The Chinese government on Jan. 4 announced that is was activating northbound flights along route M503, which runs the length of the Taiwan Strait near the median line and had previously only carried southbound traffic. The unilateral decision was intended to put pressure on Taiwan and test its reaction.
The Chinese government has done similar things in relation to Japan, South Korea, India and the South China Sea. In addition to responding to the M503 affair from the military, defense and national security angles, Taiwan also needs to analyze it with regard to other, seemingly unconnected, aspects of China’s Taiwan policies to get an overall outline of China’s strategic plans.
Taiwanese must pay special attention to how any Chinese measure regarding Taiwan — be it threats and pressure, or favors and benefits — cannot be talked about in terms of one particular incident.
China is still an authoritarian state and all its Taiwan-related policies are deployed in a unified and systematic manner, forming a set of policies that complement and support one another. They all have the same final purpose: to annex Taiwan.
For example, China has arrested and imprisoned Taiwanese human rights advocate Lee Ming-che (李明哲), but it offers Taiwanese the benefits of its cross-strait youth enterprise bases. It represses Taiwan in the international community, but shows it goodwill in its Belt and Road Initiative.
Whether positive or negative, all these policies are intended to lend impetus to China-friendly forces in Taiwan and weaken anti-China forces in an attempt to change Taiwan’s growing social structure of “natural independence.”
China’s flight route decision and other moves, such as frequently dispatching military aircraft and warships to fly or sail around Taiwan, are designed to step on Taiwan’s red lines and test its reactions. This is a typical strategy of closing in step by step, with the purpose of numbing the vigilance of Taiwanese.
The 19th National Congress of the Chinese Communist Party in October last year marked a watershed for China’s policies regarding Taiwan. From then on, the Chinese government’s great strategic principle for annexing Taiwan has been a parallel strategy of offering incentives while attacking opponents to divide Taiwan from the inside.
Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) made this clear in his speech at the congress. Beijing has set the tone for its interactions with Taipei, adopting a strategy of closing the window for dialogue and taking unilateral actions.
Meanwhile, China’s “united front” strategy is one of divide and conquer, dropping the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) in favor of alliances with Taiwanese civic groups and individuals. Its overall rhythm is one of treading on Taiwan’s red lines, closing in step by step, changing the “status quo” and eventually looking for an opportunity to annex Taiwan.
To sum up, Taiwanese need to take a clear and accurate view of everything China does in relation to Taiwan. When seen in isolation, individual incidents might seem like nothing to worry about, but when put together, they form an even more formidable threat than that of a military invasion.
China has already managed to shift the “status quo” by all manner of means, both hard and soft.
The government needs to wake up from its passive attitude and formulate a comprehensive and active strategy to counter China’s moves.
Only by doing so will it be able to guarantee Taiwan’s long-term peace and security, and uphold its national sovereignty.
Chen Chia-lin holds a doctorate in law and is director of the Taiwan Solidarity Union’s policy department.
Translated by Julian Clegg
In the US’ National Security Strategy (NSS) report released last month, US President Donald Trump offered his interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine. The “Trump Corollary,” presented on page 15, is a distinctly aggressive rebranding of the more than 200-year-old foreign policy position. Beyond reasserting the sovereignty of the western hemisphere against foreign intervention, the document centers on energy and strategic assets, and attempts to redraw the map of the geopolitical landscape more broadly. It is clear that Trump no longer sees the western hemisphere as a peaceful backyard, but rather as the frontier of a new Cold War. In particular,
As the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) races toward its 2027 modernization goals, most analysts fixate on ship counts, missile ranges and artificial intelligence. Those metrics matter — but they obscure a deeper vulnerability. The true future of the PLA, and by extension Taiwan’s security, might hinge less on hardware than on whether the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) can preserve ideological loyalty inside its own armed forces. Iran’s 1979 revolution demonstrated how even a technologically advanced military can collapse when the social environment surrounding it shifts. That lesson has renewed relevance as fresh unrest shakes Iran today — and it should
When it became clear that the world was entering a new era with a radical change in the US’ global stance in US President Donald Trump’s second term, many in Taiwan were concerned about what this meant for the nation’s defense against China. Instability and disruption are dangerous. Chaos introduces unknowns. There was a sense that the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) might have a point with its tendency not to trust the US. The world order is certainly changing, but concerns about the implications for Taiwan of this disruption left many blind to how the same forces might also weaken
On today’s page, Masahiro Matsumura, a professor of international politics and national security at St Andrew’s University in Osaka, questions the viability and advisability of the government’s proposed “T-Dome” missile defense system. Matsumura writes that Taiwan’s military budget would be better allocated elsewhere, and cautions against the temptation to allow politics to trump strategic sense. What he does not do is question whether Taiwan needs to increase its defense capabilities. “Given the accelerating pace of Beijing’s military buildup and political coercion ... [Taiwan] cannot afford inaction,” he writes. A rational, robust debate over the specifics, not the scale or the necessity,
RSS