China and Taiwan are like two fractious schoolchildren. They draw a line across their desk to separate themselves, then falsely accusing each other of purposely putting an elbow across before running to their teacher (the US) to complain. Recently, there have been a number of incidents in which China and Taiwan have each accused the other of crossing the "middle line" of the Taiwan Strait.
Taipei has accused Beijing of using both military and diplomatic threats during the run-up to the presidential inauguration on May 20, and incidences of "middle line" violations have increased. Beijing has berated Taipei for inciting its fighters to provocative behavior, hoping they will provide a pretext for President Chen Shui-bien (陳水扁) to influence opinion against the "motherland," and has threatened to shoot any planes crossing the "middle line" out of the sky.
Despite this rhetoric, the two sides are not without a tacit understanding in military matters. Since China came out badly from a number of past air engagements, both sides now understand how far they can go. The basic principle has been that neither side will cross the line that divides the Strait; passenger carriers, cargo vessels and supply vessels which pose no threat being exempt from this rule.
In fact, surveillance craft make intermittent forays across the line, and these are simply monitored; in fact, even fighters cross over occasionally to test the oppositions radar coverage, but even this falls into the realm of a cross-strait understanding, and though the air force is always mobilized to block and drive off the intruders, there has never been an exchange of fire. It has been like this for the last few decades. But more recently, crossing the line has suddenly elicited severe warnings. This somewhat unexpected response is probably the result of political factors.
The speed and accuracy of modern weapons are better than ever before and this kind of unstated understanding between the two sides is now wholly insufficient. More sophisticated and precise mechanisms need to be put in place to prevent accidental military escalation. Countries with similar military capabilities are usually willing to have such a consultation mechanism in place, but if there is a significant differential in military capability, there is a lack of willingness to have such an understanding with an enemy power. Since the spy plane incident [in April 2001], China and the US have established a preventative mechanism. But the former is still unwilling to establish a similar mechanism with Taiwan.
We still hope that such a mechanism of mutual trust can be established to prevent the escalation of unintentional conflict that may draw in the US and lead to huge losses on both sides. China should agree to a consultative mechanism for military matters if it wants to avoid an unintentional conflict with Taiwan, especially now that Taipei is installing medium-range and cruise missiles, and also because nuclear capability is so easily acquired these days. This has nothing to do with politics, and is simply a precaution. China has no reason to reject it.
Looking at the experience of 50 years of peaceful coexistence in [Western] Europe and the crisis management mechanisms that operated during the Cold War, we can see that there are three mechanisms to reduce the chances of an accidental military conflict: a purely defensive military, military transparency and the telephone hotline. The first has already been established by Taipei, but not by Beijing. This is understandable and is hardly surprising. Military transparency refers to revealing and explaining each other's military deployments, military exercises, along with the establishment of a monitoring mechanism.
China and Taiwan could achieve a partial realization of this simply by expanding and systemizing the current mutual understanding on military matters. The establishment of a hot line is probably the most important preventative mechanism and it can help resolve misunderstandings that could lead to a major conflict the moment they happen.
If Beijing rejects the first two of these options, it should at least accept the third. As Taipei is in a position of weakness, its need for such a mechanism is the more urgent. Nevertheless, for the interest of both sides, it's about time that they begin negotiations in relation to establishing a mechanism of mutual trust in military matters.
Pu Ta-chung is a journalist based in Taipei.
TRANSLATED BY Ian Bartholomew
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS