On Monday evening, a violent skirmish between Chinese and Indian troops at their disputed border in the Himalayas ended in the deaths of at least 20 Indian soldiers and an unconfirmed number of casualties on the Chinese side. It is the most serious incident between the two nuclear-armed powers since the 1962 Sino-Indian border war.
While many details are still unknown about the incident at more than 4,000m above sea level, early signs indicate that the clash fits a pattern of Beijing’s increasingly aggressive expansionism in the region — which should also concern policymakers in Taiwan.
According to reports by Indian broadcaster New Delhi Television, citing Indian army sources, the incident started when an Indian army patrol tried to remove a Chinese tent pitched in the remote Galwan Valley. China reportedly agreed to remove the tent following talks with Indian army officers on June 6.
However, a fight broke out in which Indian soldiers were attacked by Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops wielding nail-studded rods. Both sides called for reinforcements, and about 600 men were engaged in six hours of hand-to-hand combat.
An image of the studded iron rods, passed to journalists by an Indian senior military official, was published yesterday on the BBC’s Web site.
There is a longstanding convention between the two sides that each army patrols the 3,440km of disputed border at the Line of Actual Control (LAC) unarmed. The use of the medieval-style spiked clubs indicates a premeditated act, perhaps an ambush.
Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman Zhao Lijian (趙立堅) on Wednesday told reporters that Indian soldiers made an incursion across the LAC and called on India to “strictly discipline its frontline troops.” New Delhi strongly denies that its troops crossed the border.
The incident should be understood in the context of Beijing’s aggressive behavior in the region, which has clearly become more frequent since the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The most egregious example is Beijing’s plan to impose national security legislation in Hong Kong in direct violation of the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration.
However, Beijing has also been engaged in hyper-aggressive “wolf warrior” diplomacy, most notably with Australia, and has been stirring up trouble in the South and East China seas.
In the past few months, the PLA has employed “gray zone” tactics, using maritime forces to ram a Coast Guard Administration vessel, a Japanese destroyer and to sink a Vietnamese fishing boat. Beijing has also unilaterally declared two new administrative zones covering the disputed Spratly Islands (Nansha Islands, 南沙群島) and Paracel Islands (Xisha Islands, 西沙群島) and increased provocative encirclement drills around Taiwan.
The rhetoric from Beijing toward Taiwan has become more belligerent. Talk of “peaceful unification” is increasingly replaced by threats of invasion.
What motivates Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) increased assertiveness in the region? This is a question that Taiwan, India and other regional nations must seek to answer.
Xi might feel emboldened by the COVID-19 pandemic and, more recently, racial tensions in the US, which from Beijing’s perspective, validate its belief that China’s political system is superior to increasingly atomized and decadent Western democracies.
On the other hand, Xi might be acting from a position of weakness, creating distractions while fighting rival factions within the Chinese Communist Party who have reached the end of their tether with his megalomaniacal style, interminable “anti-corruption” campaigns and cover-up of COVID-19 that have damaged China’s economy and international reputation.
Taiwan should deepen ties with India, in particular economic, military and intelligence ties, to contain Chinese expansionism and put Xi back into his box.
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS