In a recent landmark speech, United States Vice President Michael Pence made a powerful case to the American people for strategic competition with China. The merits of such an approach are many. But for it to be effective over the long run, officials in Washington will have to confront a large number of questions about the People’s Republic of China they have long avoided.
By now it should be obvious that the leaders we trust to ensure our security don’t always do a good job. Sometimes their strategies fail. Sometimes their long-held assumptions turn out to be false. Sometimes adversaries play them for fools.
In an ideal world, US government officials would always do the right thing. They would be alert to concerning changes in the strategic landscape. They would know with precision why such changes were happening and what further changes might occur in the future. They would scrutinize every detail of every trend and come up with effective responses to all the major problems of our times.
In reality, national security decisionmakers can rarely afford to think long-term. They are consumed by the torrent of current events and the tyranny of the inbox. The result is that they will generally assume that the future will look more or less like the present unless they are presented with overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
History shows that popular assumptions held by those in positions of great power are often left unchallenged, or challenged too late to avert catastrophe. Many “strategists” do not think and act strategically to shape the future. They think and act tactically in reaction to daily events.
Good strategy is rare. It starts when we acknowledge how little we actually know and attempt to ask good questions. What follows are six questions that those concerned with US-China strategic competition may find intriguing.
One, why does the Chinese Communist Party continue to invest heavily in military spending and armaments production at a time when China’s economic model is flailing, growth is stagnating, its population is aging, and basic social welfare programs have serious shortcomings in the areas of public health, education, science and technology, environmental protection, law enforcement, and care for the elderly? What is driving this uneven allocation of China’s national resources?
Two, why did Chinese strongman Xi Jinping (習近平) decide to carry out a sudden and sweeping military reform program affecting institutional and personal interests across his armed forces and at every level of command? Why has he turned against decades of military bureaucracy and tradition? Why has he purged large numbers of military officers, including several of his top military commanders? Why has he spent so much time visiting military bases and overseeing grandiose, Soviet-style military parades?
Three, what led Mr. Xi to authorize live-fire drills directed against mock-ups of the Presidential Office in Taipei, Taichung International Airport, and even a small Taiwanese township? Why has he ordered warships, bombers, and spy planes to make regular circumnavigations around Taiwan? Why has he directed Chinese troops to conduct live-fire exercises along the Fujian and Zhejiang coastlines?
Four, why have Chinese authorities emphasized military-civil fusion and mass mobilization, especially dual-use manpower and equipment for wartime industrial production, military transportation, logistics support, nuclear emergency, and civil defense? Why are military units across China engaged in training for mountain warfare, night fighting, joint operations, amphibious landings, and urban warfare? Are war plans driving these activities, or is it all political theater?
Five, what does China’s military buildup mean for the United States and its quasi-alliance partner, Taiwan? How should policymakers in Washington and Taipei assess their military power relative to that of their rivals in Beijing? Where is the Chinese military relatively strong? Where is it relatively weak? How is the balance of forces across the Taiwan Strait likely to change over time?
Six, what security approaches are available to the United States and the Republic of China (Taiwan) as they enter into what could be a very different and dangerous future? Which strategies and operational capabilities are most likely to forestall a Chinese attack on Taiwan, and defeat aggression if it does come?
It must be recognized that few, if any, definite answers are open to us. In many cases the information we have is lacking, insufficient, or contradictory. Our knowledge gaps are considerable. A significant and growing number of media reports are the product of Chinese disinformation, propaganda, and political warfare operations. These reports muddy the waters, making it difficult to judge what is true and what is false. Moreover, even with perfect information, no one can see the future and accurately predict what is coming.
It is vital that like-minded democracies regularly exchange ideas and information at the highest levels. The leaders of the United States and Taiwan, in particular, should share their views with each other as they strive to forge future strategy.
If the lights of the free world are going to prevail against the authoritarian darkness spreading out from Beijing, a certain mental courage and elasticity of thought must be cultivated and applied to our long-term strategic challenge.
The first step is establishing an appreciation for the China problem that confronts us.
Ian Easton is a research fellow at the Project 2049 Institute and author of The Chinese Invasion Threat: Taiwan’s Defense and American Strategy in Asia (中共攻台大解密).
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
RSS