Local media have recently revisited the story of how People's Liberation Army (PLA) Major General Liu Liankun (
In response to then-president Lee Teng-hui's (
Starting in early 1996, China escalated its military threats against Taiwan. Many Chinese media outlets ran stories saying that, "the Chinese people will not hesitate to spill their blood and sacrifice their lives to protect the nation's sovereignty and territorial integrity." Add to this that a year earlier, a bestselling book in Taiwan called The Intercalary August of 1995 predicted that China would retake Taiwan by military force in 1995. This had people worrying that they were running out of time, and both the stock exchange and currency market took a drubbing.
One could say that China achieved what it wanted with its threats against Taiwan. Liu's information, however, helped the government stiffen its resolve, and view China's actions as psychological warfare, not a prelude to an attack. Taiwan and the US were not the only ones concerned that war might begin at any moment. China was even more cautious, and worried that its exercises would set off a chain of misunderstandings that would lead to a military conflict involving all three countries.
In February 1996, the US embassy in Beijing learned that China was not planning an attack on Taiwan, but never managed to fully verify the information.
In February and March, China sent its vice minister of foreign affairs and later ambassador to the US, Li Zhaoxing (
In these meetings, Chinese officials gave the US solemn promises that the military and missile exercises would be limited in time, scope and geographic location. They made unequivocal guarantees that the PLA would not attack Taiwan, while at the same time urging the US not to interfere in the cross-strait conflict.
According to the spokesperson at the US defense department at the time, Beijing told the US in all official and private talks that China did not plan to attack Taiwan. The PLA field commander even issued strict orders that troops participating in the exercises should avoid anything that might "worsen the situation" and do anything in their power to minimize the risk of anything "unforeseen" occurring.
China's promises to the US were made prior to its missile exercises in March of 1996 and the US' subsequent dispatch of two aircraft carriers to the waters near the Taiwan Strait, and they were aimed at avoiding a misunderstanding on the US side of Beijing's military exercises. The US could of course see clearly from satellite photography that China's military had not fully mobilized its army in preparation for an attack.
To sum up, while China followed a brinkmanship strategy, it also wanted to avoid a misunderstanding that could lead to military conflict. Beijing followed the logic that if Taiwan declared independence, China would be forced to go to war, that military threats would reduce the possibility of Taiwan declaring independence, and, third, that military threats would therefore reduce the possibility of war. Lastly, China wanted to avoid a military conflict with Taiwan.
In this process, Liu's information helped reveal China's brinkmanship strategy and helped prevent a situation where a misunderstanding of Beijing's military exercises by Taiwan could have increased the possibility of military conflict. It also helped Taipei avoid making unnecessary concessions to Beijing.
Tung Chen-yuan is an assistant professor in the Sun Yat-sen Graduate Institute of Social Sciences and Humanities at National Chengchi University.
Translated by Perry Svensson
As the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its People’s Liberation Army (PLA) reach the point of confidence that they can start and win a war to destroy the democratic culture on Taiwan, any future decision to do so may likely be directly affected by the CCP’s ability to promote wars on the Korean Peninsula, in Europe, or, as most recently, on the Indian subcontinent. It stands to reason that the Trump Administration’s success early on May 10 to convince India and Pakistan to deescalate their four-day conventional military conflict, assessed to be close to a nuclear weapons exchange, also served to
The recent aerial clash between Pakistan and India offers a glimpse of how China is narrowing the gap in military airpower with the US. It is a warning not just for Washington, but for Taipei, too. Claims from both sides remain contested, but a broader picture is emerging among experts who track China’s air force and fighter jet development: Beijing’s defense systems are growing increasingly credible. Pakistan said its deployment of Chinese-manufactured J-10C fighters downed multiple Indian aircraft, although New Delhi denies this. There are caveats: Even if Islamabad’s claims are accurate, Beijing’s equipment does not offer a direct comparison
After India’s punitive precision strikes targeting what New Delhi called nine terrorist sites inside Pakistan, reactions poured in from governments around the world. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) issued a statement on May 10, opposing terrorism and expressing concern about the growing tensions between India and Pakistan. The statement noticeably expressed support for the Indian government’s right to maintain its national security and act against terrorists. The ministry said that it “works closely with democratic partners worldwide in staunch opposition to international terrorism” and expressed “firm support for all legitimate and necessary actions taken by the government of India
Minister of National Defense Wellington Koo (顧立雄) has said that the armed forces must reach a high level of combat readiness by 2027. That date was not simply picked out of a hat. It has been bandied around since 2021, and was mentioned most recently by US Senator John Cornyn during a question to US Secretary of State Marco Rubio at a US Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Tuesday. It first surfaced during a hearing in the US in 2021, when then-US Navy admiral Philip Davidson, who was head of the US Indo-Pacific Command, said: “The threat [of military