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
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS