In 1955, US general Benjamin Davis Jr, then-commander of the US’ 13th Air Force, drew a maritime demarcation line in the middle of the Taiwan Strait, known as the median line. Under pressure from the US, Taiwan and China entered into a tacit agreement not to cross the line.
On July 9, 1999, then-president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) described cross-strait relations as a “special state-to-state” relationship.
In response, Beijing dispatched People’s Liberation Army (PLA) aircraft into the Taiwan Strait, crossing the median line for the first time since 1955.
The PLA has begun to regularly traverse the line. On Sept. 18 and 19, it dispatched multiple waves of aircraft from different directions and flying at different altitudes. The aircraft crossed the median line in a harassing attack. It was a signal that China no longer recognizes the median line.
The Ministry of National Defense earlier this month specified the definition of a “first strike” in its rules of engagement as “the right to self-defense.” This means that Taiwanese fighter pilots must wait for their PLA adversaries to fire the first shot, then request permission to return fire, which must be granted at the ministerial level.
Under the new rules of engagement, even if PLA aircraft enter the nation’s airspace, Taiwanese pilots have been deprived of the right to exercise their independent judgement and carry out a legitimate, pre-emptive strike in self-defense.
Once PLA pilots become aware that Taiwanese pilots are no longer allowed to independently return fire, they might gain a taste for harassing them and further push the boundaries: Give a knave an inch and he will take a mile.
The PLA might adopt this salami-slicing strategy to erode the airspace for Taiwanese pilots to conduct contingency training.
Under the combat readiness regulations, a first strike outside the nation’s airspace requires authorization at the ministerial level. However, inside Taiwan’s 12 nautical mile (22.2km) territorial airspace, the combat commander can authorize a first strike at their discretion.
A few seconds is a lifetime in modern combat. Under the updated regulations, the air battle for the Taiwan Strait would be over before the authorization is received — and many Taiwanese pilots’ lives would be needlessly sacrificed. This change to the rules of engagement might have a serious impact on the morale of Taiwan’s frontline fighter pilots.
Worse still, pre-emptive self-defense is entirely legitimate under customary international law. Following the Caroline affair of 1837, the “Caroline test” established the concept of “anticipatory self-defense.” It states that the use of pre-emptive force is justified if four tests are satisfied: First, the threat must be imminent; second, no other options are available; third, there is an instant and overwhelming necessity to act, and; fourth, the response must be proportionate to the threat.
The National Security Council’s adoption of a “no first strike” rule is a strategic political decision, not a military one. Since Taiwan is faced with the threat of an attack from a substantially more powerful enemy, this is understandable. As the military is at its core a political instrument, political objectives must sometimes override military considerations.
However, with PLA airplanes and ships conducting near-constant encirclement drills around Taiwan, a responsible government would not restrict its military from the self-defense option of conducting a legitimate pre-emptive strike. After all, the use of force to resist invasion and maintain peace is the purist definition of a “just war.”
Lin Tai-ho is a professor at National Chung Cheng University’s Institute of Strategic and International Affairs.
Translated by Edward Jones
In the closing weeks of 2000, an army of Singaporean government officials descended on Washington to make good on a handshake between then-US President Bill Clinton and Singaporean Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong (吳作棟). They had agreed to strike an FTA after a round of golf in Brunei that past November. Running a small city-state, Singapore’s leaders and their diplomats live with their ear to the ground, attuned to the slightest geopolitical movements. They were motivated then by a big-picture strategic concern — keeping the US embedded in their region. An FTA they thought would help do that. It worked. Clinton’s successor,
On Oct. 7, the Chinese embassy in New Delhi sent letters to the Indian media asking them to refrain from calling Taiwan a country while reporting on its 109th National Day, which fell on Saturday last week. This move backfired and, on the contrary, contributed to the immense popularity of Taiwan among Indians, leading to an outpouring of congratulations for it on Twitter. Asked about the letter, the Indian Ministry of External Affairs said: “There is a free media that reports on issues as it sees fit.” Bharatiya Janata Party spokesman Tajinder Singh Bagga put up several banners outside the
Next month, on Nov. 3, US voters will go to the polls to pick their next president, a choice between former vice president Joe Biden and President Donald Trump, who is seeking a second term. Residents of Taiwan have to wonder how the two will differ in terms of the US’ future Taiwan policy and which will be better for Taiwan. What stands out about the former vice president is how little he has said about Taiwan, and that information about his views or his polices about US-Taiwan relations should be so scarce. That is unusual given that Biden has served in government
In her Double Ten National Day address, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) took pride in making the claim that this year belongs to Taiwan — “2020 proud of Taiwan.” The essence of this sentimental assertion lies in the fact that this year has seen Taiwan beating its COVID-19 outbreak at the initial stage; it has witnessed Taiwan ducking the negative economic impact of the outbreak — its economy is doing rather well — and it has been a witness to David (Taiwan) taking on Goliaths (China and the WHO). This year, Taiwan has exposed to the world how power politics can
RSS