On July 7, two US Arleigh Burke-class destroyers in a high-profile maneuver sailed through the Taiwan Strait from south to north. The announcements by the US and Taiwanese militaries triggered immediate Chinese protest.
This could be interpreted as an indirect three-way dialogue between Taiwan, the US and China. This passage serves the dual purposes of warning the Chinese Communist Party and reassuring Taiwanese.
Few people know that this is a “pattern” that began at the time of the government transition in 2016, because it has not been widely reported.
However, this pattern is different from the situation during the Taiwan Strait Crisis in 1995 and 1996 when the US military sent two aircraft carrier battle groups to the Taiwan Strait, and the two should not be compared.
Sending an aircraft carrier indicates that a situation is being escalated, and even if it is only an exercise, it remains a sensitive issue. This time, destroyers sailed through the Taiwan Strait, deliberately reducing the risk of reigniting US-China tensions.
The last time the “two-ship model” was used was in 2016. In March and June that year, destroyers sailed through the Taiwan Strait. In terms of timing, the passages occurred after the Democratic Progressive Party won the presidential election and Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) was sworn in. Both passes were low-key and intended as a signal to the People’s Liberation Army to ensure stability in Taiwan during the transfer of political power.
In July last year, the destroyers put in a new appearance. Following celebrations of the handover of Hong Kong to China, the Chinese aircraft carrier Liaoning sailed through the Taiwan Strait west of the median line between Taiwan and China on its way back to its home port in Qingdao.
Due to the sensitive state of the region, not only did Taiwanese navy vessels monitor the passage from the east side of the median line, but the USS Stethem destroyer also entered the Taiwan Strait and sailed along the median line to monitor it.
In contrast with the above situation, the two destroyers earlier this month were “carrying out a mission of free navigation,” as the US ship told the accompanying Taiwanese ships. This action is obviously intended to reiterate to Beijing that the Taiwan Strait is international waters, not Chinese waters, and passage through it is an established policy that specifically expresses US dissatisfaction with China’s unilateral attempt to change the “status quo” in the Taiwan Strait and South China Sea.
Reliable sources have said that there was a public announcement this time because it was a deliberate review and amendment by US President Donald Trump and his administration of former US president Barack Obama’s administration’s failure to clearly and effectively address China’s expansion in the South China Sea.
In other words, having learned from its mistakes regarding the South China Sea, US Navy voyages in the Taiwan Strait and the South China Sea are to become routine, and the reason for these actions should be difficult for China to misjudge.
Since early 2016, Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) has adopted a repressive strategy to stop official political, military and economic interaction with the Tsai administration. This irrational approach has opened up a lot of room for the US to intervene in the Taiwan Strait, and it is doing so with increasing intensity.
Who exactly is making it legitimate for the US to play the Taiwan card?
Beijing itself.
Tzou Jiing-wen is the editor-in-chief of the Liberty Times (the sister newspaper of the Taipei Times).
Translated by Lin Lee-kai
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
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
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.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with