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
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath