Last week’s Han Kuang live-fire drills simulated a People’s Liberation Army (PLA) attempt to land on Penghu and a PLA assault on a Taichung airbase. These drills are important to maintain the most effective military response in case of an invasion by China.
Although the US has committed to defend Taiwan by the Three Joint Communiques, the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) and the “six assurances,” the nation still needs to be ready to defend itself, certainly in the initial stages of an attack.
According to a 2015 RAND Corp report entitled The US-China Military Scorecard: Forces, Geography and the Evolving Balance of Power, 1996-2017, China’s ability to project its military power and have favorable engagements with the US is rapidly improving, especially closer to home, with an invasion of Taiwan for example.
However, it is also important to consider the costs of an invasion and its aftermath, which might give Beijing considerable pause.
First, landings would be costly for an invading force in terms of life and equipment, much more so than for Taiwan, especially with US assistance factored in.
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) would need to know that an invasion would succeed. Defeat would jeopardize the CCP’s legitimacy and give the US good cause to maintain a much stronger — and long term — military presence in the region, making a repeat attempt much more difficult.
Second, even if Beijing were to succeed, it would unlikely be met with open arms by Taiwanese. It would be different from when Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) forces arrived in 1949.
Taiwanese have an increasingly strong sense of national identity and have had a long time to think about China taking over. They do not want that.
They also have a sophisticated sense of the ins and outs of the historical argument of who has rightful sovereignty over Taiwan. China would not win that argument.
Third, there would be considerable infrastructure damage and destruction to government buildings, utilities, bridges, roads, railway lines and other transportation links. This would require massive reconstruction, which would not endear Taiwanese to the aggressors, to say nothing of the costs.
Fourth, there would be significant loss of life, which would stir up enmity.
Beijing could expect several decades of mollifying and pacifying Taiwanese, and dealing with insurgencies across the nation.
The PLA would have to commit tens of thousands of people to keeping Taiwan under control for decades.
There is also the reaction of the international community to consider. China is trying to present itself as a global power, with all of the responsibilities that entails.
Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) appears to want to establish China as a champion of international free trade and the environment in the potential power vacuum left by US President Donald Trump’s administration.
Instigating an invasion and drawn-out pacification of a people known for their progressive, peace-loving ways and democratic achievement might not be the best way to do that. It could lead to international isolation and condemnation that would retard any efforts China has made to set itself up as a reliable international partner.
Nations such as the Philippines, Vietnam and Japan, which have competing territorial claims in the South China and East China seas, would also have to adjust their approach to China and its military.
The economic disruption would have serious domestic consequences for the CCP’s legitimacy, as Chinese, who are becoming accustomed to prosperity and stability, might turn against the leadership.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath