mayor of the capital, Taipei, before winning the presidency amid widespread corruption accusations against his opponent's party and outgoing President Chen Shui-bian.

There was some grumbling among the pro-Taiwan crowd of the short description of Tsai Ing-wen as a "former law professor" but the article was really about Ma, and isn't meant to compare the two, so I don't see any bias there (though I have no doubt where WSJ's heart will be during the election). I'll call bias on WSJ when I see a pattern of omitting Tsai's qualifications -- sorry, but one sentence doth not a pattern make.

In any case, the serious omission here isn't Tsai's own policy background, Phd, and much better degree than Ma, but the report of his advancement without mentioning that it was made possible because he emerged like Athena from the head of the old KMT Party-State. I'd bet that we go the next six months of the run-up to the election without any major media pieces on Ma's longtime service to the anti-democracy side in Taiwan's politics, but considering that there were only two in the previous election, I doubt anyone will cover that bet.

The article says that Ma said the purchase of F-16s is getting harder and harder. Yeah -- when Ma was Chairman of the KMT during the Chen Administration, his party blocked the question of the purchase from appearing on the floor of the legislature repeatedly. He doesn't want them.

Fun this week with the revelation that Chinese independent travelers aren't flooding Taiwan with their itinerary-free, money laden presence. AFP reported:

Taiwan’s travel operators said Thursday they were "shocked" that fewer than 600 solo Chinese tourists had visited the island since a ban on such travel was lifted a month ago.

What could you expect when the government set it up so that the travel agency is punished if the independent tourist goes missing? Why would they promote such travel, given the risks? The Taipei Times also pointed out that Chinese youths are busy taking exams so numbers will be low, while the FT column Beyond Brics said Chinese tourists were cramming into Taiwan -- in tour groups, to be sure. Expect these independent traveler figures to rise. I can't wait to run into some of these people on my bike.
_______________________
[Taiwan] Don't miss the comments below! And check out my blog and its sidebars for events, links to previous posts and picture posts, and scores of links to other Taiwan blogs and forums! Delenda est, baby.

Chinese Su-27s breach center line in Strait =UPDATE= FT edits out correct history

Cycling on a perfect Taiwan day.

This is why we don't need F-16s....

The Ministry of National Defense announced that Chinese Su-27s allegedly chasing a US surveillance aircraft crossed the invisible center line in the Taiwan Strait:

The military and national security apparatus was in “full control” when two Chinese Sukhoi-27 fighters crossed the centerline in the Taiwan Strait on June 29, the Ministry of National Defense (MND) said yesterday.

The Chinese-language newspaper United Daily News reported that one of the two Chinese fighter aircraft had crossed the theoretical median maritime border between Taiwan and China while allegedly pursuing a U-2S high-altitude US reconnaissance aircraft.

Two Taiwanese F-16 aircraft intercepted the Su-27s, which subsequently returned to Chinese airspace, the report said.

A KMTer spun the incident as one taking place between China and the US, which did not involve Taiwan, an interesting viewpoint. I guess "launching fighters" is the same as "not being involved."

Like Helen of Troy, this incident launched a thousand (air)ships as netizens dredged up old stories. The adherence to the allegedly 1951 US-defined centerline is of recent vintage, as this 2008 piece notes:

From 1949, when nationalist forces left the Mainland and went to Taiwan, until 1999, there were no restraints on Taiwanese jets flying over the line, Lee said.

“During the 50 years ... PLA air force fighter aircraft were seldom active over the strait, and the two sides seemed to have a tacit understanding and lived in peace with each other,” Lee wrote in the September 2008 issue of Taiwan's Chien-tuan K'o-chi (Defense Technology Monthly).

China stepped up flights over the strait after Taiwan President Lee Teng-hui adopted his two-state theory. To avoid conflicts, Taiwanese jets gradually withdrew training flights to areas east of the mid-line. Freedom to conduct missions over the line was “greatly reduced,” Lee wrote.

“However, there was not yet a formal announcement to the outside world, and at that time, Chinese fighter aircraft activity west of the Taiwan Strait mid-line was also very cautious,” he said.

“When the former minister of national defense publicly announced that Taiwan's fighter aircraft would never cross the mid-line, it was the equivalent of announcing that Taiwan had abandoned the airspace west of the mid-line and after that, Chinese fighter aircraft activities in this area increased daily, and gradually became normal,” he said.

But as this 2004 piece in the Straits Times observes, the line has never been clearly defined between the three gov'ts -- because Beijing fears that a clear cut demarcation in the Strait will make Taiwan even more independent than it already is. Other pieces give clear lines.

In 2004 the TSU actually called for a new constitution to clearly define what is Taiwan's and what is China's in the Strait -- who owns what in the Taiwan Strait will become yet another contested issue if Taiwan formally ratifies its existing de facto independence one day. You can imagine what China will do -- fight rearguard sovereignty actions over the Penghu, which are "indisputably Chinese and have been for every freakin' second of the last 5000 thousand years." Then will come the struggles over fishing and mineral rights. Taiwan independence won't be the end of the process of disengagement from China, but the beginning of one....

It should be clear by now that the whole fictional construction of "5,000 years of Chinese history" exists merely to facilitate China's territorial expansion.

The Washington Times reported on this incident in more detail:

Two Chinese jet fighters came dangerously close to a U.S. EP-3 reconnaissance aircraft last week during an encounter reminiscent of the aerial collision that touched off a U.S.-China crisis.

Two F-7 jets tracked the EP-3 as it flew in international airspace off the northern coast of China, U.S. intelligence officials tell us.

"They came within 250 feet," said one official.

The encounter was close, said some officials, but less threatening than Chinese aerial engagements in the past, which have come within a few feet of U.S. reconnaissance aircraft.

.....

U.S. intelligence agencies have increased electronic intelligence gathering from China in order to pick up new information on recent Communist Party leadership changes.

The aerial intercept also coincided with renewed Chinese fighter sorties near Taiwan. For the first time in months, Chinese military forces began flying new Su-30 fighter bombers close to the demarcation line that runs down the center of the Taiwan Strait.

At least 12 sorties were detected by U.S. intelligence. The flights were viewed by U.S. officials as provocative and coincided with the major Communist Party congress in Beijing that ended last week.

Some reports in the US Chinese language media from a few years ago appear to indicate that Chinese jets sortie hundreds of times a year and during Chen's UN entry campaign appeared to increase their sorties in response. But this may merely be disinformation aimed at Chinese in the US to say: "Look what we're doing about the awful Chen Shui-bian!"

MEDIA: One really great thing about the FT piece is that Kathrin Hille, who was one of the most knowledgeable, tough-minded reporters about Taiwan I met here, wrote:

Taiwan has not been controlled by a Beijing-based government since China ceded the island to Japan in 1895, but Beijing claims sovereignty over the self-ruled island.

Pithy and historically-accurate. Are you listening, AP? Thanks, Kathrin, that was really great to see.

UPDATE: Totally gutless FT has edited out the "since 1895" remark, leaving: "While Beijing still claims sovereignty over Taiwan and has threatened an invasion if the self-ruled island declared independence, relations between the two sides have warmed since Ma Ying-jeou was elected president in 2008" Dear FT, in case you were wondering why people read blogs, this is why.
_______________________ 
[Taiwan] Don't miss the comments below! And check out my blog and its sidebars for events, links to previous posts and picture posts, and scores of links to other Taiwan blogs and forums! Delenda est, baby.