Pushing "Democracy"

In the midst of rising foreign weapon/arms sales, we as Americans--defined by our policies--would often laud that we only sell to democratic countries that are engaged in protecting democracy and other civil/human rights.

So is the lofty claim concerning the intended sale of weapons to Taiwan. We refused to sell our weapons to China, but we will more than happily sell our weapons to Taiwan. President Bush approved the package (which, to my knowledge, included things like submarines, missiles, and anti-submarine aircraft) back in 2001. The US, again as represented by our policies, was ready to make the sell; however, Taiwan was not. They still aren't.

I feel a few things need to be considered when initiating a transaction involving a LARGE amount of weapons. These are relatively simple criterion, but I feel they often get overlooked in the face of dollar signs.
1.) What is the need of the weapons?
2.) What are the anticipated reactions from nearby nations?

Let's start with the first of the criterion. Why does the US, think Taiwan needs weapons? Why does Taiwan feel they don't?

To answer the first question, the large weapons package represents a multi-billion dollar paycheck to companies manufacturing the package. It is a huge influx of cash into the American economy. That usually is not a bad thing. To me, the argument for it seems like this: (a) the Chinese military is growing, (b) this growth presents a threat to the democracy of Taiwan if at some point they are not able to defend themselves.

To take point a, it is true that the Chinese military is growing. See article here (it is basically a summary from this DoD report (the 2006 version is found here). However, does this growth posses a potential threat to Taiwan? Is it plausible enough to warrant the purchase of US arms?

Taiwan doesn't seem to think so. They have shot down the US proposal over 60 times. Neither does the International Institute for Strategic Studies’ Military Balance: “Since the early 1980s China’s defence sector has been in serious decline owing to the steady fall in procurement orders.” The book further points out that over that same time period, 70 percent of China’s military factories have been converted to civilian use.

So the conflict of information and opinion (what to look at, and what to turn the other way for). To complicate matters further, the EU currently debates whether to lift (they might have already done it, not sure...) the embargo on the sale of arms to China. The US, being the major opposition to loosening the restrictions on this, with Russia tailing behind, being as they are the sole seller of weapons/arms to China (equals big loss of cash influx for Russia). The US, says allowing China greater access to weapons will only threaten Taiwan. True.

I think it is good for the US to encourage Taiwan to purchase materials to have enough clout to bolster the Chinese' desire for control of the waters around Taiwan. However, the goober salesman that we have in China is a fool.

Stephen Young, our top US official in Taiwan said, “Taiwan cannot allow its vital security interests to be held hostage to domestic partisan politics. We will be watching closely and judge those who act responsibly and those who play politics.”

This threat, and intimidation simply should not be tolerated. Send this guy home! First of all, what is partisan politics? Oh yeah... IT'S CALLED DEMOCRACY! So he is effectively saying 'don't let democracy stand in the way of buying our weapons so you can puff your chest at China'. As far as I understand the lifting of the embargo, I disagree with it. I think the sale of weapons to Taiwan is an equally bad move (little utopian views here). Especially trying to muzzle them into buying it, like Mr. Young. We can only push 'democracy' so far, and force by intimidation is not democracy.