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
Taiwan aims to elevate its strategic position in supply chains by becoming an artificial intelligence (AI) hub for Nvidia Corp, providing everything from advanced chips and components to servers, in an attempt to edge out its closest rival in the region, South Korea. Taiwan’s importance in the AI ecosystem was clearly reflected in three major announcements Nvidia made during this year’s Computex trade show in Taipei. First, the US company’s number of partners in Taiwan would surge to 122 this year, from 34 last year, according to a slide shown during CEO Jensen Huang’s (黃仁勳) keynote speech on Monday last week.
On May 7, 1971, Henry Kissinger planned his first, ultra-secret mission to China and pondered whether it would be better to meet his Chinese interlocutors “in Pakistan where the Pakistanis would tape the meeting — or in China where the Chinese would do the taping.” After a flicker of thought, he decided to have the Chinese do all the tape recording, translating and transcribing. Fortuitously, historians have several thousand pages of verbatim texts of Dr. Kissinger’s negotiations with his Chinese counterparts. Paradoxically, behind the scenes, Chinese stenographers prepared verbatim English language typescripts faster than they could translate and type them
More than 30 years ago when I immigrated to the US, applied for citizenship and took the 100-question civics test, the one part of the naturalization process that left the deepest impression on me was one question on the N-400 form, which asked: “Have you ever been a member of, involved in or in any way associated with any communist or totalitarian party anywhere in the world?” Answering “yes” could lead to the rejection of your application. Some people might try their luck and lie, but if exposed, the consequences could be much worse — a person could be fined,
When China passed its “Anti-Secession” Law in 2005, much of the democratic world saw it as yet another sign of Beijing’s authoritarianism, its contempt for international law and its aggressive posture toward Taiwan. Rightly so — on the surface. However, this move, often dismissed as a uniquely Chinese form of legal intimidation, echoes a legal and historical precedent rooted not in authoritarian tradition, but in US constitutional history. The Chinese “Anti-Secession” Law, a domestic statute threatening the use of force should Taiwan formally declare independence, is widely interpreted as an emblem of the Chinese Communist Party’s disregard for international norms. Critics
RSS