tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7971426430678948233.post4486304515546784147..comments2024-02-10T04:32:14.218-05:00Comments on Kevin Slaten's Blog: Taiwan Should Say 'No' To U.S. ArmsKevin Slatenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07892885228803292894noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7971426430678948233.post-91901175985137279882010-01-04T23:33:48.138-05:002010-01-04T23:33:48.138-05:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7971426430678948233.post-53083913883954671062009-12-25T20:49:16.990-05:002009-12-25T20:49:16.990-05:00Hey Dan,
It's been a busy Christmas week -- ...Hey Dan,<br /><br />It's been a busy Christmas week -- even in Taiwan! -- so forgive the delay. <br /><br />First, in response to your thought experiment (i.e. restricting US military spending): I think the situations are not comparable, thus making the hypothetical non-instructive. A) The US is hardly in a geographically or militarily vulnerable position from China. Taiwan, conversely, is overwhelming outnumbered by Chinese everything -- ships, submarines, missiles, soldiers, technology, etc. So no single arms sale form the US is going to chance the balance across the Strait. B) The national future of the US is not in question relative to China. There is some possibility -- though reasonable people could argue over percentiles -- that Taiwan could be increasingly more integrated with China. (I decidedly don't use "unify" here because that is not the point. The point is that the two countries' futures are more integrated at a cultural, political, and economic level than the US/China.)<br /><br />Second, you wrote, "If we really want to help Taiwan weather possible effects of Chinese economic pressure, we should be thinking about a U.S.-Taiwan Free Trade Agreement, not about asking Taiwan to sacrifice its security for the sake of pleasing Beijing." <br /><br />I agree with a US-Taiwan FTA storngly. However, the ECFA is *precisely* designed to give Taiwan the ability to more easily contract other FTAs. Therefore, this raises the significance of the deal even moreso (via more economic benefits to the Taiwanese). As I mention in the article, the benefits of the ECFA are far beyond what is immediately calculated. <br /><br />And as for the second part of your above comment, this still begs the question of how much these arms really help Taiwan security. They do not. That is critical here. This arms deal is symbolic. Therefore, no one is asking "Taiwan to sacrifice its security for the sake of pleasing Beijing." Indeed, the arms do not enhance security significantly; therefore, there is no sacrifice to be had -- except for marginal political effects on Obama and Ma.Kevin Slatenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07892885228803292894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7971426430678948233.post-13335566234708885692009-12-23T13:34:55.077-05:002009-12-23T13:34:55.077-05:00Thank you for your nice posting.
it is really help...Thank you for your nice posting.<br />it is really helpful to us.<br />such a nice topics.<br /><br /><a rel="nofollow">Bathmate</a>bathmatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08828026417866333107noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7971426430678948233.post-57229986789054619112009-12-21T02:33:51.582-05:002009-12-21T02:33:51.582-05:00(And perhaps I should have stressed this more: thi...(And perhaps I should have stressed this more: this is about perception, which means that timing *does* matter. The message sent by delaying this purchase until after an ECFA is signed is a dangerous one. Particularly since China might drag out ECFA negotiations specifically to prevent Taiwan from moving forward with this deal.)Daniel Michaelihttp://www.asiaruminations.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7971426430678948233.post-1876924870307866942009-12-21T02:30:39.239-05:002009-12-21T02:30:39.239-05:00The thing is--it's perception that counts here...The thing is--it's perception that counts here. And appearing to postpone the decision, even if the deal ultimately goes through, is going to make it look like Taipei is willing to sacrifice its own interests to stay on Beijing's good side.<br /><br />If Hu Jintao said China would be mad if the U.S. increased its military spending, and threatened to withhold China's support for the NPT review (something important to us, but not immediately threatening), then how should we react? Extrapolating from your recommendations to Taiwan, then, in addition to postponing/delaying indefinitely a meeting with the Dalai Lama, Obama should also freeze U.S. military spending to please the Chinese. This would obviously be a bad idea, and I think you'd agree: it would embolden China to think it could bully us around. Same for Taiwan--all the more so because the stakes for Taiwan are much higher.<br /><br />Even if Taiwan loses out in the short term with a delay of several months on an ECFA, I think it wins in the long term by establishing a relationship with the mainland in which, as much as possible, the mainland is unable to use economic levers to manipulate Taiwanese security decision-making. Starting to give China veto power over Taiwanese military purchases now means China will take an even harder line on these sales in the future. If that's how China will behave, do the Taiwanese people really want their economy to be even more dependent on China than it is already?<br /><br />If we really want to help Taiwan weather possible effects of Chinese economic pressure, we should be thinking about a U.S.-Taiwan Free Trade Agreement, not about asking Taiwan to sacrifice its security for the sake of pleasing Beijing.Daniel Michaelihttp://www.asiaruminations.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7971426430678948233.post-62634978530429298182009-12-19T22:09:05.495-05:002009-12-19T22:09:05.495-05:00Hey Dan, thanks for the thoughts.
A few points in...Hey Dan, thanks for the thoughts.<br /><br />A few points in response:<br /><br />You seem to forget that the argument I'm making is not really one of "if", it is more accurately about the timing of the arms deal. That this has been stalled since 2001 makes my argument even stronger. Why pick the months immediately before signing the ECFA, of all periods of time that you could carry out the arms deal? <br /><br />Further, none of the points you have made would really challenge the idea of waiting until *after* the ECFA is inked. Actually, waiting until after the economic pact is in motion actually makes Chinese reaction to an arms deal less consequential because it is harder for the PRC to back out of a contracted ECFA.<br /><br />Finally, I think that your final point is most salient. True, the sale *could* be inconsequential to the ECFA process because Chinese leaders have deemed the ECFA sufficiently important. However, to this I offer two dishes of my own for thought: 1) Do you really know what the Standing Committee wants in regards to this issue? No, neither does anyone else except for the half dozen people in that committee. 2) It might be easier to take this risk when you are an American (or any other non-Taiwanese). This is central to my argument in the article: Taiwanese people have much more to lose if the calculations you've suggested in your last point are wrong.<br /><br />So, the short of it is this: as a Taiwanese (or President Ma, more specifically), hedge your bets. ECFA first, then arms deal. This is my argument in the article. <br /><br />-Kev-Kevin Slatenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07892885228803292894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7971426430678948233.post-56529369710396459172009-12-19T16:15:54.987-05:002009-12-19T16:15:54.987-05:00This is interesting but I don't agree with you...This is interesting but I don't agree with your conclusion.<br /><br />Canceling or delaying a sale at this point would belie Ma Ying-jeou's logic for pursuing an ECFA in the first place. Ma has argued that Taiwan's political future and ability to defend itself will not be harmed (and, indeed, may be enhanced) by an ECFA.<br /><br />This is an arms sale package that has been stalled since 2001. Now that the U.S. appears to be moving closer to the sale, backing down would embolden China to continue to use blackmail to prevent Taiwan from improving its military situation.<br /><br />I would note, also, that China continues, in spite of Ma's election and the ECFA negotiations, to set up more and more missiles opposite Taiwan (seven brigades, up to 1200 short-range missiles, according to DOD). If China were serious about reducing the military build-up, it would have to demonstrate restraint in its own actions.<br /><br />Finally, I'm not sure an arms sale would substantially delay an ECFA. China has a huge incentive to show Taiwan's population that it has something to gain by electing moderate leaders like Ma. Failing to follow through on ECFA could mean Ma would lose the next election, something China very much does not want.<br /><br />Food for thought, though. I may take on this issue at AsiaRuminations.com at some point....<br /><br />DanDaniel Michaelihttp://www.asiaruminations.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7971426430678948233.post-58612402992382731072009-12-14T21:26:45.552-05:002009-12-14T21:26:45.552-05:00Kudos to Kevin. You have spoken the best interest...Kudos to Kevin. You have spoken the best interest for people in Taiwan. Thanks. No US Arms. Peace to Taiwan. Kevin 加油 !!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7971426430678948233.post-86570828094142588632009-12-12T00:08:42.818-05:002009-12-12T00:08:42.818-05:00yes i agree no army its just make chaos
Astaga co...yes i agree no army its just make chaos<br /><br /><a href="http://mbahgendeng.com/lifestyle/astaga-com-lifestyle-on-the-net-yang-paling-mantap.html" rel="dofollow" rel="nofollow">Astaga com lifestyle on the net </a>mbah gendenghttp://mbahgendeng.comnoreply@blogger.com