On Sunday morning, the Ministry of National Defense was forced to scramble five jets to intercept two Chinese J-11 fighters that had crossed the median line of the Taiwan Strait. After 10 minutes and multiple warnings, the J-11s turned back.
By the time the Chinese warplanes complied, they were only 185km from Taiwan proper. At the speeds they are capable of, they would have been able to reach it in a matter of minutes. The mission was clearly and deliberately provocative.
As President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) rightly said, this action is another example of China unilaterally changing the “status quo.” It was the first time that Chinese fighters have intentionally crossed the median line since 1999, but there have been many cases — and with increasing regularity — of them circumnavigating Taiwan.
It has been suggested that Beijing’s decision to order this provocative move at this time was in response to increased US activity in the region, as well as its increasingly vocal and legislative support of Taiwan.
Indeed, the US House of Representatives on Monday introduced the Taiwan Assurance Act and House Resolution No. 273, titled “Reaffirming the United States commitment to Taiwan and to the implementation of the Taiwan Relations Act [TRA].”
Beijing’s ire could well have been exacerbated by rumors that the administration of US President Donald Trump is soon to approve a long-requested sale of F-16Vs to Taipei
Tsai has said that the potential sale would “greatly enhance [Taiwan’s] land and air capabilities, strengthen military morale and show to the world the US’ commitment to Taiwan’s defense.”
Even if Taiwan receives the F-16Vs — touted as the most advanced fourth-generation fighters — these would still be pitted against the more sophisticated Chinese J-20 fifth-generation stealth fighters in any military engagement in the skies over the Taiwan Strait, should Beijing choose to launch an invasion.
Perhaps the more potent implication of such a sale, if it is approved, would be the message it would send to the world of US commitment.
Beijing’s military provocations, coupled with its increasingly powerful and capable military, and its stated intention to take Taiwan by force or otherwise, are a real concern.
Whether the Chinese Communist Party would risk attempting to take Taiwan by force is another matter. Not only would the Chinese People’s Liberation Army have to deal with the US’ response, it would have to succeed. If it did not manage to capture Taiwan, the party would be faced with challenges to its legitimacy at home.
However, to a degree, concerns over a traditional military approach to taking Taiwan could be a red herring. Despite its military provocations, Beijing is likely aware of this and is certainly exploring a wealth of other options to secure unification. An invasion would not be sudden or violent, it would be subtle and gradual, employing different weapons: propaganda, political manipulation, economic inducements and election interference. All of these are already happening.
However, the real problem remains the US’ commitment to its “one China” policy and its insistence, under the TRA, that Taiwan does not unilaterally change the cross-strait “status quo.”
After all, China can have its “one China” principle. Taiwan could disavow itself of the Republic of China moniker and outdated pretensions to representing China and be known as Taiwan, which would reflect with reality.
Yet, this is impossible, as such a move would be changing the “status quo.” A change in the US’ “one China” policy and the requirement that under the TRA Taiwan not to change the “status quo” would be far more reassuring at this point.
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
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
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
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry