Unless Hollywood movies like Greenland, Deep Impact, and Armageddon have predictive powers and a rogue space rock is heading our way, stopping Chinese Communist Party expansionism is likely to prove the single most challenging and dangerous problem of our lifetimes.
How can the United States, Taiwan, and other liberal democracies prepare for and prevent attacks from China? How can Washington bolster Taipei’s confidence when it doesn’t recognize Taiwan as a real country and, so far, lacks the political will to make major adjustments to its ossified China policy and Taiwan policy?
How can Taiwan make itself heard on the world stage when all the doors of the United Nations are closed? Today, Taiwan’s democratic peers are too scared of China to treat Taiwanese diplomats on the basis of mutual respect, equality, and inclusion. Can Taiwan’s government maintain a credible self-defense? It is diplomatically isolated, has zero nuclear weapons, and faces a much stronger enemy.
The somber reality is that our governments are unprepared for the future and rarely able to shape decisions made in the People’s Republic of China. A growing body of evidence suggests that Xi Jinping (習近平) is a megalomaniac. He is a dictator like no other in modern times. In his zeal for self-aggrandizement, Xi has turned China into a super predator on the world stage, and, so far, the international community’s response has been to blink in astonishment and disbelief.
Consider the democracies’ collective paralysis in the face of Xi’s ongoing genocide, his weaponization of trade, his crushing of Hong Kong’s freedoms, his Covid-19 coverup, his militarization of the seas and outer space. When massive numbers of Chinese warplanes swarmed into Taiwan’s air defense zone this month, did President Biden call President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) to express support and demonstrate solidarity? Did any other Western leader?
This all constitutes a picture of complacency and fecklessness that, while devoid of intentional complicity, is not entirely blameless. Our elected leaders are full of humane goodwill, yet they could be playing a definitive part in unleashing events that spread tyranny.
Soaring rhetoric about alliances and partnerships means little when little is being done. Watching the evolution of the threat from China is like watching bamboos grow. Bamboos, of course, are some of the fastest growing plants in the world; some species will grow three feet (one meter) in less than 24 hours. Watching the evolution of US-Taiwan relations is like watching a glacier move. Things are happening, but you really need time-lapse photography to see progress. Today it remains difficult to observe a palpable sense of urgency in Washington or Taipei. Little appetite seems to exist for matching grand speeches with grand actions.
Senior-level visits between Taiwan and Washington remain rare and opaque. The Pentagon continues to have a colonel representing America’s defense interests in Taiwan and a few dozen troops in country. Compare that with South Korea, where the US stations a four-star general and tens of thousands of troops. This is remarkable because South Korea is far more structurally stable (Seoul far outguns Pyongyang). And, unlike the case with South Korea, the US military doesn’t do large-scale military exercises with Taiwan.
When the next Taiwan Strait crisis happens, the President of the United States will be relying on senior military leaders who have never seen the battlespace with their own eyes and have never interacted with their Taiwanese partners in the field. This is akin to asking a dentist to perform brain surgery because he knows about drills. It’s not hard to visualize the likely outcome.
Carl von Clausewitz famously observed that war is the continuation of politics by other means. The implication, of course, is that a nation’s defense situation is in grave doubt when its policies are divorced from reality. This is precisely the situation that exists today in Washington and in Taipei.
The policy of strategic ambiguity no longer makes sense and, indeed, remains an obstacle to stability and lasting peace. It is obvious to the eyes of everyone that Xi Jinping is dragging Taiwan into a dark alley. But State Department officials seem more concerned with adhering to the inane trivialities of their “one China” policy (a policy they can’t even articulate) than doing what is required to preserve the rules-based order. How is peace going to prevail if the US continues to diplomatically isolate Taiwan and take a minimalistic approach to bilateral defense and security contacts?
America and Taiwan do have defensive war plans. Whether those plans would work in the supreme emergency is unknowable. But clearly steps are being taken to make them more credible. Nonetheless, military efforts to improve deterrence are undermined by policy mistakes all the time. Neither the United States nor the Republic of China (Taiwan) has a national strategy for winning that matches ends, ways, and means.
To understand why that’s the case, imagine an alternative history where the US in the Cold War had a team of leaders who refused to visit Berlin and West Germany because they thought it would provoke war with the Soviet Union. How do you think that story would have ended?
If American and Taiwanese leaders are serious about deterrence, the boldness of their actions must match the magnitude of the shared threat facing their democracies. The security of their citizens, their allies, and their friends depends on an ability to keep the authorities in Beijing from breaking the peace.
Unless a giant extraterrestrial body is blistering its way toward Earth, fixing this problem should be the number one priority.
Ian Easton is a senior director at the Project 2049 Institute and author of The Chinese Invasion Threat: Taiwan’s Defense and American Strategy in Asia.
In the event of a war with China, Taiwan has some surprisingly tough defenses that could make it as difficult to tackle as a porcupine: A shoreline dotted with swamps, rocks and concrete barriers; conscription for all adult men; highways and airports that are built to double as hardened combat facilities. This porcupine has a soft underbelly, though, and the war in Iran is exposing it: energy. About 39,000 ships dock at Taiwan’s ports each year, more than the 30,000 that transit the Strait of Hormuz. About one-fifth of their inbound tonnage is coal, oil, refined fuels and liquefied natural gas (LNG),
To counter the CCP’s escalating threats, Taiwan must build a national consensus and demonstrate the capability and the will to fight. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) often leans on a seductive mantra to soften its threats, such as “Chinese do not kill Chinese.” The slogan is designed to frame territorial conquest (annexation) as a domestic family matter. A look at the historical ledger reveals a different truth. For the CCP, being labeled “family” has never been a guarantee of safety; it has been the primary prerequisite for state-sanctioned slaughter. From the forced starvation of 150,000 civilians at the Siege of Changchun
The two major opposition parties, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), jointly announced on Tuesday last week that former TPP lawmaker Chang Chi-kai (張啟楷) would be their joint candidate for Chiayi mayor, following polling conducted earlier this month. It is the first case of blue-white (KMT-TPP) cooperation in selecting a joint candidate under an agreement signed by their chairpersons last month. KMT and TPP supporters have blamed their 2024 presidential election loss on failing to decide on a joint candidate, which ended in a dramatic breakdown with participants pointing fingers, calling polls unfair, sobbing and walking
In the opening remarks of her meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in the Great Hall of the People in Beijing on Friday, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) framed her visit as a historic occasion. In his own remarks, Xi had also emphasized the history of the relationship between the KMT and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Where they differed was that Cheng’s account, while flawed by its omissions, at least partially corresponded to reality. The meeting was certainly historic, albeit not in the way that Cheng and Xi were signaling, and not from the perspective
RSS