Maybe it was an error by the US Navy staff in charge of its Web site — a common one in which Taiwan is confused with Thailand. Or maybe it really did happen — but was intended to be kept quiet to avoid creating a diplomatic incident. Either way, news last week that a Taiwanese vessel had participated in the Rim of the Pacific Exercise (RIMPAC) created waves in defense circles.
Photo captions underneath pictures depicting the USS Ronald Reagan with dozens of vessels in its wake stated that the ships were from South Korea, Japan, Singapore, France, Canada, Australia, the US … and Taiwan.
While Ministry of National Defense officials quickly denied Taiwan was participating in the exercise, it took days before the US Navy removed Taiwan from the captions — and even then, the job was a patchy one at best. Given the likelihood of Chinese retaliation for Taiwan’s first participation in RIMPAC since the exercise was launched 39 years ago, we can assume that the Pentagon would have corrected the mistake as soon as it was discovered. The fact that it did not raises the possibility of a disconnect between the US State Department and the US Department of Defense, with the latter — usually more pro-Taiwan than the State Department — using the misnomer to send a signal to Beijing.
Absent an official explanation, this remains in the realm of conjecture, but it should serve as a lesson to Beijing, whose presence in the South China Sea and off the waters of Japan is becoming increasingly belligerent. The message Chinese officials should take home is that if the People’s Liberation Army’s Navy continues on its current course, the participation of Taiwanese vessels in future RIMPAC maneuvers could be more than a typo. In fact, an expansionist Chinese Navy could force Pacific powers to turn to Taiwan to reinforce a naval security chain to contain Beijing and prevent provocative transgressions.
Incidents over the past decade involving Vietnamese, Philippine and Indonesian vessels and Chinese boats (some of which resulted in clashes), Beijing’s claims over the South China Sea and a series of contested islands, are forcing a reassessment of military postures not only in the US, but also in Japan. The more threatening the Chinese navy becomes, the more likely its neighbors will seek to contain it to protect their interests.
Taiwan’s proximity to China makes it a strategic point whose value is well understood by the major powers. If the situation were to reach boiling point in the Pacific, it would be inconceivable for the US or even Japan to overlook the option of bringing Taiwan into the fold as a way to strengthen their alliance.
For about 10 years, China has managed to convince its neighbors of its “peaceful rise” — something it has done with considerable skill. As a result, Beijing has been able to isolate Taiwan and whittle away at international concern for the safety of this small democracy.
A sudden shift in posture, perhaps emanating from an increasingly strident Chinese nationalism, could undermine this achievement and result in the greater integration of Taiwan into the regional security alliance. One potential offshoot could be the invitation for Taiwan to participate in RIMPAC as a full member.
What the Chinese leadership should keep in mind is that while building trust takes time, in can be lost in the blink of an eye.
While on this occasion it may have been a clerical error on the US Navy’s Web site, it could just as well be a portent of things to come.
Despite the complicated legacy of colonialism, relations between Taipei and Tokyo continue to blossom in these troubled times. As East Asia continues to battle the COVID-19 pandemic and struggles to contain an increasingly aggressive China, our democratic archipelago benefits from a new high in its security relations with Japan. Remarkably, with its generous vaccine diplomacy and the unprecedented explicit mention of the situation surrounding Taiwan in Japan’s annual defense white paper, Tokyo began to embrace a novel, two-track, comprehensive approach for engaging Taiwan. The first track deals with non-traditional security such as public health and vaccine donations. Japan has generously supported
As the incursions by China into Taiwan’s air defense identification zone intensify, the international community’s anxiety has risen over the question of whether the US military would become directly involved in the case of an attack on Taiwan. Washington’s long-held policy of “strategic ambiguity” does little to ease the trepidation. The rationale universally espoused on “strategic ambiguity” is that an announced commitment from Washington to directly defend Taiwan would encourage Taiwanese independence and consequently bring forth a Chinese military attack and a possible nuclear confrontation between two superpowers. However, this line of argument could soon lose steam if the subject is viewed from
Having deceived the world about its nuclear capabilities while preparing for an arms race, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is now using its increasing nuclear forces for virtual nuclear coercion. This new threat will continue until the United States, Japan, and Taiwan can restore the CCP’s sense of fear. This dynamic is a familiar one for Taiwan. As the CCP’s People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) capabilities have grown, its inhibitions about conducting larger and more frequent coercive military demonstrations have shrunk. The PLA now more openly practices for the destruction of Taiwan’s democracy and the murder of its citizens. In the nuclear realm,
In an unprecedented move, a group of democratic nations led by the US, UK and EU in a joint statement on Tuesday accused the Chinese Ministry of State Security of having carried out a major cyberattack earlier this year and stealing data from at least 30,000 organizations worldwide, including governments, universities and firms in key industries. Western officials were reportedly perplexed by the attack’s brazen execution and unparalleled scale. In an article on the attack, BBC security correspondent Gordon Corera wrote: “Western spies are still struggling to understand why Chinese behavior has changed.” The attack raises the fear “that they [China]