An article titled “Preparing a Post-Invasion Taiwan for Insurgency” was published in this month’s issue of the US Naval Institute’s monthly journal Proceedings. The article proposes that if there is a military conflict across the Taiwan Strait, the US should destroy Taiwan’s infrastructure to prevent the Chinese People’s Liberation Army from using it.
This proposal has sparked a great deal of discussion, with some commentators saying that the article exposes a new US strategy toward Taiwan. The previous theory that the US would abandon Taiwan is being replaced by a new theory that it would destroy Taiwan. Such commentators are casting doubts on US strategies toward the Indo-Pacific region in general, and Taiwan in particular.
The article does not represent official US attitudes. Proceedings is not an official journal, and the US Naval Institute is not an official US department. The institute states that it is a non-profit, non-partisan, non-corporate and non-governmental institution. Consequently, its articles are not constrained by the perspectives of official standpoints. For this reason, unusual opinions are frequently put forward in the journal, such as that the US armed forces should counter communist China’s ever-expanding maritime militia by reviving the practice of issuing letters of marque to authorize privateers. It goes without saying that this proposal does not represent official US attitude and strategies.
Nonetheless, some people with dubious intent have started using the ideas proposed in the article in their efforts, via various media platforms, to promote the theory that the US plans to destroy Taiwan. This viewpoint is serving as the raw material for cognitive warfare, especially against the current background of the war between Russia and Ukraine, and US President Joe Biden’s recent trip to Japan and South Korea.
After fighting broke out between Russia and Ukraine, the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) initial attempts to mold public opinion were generally in the direction that, as with Ukraine, the US would not send troops to defend Taiwan, and that it would abandon Taiwan’s security. This is reminiscent of similar ideas that were spread around following last year’s complete withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan.
Soon after the war between Russia and Ukraine broke out, comments such as “yesterday Afghanistan, today Ukraine, tomorrow Taiwan” started doing the rounds. However, Russia did not achieve the quick victory that had widely been expected. Instead, NATO, led by the US, has been providing Ukraine with large amounts of intelligence gathered through electronic surveillance, along with all kinds of light and heavy weapons, which has caused the war to turn into a deadlock. Meanwhile in the Indo-Pacific region, the US has been showing its concern for the region through visits by politicians, as well as military activity by its air force and navy. All these things have caused a change of direction in the CCP’s efforts to mold public opinion.
The CCP has begun to say that the US is manipulating the world situation by turning Ukraine into a pawn against Russia, pushing Ukraine into the flames of war and dragging Russia down with it, suggesting that Taiwan is the US’ next target for this kind of treatment.
As soon as the Proceedings article appeared, certain people immediately started saying that it represented the views of the US military and that the US Naval Institute had been “upgraded” from semi-official to official status. They also say that Taiwan’s media have been blocking this news, but none of these things are true.
This incident shows that the tactics of cognitive warfare with regard to public opinion have been refined. The new tactics are to use specific facts, such as the publication of this article, as raw material, then match them up with current events and spread this processed information around through digital technology. If we in Taiwan are unaware of what is being done, we will fall into the trap of cognitive warfare. It also shows that, as well as conventional military confrontations, the invisible battlefield of cognitive warfare must not be ignored. In this day and age, national defense, civil defense and psychological defense are all essential.
Lin Ying-yu is an adjunct assistant professor at National Sun Yat-sen University’s International Master Program in Asia-Pacific Affairs and a researcher at the Association of Strategic Foresight.
Translated by Julian Clegg
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