China and Taiwan are like two fractious schoolchildren. They draw a line across their desk to separate themselves, then falsely accusing each other of purposely putting an elbow across before running to their teacher (the US) to complain. Recently, there have been a number of incidents in which China and Taiwan have each accused the other of crossing the "middle line" of the Taiwan Strait.
Taipei has accused Beijing of using both military and diplomatic threats during the run-up to the presidential inauguration on May 20, and incidences of "middle line" violations have increased. Beijing has berated Taipei for inciting its fighters to provocative behavior, hoping they will provide a pretext for President Chen Shui-bien (陳水扁) to influence opinion against the "motherland," and has threatened to shoot any planes crossing the "middle line" out of the sky.
Despite this rhetoric, the two sides are not without a tacit understanding in military matters. Since China came out badly from a number of past air engagements, both sides now understand how far they can go. The basic principle has been that neither side will cross the line that divides the Strait; passenger carriers, cargo vessels and supply vessels which pose no threat being exempt from this rule.
In fact, surveillance craft make intermittent forays across the line, and these are simply monitored; in fact, even fighters cross over occasionally to test the oppositions radar coverage, but even this falls into the realm of a cross-strait understanding, and though the air force is always mobilized to block and drive off the intruders, there has never been an exchange of fire. It has been like this for the last few decades. But more recently, crossing the line has suddenly elicited severe warnings. This somewhat unexpected response is probably the result of political factors.
The speed and accuracy of modern weapons are better than ever before and this kind of unstated understanding between the two sides is now wholly insufficient. More sophisticated and precise mechanisms need to be put in place to prevent accidental military escalation. Countries with similar military capabilities are usually willing to have such a consultation mechanism in place, but if there is a significant differential in military capability, there is a lack of willingness to have such an understanding with an enemy power. Since the spy plane incident [in April 2001], China and the US have established a preventative mechanism. But the former is still unwilling to establish a similar mechanism with Taiwan.
We still hope that such a mechanism of mutual trust can be established to prevent the escalation of unintentional conflict that may draw in the US and lead to huge losses on both sides. China should agree to a consultative mechanism for military matters if it wants to avoid an unintentional conflict with Taiwan, especially now that Taipei is installing medium-range and cruise missiles, and also because nuclear capability is so easily acquired these days. This has nothing to do with politics, and is simply a precaution. China has no reason to reject it.
Looking at the experience of 50 years of peaceful coexistence in [Western] Europe and the crisis management mechanisms that operated during the Cold War, we can see that there are three mechanisms to reduce the chances of an accidental military conflict: a purely defensive military, military transparency and the telephone hotline. The first has already been established by Taipei, but not by Beijing. This is understandable and is hardly surprising. Military transparency refers to revealing and explaining each other's military deployments, military exercises, along with the establishment of a monitoring mechanism.
China and Taiwan could achieve a partial realization of this simply by expanding and systemizing the current mutual understanding on military matters. The establishment of a hot line is probably the most important preventative mechanism and it can help resolve misunderstandings that could lead to a major conflict the moment they happen.
If Beijing rejects the first two of these options, it should at least accept the third. As Taipei is in a position of weakness, its need for such a mechanism is the more urgent. Nevertheless, for the interest of both sides, it's about time that they begin negotiations in relation to establishing a mechanism of mutual trust in military matters.
Pu Ta-chung is a journalist based in Taipei.
TRANSLATED BY Ian Bartholomew
Before 1945, the most widely spoken language in Taiwan was Tai-gi (also known as Taiwanese, Taiwanese Hokkien or Hoklo). However, due to almost a century of language repression policies, many Taiwanese believe that Tai-gi is at risk of disappearing. To understand this crisis, I interviewed academics and activists about Taiwan’s history of language repression, the major challenges of revitalizing Tai-gi and their policy recommendations. Although Taiwanese were pressured to speak Japanese when Taiwan became a Japanese colony in 1895, most managed to keep their heritage languages alive in their homes. However, starting in 1949, when the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) enacted martial law
Chinese agents often target Taiwanese officials who are motivated by financial gain rather than ideology, while people who are found guilty of spying face lenient punishments in Taiwan, a researcher said on Tuesday. While the law says that foreign agents can be sentenced to death, people who are convicted of spying for Beijing often serve less than nine months in prison because Taiwan does not formally recognize China as a foreign nation, Institute for National Defense and Security Research fellow Su Tzu-yun (蘇紫雲) said. Many officials and military personnel sell information to China believing it to be of little value, unaware that
“Si ambulat loquitur tetrissitatque sicut anas, anas est” is, in customary international law, the three-part test of anatine ambulation, articulation and tetrissitation. And it is essential to Taiwan’s existence. Apocryphally, it can be traced as far back as Suetonius (蘇埃托尼烏斯) in late first-century Rome. Alas, Suetonius was only talking about ducks (anas). But this self-evident principle was codified as a four-part test at the Montevideo Convention in 1934, to which the United States is a party. Article One: “The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a) a permanent population; b) a defined territory; c) government;
The central bank and the US Department of the Treasury on Friday issued a joint statement that both sides agreed to avoid currency manipulation and the use of exchange rates to gain a competitive advantage, and would only intervene in foreign-exchange markets to combat excess volatility and disorderly movements. The central bank also agreed to disclose its foreign-exchange intervention amounts quarterly rather than every six months, starting from next month. It emphasized that the joint statement is unrelated to tariff negotiations between Taipei and Washington, and that the US never requested the appreciation of the New Taiwan dollar during the
RSS