According to research by leading US defense think tanks the National Bureau of Asian Research, the Rand Corporation and the American Enterprise Institute, even though the military balance across the Taiwan Strait is tilted toward China, Taiwan has built a pragmatic defense strategy and matches it with clear and wise political choices. Beijing will have to carefully evaluate the cost and negative political consequences of a military invasion.
Based on Taiwan’s unique strategic environment, the three think tanks proposed eight key points to bolster its defense strategy.
First, develop an “all-out defense” to unite the public, build capability to respond to threats and intimidation from the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and expand military cooperation with the US.
Second, maintain constructive relationships with Washington and Beijing by balancing friendly relations with the US and peaceful ties with China.
Third, develop a dialogue mechanism to prevent war, as well as disaster prevention, and rescue and humanitarian relief capabilities.
Fourth, bolster Taiwan’s role in the global information technology (IT) industry supply chain and form an interdependent IT alliance with world powers to deter the CCP’s military threats.
Fifth, plan a “four-circle strategy” to boost overall military power and determination, increasing the likely cost of a Chinese invasion to deter Beijing from any rash military moves.
Sixth, plan for a force preservation strategy to enhance the capability to deter China from launching an attack.
Seventh, improve communication competence among officers to coordinate operations with the US military.
Eighth, respond to the rising threat of cyberinformation and psychological warfare, and promote a partnership with the US Cyber Command to give full play to Taiwan’s advantage in terms of psychological and cyberwarfare, improving the value and capabilities of Taiwan-US defense cooperation.
If China takes military action, ballistic and cruise missiles are likely to be used in the first strike. Missiles and uncrewed fighter jets will be deployed to destroy runways at military airports, and exhaust air-defense missiles and fighters.
Large numbers of fighters and bombers will then be sent to devastate military facilities and fighters hidden in caves. However, Taiwan could still prevent China from carrying out large landing operations by employing a “four-circle strategy.”
The first “circle” would be to use land and air-based anti-ship missiles to sink Chinese warships. The second would be to obstruct or delay the operations of the Chinese landing fleet with sea mines. The third would be to use mobile short-range missiles to attack invading vessels. The fourth would be to use attack helicopters, tanks, cannons and bombs to destroy landing vessels and troops.
If the Chinese troops were to land, they would only be able to win if they could deliver tens of thousands of soldiers and massive backup firepower. Once a Chinese invasion began, the whole military and public would uphold an all-out defense and make full use of missiles, weapons and attack helicopters in combination with tanks and artillery.
This constitutes a powerful deterrent.
If China does not have a strong political will to invade, it might give up on the idea of military actions after considering the military cost.
At the moment, the US, Japan, India, Australia and other countries are developing an Indo-Pacific strategic cooperation framework, while planning to promote Taiwan’s role in response to the expanding Chinese military threat in the Taiwan Strait and the Indo-Pacific region.
Due to practical considerations, the US and Japan seem to believe that Taiwan cannot be promoted to a formal military alliance member, because that could lead to the risk of a showdown between Beijing and Washington.
However, if China were to annex Taiwan by non-peaceful means, the entire Taiwan Strait and the South China Sea would truly become a “Chinese Sea,” posing a critical challenge to the US-Japan security alliance.
Washington and Tokyo intend to minimize the cost by emphasizing that the two sides of the Taiwan Strait should maintain the “status quo” and resume constructive dialogue, in the belief that this would be of the most benefit to Washington and Tokyo’s Indo-Pacific strategy. Taipei and Washington could then continue to promote security cooperation in accordance with the Taiwan Relations Act.
Taiwan needs to respond to the opportunity, challenge and threat that potential Chinese aggression poses. China continually increases the number of ballistic missiles deployed along its coastal areas, and Taiwan is within range of them. Beijing has never abandoned the option of handling the “Taiwan issue” by non-peaceful means.
Therefore, the national defense strategy should be based on the principle of “if you want peace, prepare for war,” while at the same time it should adhere to an all-out defense and support calls for cross-strait reconciliation.
James Tzeng is an adviser at the National Policy Foundation.
Translated by Eddy Chang
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
US President Donald Trump created some consternation in Taiwan last week when he told a news conference that a successful trade deal with China would help with “unification.” Although the People’s Republic of China has never ruled Taiwan, Trump’s language struck a raw nerve in Taiwan given his open siding with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression seeking to “reunify” Ukraine and Russia. On earlier occasions, Trump has criticized Taiwan for “stealing” the US’ chip industry and for relying too much on the US for defense, ominously presaging a weakening of US support for Taiwan. However, further examination of Trump’s remarks in
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
RSS