20040429

=======

A mighty offense on April 29, 2004 ……

Oppose American independence

`The people in the colonies should keep quiet, be happy and accept the status quo. Any change in the status quo should be mutually agreed to with the authorities in London.'

By Gerrit van der Wees

As we put our pen to paper, it is June 1775. Much debate is going on about cross-Atlantic relations: King George III in London is still insisting on a "one Britain" policy, and emphasizes that the colonies are an inseparable part of the British Empire.

This "one Britain" policy has served us well for six generations, and is the bedrock of stability for relations across the Atlantic. Of course, the great majority of the population in the colonies are of English descent, speak English, and should therefore be considered subjects of the British throne.

Now, the problem is that an increasing number of people in the colonies are starting to talk about democracy, and are even advocating American independence. It is of course obvious that this would be detrimental to stability in the region, since Britain would never allow secession.

A couple of months ago, some pro-independence hotheads caused some problems at Lexington and Concord in Massachusetts. We certainly hope they will cease their provocative actions.

There is even talk that some of the separatists, headed by a Benjamin Franklin and one George Washington, are planning to write articles of confederation for the United Colonies of America. This is creeping independence, and should be avoided at all cost. Heaven forbid, it might lead to a Declaration of Independence and a new constitution.

The people in the colonies should keep quiet, be happy and accept the status quo. Any change in the status quo should be mutually agreed to with the authorities in London. Any unilateral steps by the colonies might lead to a crisis, which would provoke military action from King George, and would draw the rest of Europe into a war between England and the colonies.

Part of the problem is rising American nationalism. The people there are forgetting their English roots, neglecting proper British manners and customs, in particular the adequate distinction between the upper and lower classes of society.

In all this, the King has been very flexible and conciliatory: He has emphasized that there should be peaceful reunification and he has sent some 500 warships to the American coast, which will only attack if the colonies declare independence.

The British Empire considers these jurisdictions renegade colonies that must be reunited, by force if necessary. It would be irresponsible for the American colonies to treat these statements as empty threats.

Britain has gone to great lengths to prevent other nations from establishing ties with the colonies. Still, there are some in Europe, notably France and the Dutch Republic, inexplicably siding with the rebels in the American colonies. These nations are illegally selling weapons to the colonies, thereby reinforcing their sense of independence from the British Empire.

One of the rebels, Thomas Jefferson, is even reported to be in The Hague, where he is copying the 1568 Dutch Declaration of Independence from Spain.

In any case, Britain is the world power at the moment: the Union Jack is flying securely from the Caribbean to the Mediterranean, from Africa to India. Challenging her might would be disastrous for world peace. We therefore do not support American independence, and will even consider opposing it.

Let us hope the message is clear.

Gerrit van der Wees is editor of Taiwan Communique.

-----------------------------------------

On April 29, 2004 ……

A mighty offense is the nation's best defense

By Dennis Hickey, Mike Welken

A growing number of Taiwan's political and military leaders believe that the nation should develop an offensive strike capability. In fact, every missile that China deploys opposite Taiwan increases the likelihood that the nation will consider implementing an offensive military strategy. This prospect worries decision-makers in Washington. But it makes perfect sense to many Taiwanese.

At one time, Taiwan's qualitative military superiority appeared to provide the island with adequate security -- China was deterred from launching a surprise attack or otherwise harassing the island. However, China's military modernization has diminished Taiwan's ability to adhere to a purely defensive doctrine. In addition to the 50 to 70 new missiles that Beijing deploys across the Taiwan Strait each year, China has embraced a sudden strike strategy aimed at decapitating Taiwan's defenses in a matter of only seven minutes.

It is becoming obvious to many Taiwanese military authorities and experts that no amount of PAC-3 units or PC-3 Orion submarine-killing aircraft is going to deter China. Beijing may be willing to sacrifice a substantial number of troops, aircraft, submarines and missiles to achieve its military objective -- the conquest of Taiwan. However, as one Taiwanese academic observed, China might be deterred from an attack if the island has the muscle required to destroy a significant portion of the prosperous and productive coastal regions that are vital to China's economy.

Others contend that acquiring an offensive military capability makes sense in terms of economics. Taiwan's social welfare expenditure has escalated markedly. Simply stated, this means that less money is available for defense. Whereas defense outlays constituted almost 5 percent of Taiwan's GDP in the 1990s, they have now fallen to under 3 percent. But what really complicates matters is the fact that defensive weapons cost so much more than offensive arms.

According to US military calculations, the cost-effectiveness of offensive operations against defensive ones is one to nine. That means that whenever Beijing spends US$100 million to develop offensive weapons to attack Taiwan, Taipei must spend US$900 million building defensive measures. But the actual cost is probably much higher. The costs associated with a purely defensive military strategy could prove to be astronomical.

A third consideration that prompts military planners to consider developing offensive weapons may be traced to the characteristics of the global system. In an anarchic international environment, each state is ultimately responsible for its own defense. There is no world policeman. And despite recent military actions in Iraq, the US appears unwilling to play the role of "globocop."

In the unlikely event that Washington decides to forsake Taiwan, Taipei will be better situated to deter a Chinese attack if it possesses an indigenous offensive military capability.

US officials claim to oppose Taiwan's acquisition and/or deployment of offensive arms. They reason that this development will only serve to escalate cross-strait tensions and add that the TRA only permits the sale of defensive arms. But there is much more that Washington can do.

If the US is serious about an escalating arms race across the Taiwan Strait, it should exert more pressure on China to remove the hundreds of missiles it has deployed. And Beijing should be reminded that its intimidating behavior might compel Taiwan to develop a more robust military capability. If present trends continue, decision-makers in Taiwan may come to believe that the best defense is a good offense.

Dennis Hickey is a professor of political science and Mike Welken is a graduate student in the political science department at Southwest Missouri State University.

-----------------------------------------