Skip to main content
Support
Event

Taiwan's Dilemma: A Democracy Divided Over National Security

Shirley Kan, Congressional Research Service; Thomas J. Bickford, Center for Naval Analysis Corporation; Elizabeth Hague, RAND Corportation; Vincent Wang, University of Richmond

Date & Time

Wednesday
Jun. 6, 2007
3:30pm – 5:30pm ET

Overview

At a June 6 event sponsored by the Asia Program, the speakers underscored that Taiwan is a relatively new democracy, and because the government has been split since 2000 (the Democratic Progressive Party or DPP controls the executive branch, while the Kuomintang or KMT controls the legislature), this has led to deep divisions over national security. One example is the Bush administration's arms sales package, offered to Taiwan in 2001, and yet to be accepted.

Thomas J. Bickford, senior research analyst at the CNA Corporation, stated that since China is Taiwan's main military opponent, Taiwan cannot stand still, inasmuch as China has made impressive gains over the last decade in military modernization. Furthermore, Taiwan is a narrow island, resulting in a lack of strategic depth. There are few locations to house air bases and command and control centers. Therefore, Taiwan needs airfields capable of withstanding missile attacks; hardened sites; bunkers; better air defenses; and redundant facilities. Mines, anti-mines, and anti-submarine warfare (ASW) aircraft are also necessary to counter possible blockades and to prevent an enemy force from landing. Bickford noted Taiwan's ASW aircraft are 40 years old. He also suggested Taiwan needs to pay more attention to strategic coherence in planning, to increased opportunities for training, and to upgrading skills at joint operations.

Elizabeth Hague, China research analyst at the RAND Corporation, stated that Taiwan's current struggles over national security need to be viewed in the context of politics. Traditionally, Taiwan was controlled by the KMT, and there were few problems over national security issues; defense budgets being approved regularly. However, since the DPP won the presidential election with Chen Shui-bian in 2000, and with his reelection in 2004, things have changed. Some of these changes are because of Chen's strong, personal style of governance. Key executive positions such as the premiership (six premiers in seven years), and the minister of defense (four in the same time span), have had too much turnover for the smooth coordination of national security policy. It is no surprise, then, that cooperation between the ministry of defense and other agencies is weak. Taiwan also lacks a sufficiently large professional bureaucratic staff to advise high-level politicians in office. The KMT, frustrated by having lost control of the executive branch, is more assertive in the legislature over budget issues. Such assertiveness is bolstered by the classic guns vs. butter debate: politicians tend to want more money for social services for their constituents, and KMT politicians can, and do, put their DPP counterparts on the defensive by arguing that more money should be spent for social welfare rather than given to the military. Ironically, the former opposition DPP now favors increased defense spending, while the KMT has been more obstructionist. Defense spending was 2.7 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) in 2002; this fell to 2.3 percent in 2006. President Chen would like to increase this to 2.85 percent this year, but prospects are not good.

Vincent Wei-cheng Wang, associate professor of political science at the University of Richmond, emphasized ethnic and identity issues as key differences resulting in different outlooks between the DPP and KMT. Most native Taiwanese (who emigrated to Taiwan from southern Fujian province in China several hundred years ago) identify themselves with the DPP, while mainlanders, who came to Taiwan in the 1940s; minority Hakka (also immigrants from southern China); and aborigines (indigenous to Taiwan) tend to support the KMT. Native Taiwanese see themselves as either Taiwanese or both Taiwanese and Chinese, but never as only Chinese. The others tend to see themselves as either both Taiwanese and Chinese, or Chinese. This colors their views toward China, with DPP supporters seeing the mainland as more of a hostile force, and KMT supporters tending to want to seek more cooperation, especially in the economic sphere, with China. This also affects issues such as defense spending, with the KMT seeing it as a lesser priority, while the DPP favors greater spending. KMT supporters agree that China represents a security challenge, but they believe it to be a manageable one so long as Taiwan does not openly declare independence. The DPP, on the other hand, favors an arms build-up, including offensive weapons. Wang concluded that the United States should avoid using its 2001 arms sales package as a litmus test of Taiwan's willingness to defend itself, but rather be patient, understanding, and give Taiwan's relatively new democracy more time to develop and mature.

Shirley Kan, specialist in national security at the Congressional Research Service, agreed with Professor Wang that there is no consensus in Taiwan about national identity, national security, or the threat to Taiwan. Nor is there any sense of urgency regarding Taiwan's self-defense needs. She noted the paradox of this lack of urgency at a time when, for example, Chinese ballistic missiles pointing at Taiwan have grown from several hundred to over nine hundred. One reason for the reduction in threat perception, she said, is growing economic ties with the mainland. Taiwan's exports to China and Hong Kong are greater than Taiwan's exports to the United States, Europe, and Japan combined. Kan asserted that Congress has paid close attention to the situation in Taiwan, and that there is growing irritation with Taiwan, especially over the lack of movement on the U.S. arms sales package of 2001. Taiwan's decision "not to decide" on the U.S.-offered arms sales package affects U.S. policy. Members on Capitol Hill are asking, "What more can be done?" She said the feeling on the Hill is that the United States has done all it can, and that the ball is now in Taiwan's court.

Drafted by Mark Mohr, Asia Program Associate
Robert M. Hathaway, Director, Asia Program. Ph: (202) 691-4020

Tagged

Hosted By

Indo-Pacific Program

The Indo-Pacific Program promotes policy debate and intellectual discussions on US interests in the Asia-Pacific as well as political, economic, security, and social issues relating to the world’s most populous and economically dynamic region.   Read more

Thank you for your interest in this event. Please send any feedback or questions to our Events staff.