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
China’s supreme objective in a war across the Taiwan Strait is to incorporate Taiwan as a province of the People’s Republic. It follows, therefore, that international recognition of Taiwan’s de jure independence is a consummation that China’s leaders devoutly wish to avoid. By the same token, an American strategy to deny China that objective would complicate Beijing’s calculus and deter large-scale hostilities. For decades, China has cautioned “independence means war.” The opposite is also true: “war means independence.” A comprehensive strategy of denial would guarantee an outcome of de jure independence for Taiwan in the event of Chinese invasion or
A recent Taipei Times editorial (“A targeted bilingual policy,” March 12, page 8) questioned how the Ministry of Education can justify spending NT$151 million (US$4.74 million) when the spotlighted achievements are English speech competitions and campus tours. It is a fair question, but it focuses on the wrong issue. The problem is not last year’s outcomes failing to meet the bilingual education vision; the issue is that the ministry has abandoned the program that originally justified such a large expenditure. In the early years of Bilingual 2030, the ministry’s K-12 Administration promoted the Bilingual Instruction in Select Domains Program (部分領域課程雙語教學實施計畫).
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) earlier this month said it is necessary for her to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and it would be a “huge boost” to the party’s local election results in November, but many KMT members have expressed different opinions, indicating a struggle between different groups in the party. Since Cheng was elected as party chairwoman in October last year, she has repeatedly expressed support for increased exchanges with China, saying that it would bring peace and prosperity to Taiwan, and that a meeting with Xi in Beijing takes priority over meeting
Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs spokesman for maritime affairs Rogelio Villanueva on Monday said that Manila’s claims in the South China Sea are backed by international law. Villanueva was responding to a social media post by the Chinese embassy alleging that a former Philippine ambassador in 1990 had written a letter to a German radio operator stating that the Scarborough Shoal (Huangyan Island, 黃岩島) did not fall within Manila’s territory. “Sovereignty is not merely claimed, it is exercised,” Villanueva said. The Philippines won a landmark case at the Permanent Court of Arbitration in 2016 that found China’s sweeping claim of sovereignty in
RSS