In an interview with the Guardian published on Monday, Minister of Foreign Affairs Joseph Wu (吳釗燮) said that Beijing might be using frequent incursions into Taiwan’s air defense identification zone to justify future military actions.
Wu correctly understands China’s modus operandi, which is to push boundaries to see what it can get away with before pushing further.
However, the government’s focus should not be on the air zone, which was created by the US military after World War II and is not recognized by China and even includes parts of China’s Fujian and Zhejiang provinces. Instead, the government should stay focused on incursions into the nation’s territorial waters and airspace, and attempts to test blockades.
Territorial waters and airspace are generally understood to extend 12 nautical miles (22km) from shore, so they cannot be enforced in the case of Kinmen and Lienchiang counties, which lie within 20km of China’s coast, but it would still be prudent for the government to set clear boundaries on incursions to prevent China from inching closer to Taiwan proper or even normalizing such behavior. Such boundaries would have to take into account normal activity for China in areas considered international territory, but they would demand a clear, unambiguous response in the event that Chinese activity affected Taiwan’s own lawful activity or national security.
For example, China on Aug. 4 launched 11 ballistic missiles toward areas near Taiwan proper, but none of the missiles landed within Taiwan’s territorial waters, and those fired over Taiwan reached atmospheric heights. Clearly the missiles were intended as a threat and are cause for concern, but they were deemed not to have had any direct impact on national security.
Minister of National Defense Chiu Kuo-cheng (邱國正) on Oct. 5 said that the military would consider an incursion by the Chinese People’s Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) into the nation’s territorial airspace to be a “first strike.” He said that the military would launch “countermeasures” in response to such a contingency, but did not clarify what those countermeasures would be. Normally, the correct response to such an incursion would be to warn the aircraft entering the country’s airspace and then to fire upon it if such warnings went unheeded.
The military made good on a promise to shoot down Chinese drones entering Kinmen’s airspace, which it did on Sept. 1. Shooting down a fighter jet with a pilot inside would have much greater consequences than shooting down a drone. This is why Taiwan has to have a clear red line, and make sure the US and other countries are aware of its boundaries and the military’s planned responses. Otherwise, one of two outcomes could occur: The PLAAF could instruct one of its pilots to fly into Taiwan’s airspace knowing they would be shot down, and then argue that the pilot had simply veered off course and Taiwan had started a war; or Taiwan would fire warning shots and then China — knowing it had called Taiwan’s bluff — would be in an even better position to launch an invasion or blockade unimpeded.
Taiwan must have a clear action plan on incursions, and must not confuse the issue by talking about unenforceable identification zones.
Retired rear admiral Kung Chia-cheng (龔家政) this month said that Taiwan has missiles capable of reaching Beijing. Taiwan should continue to improve such offensive capabilities and make the consequences of attacking clear to Beijing. At the same time, Taipei should devise a clear bottom line on incursions and follow through on planned responses.
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),
On Monday, the day before Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) departed on her visit to China, the party released a promotional video titled “Only with peace can we ‘lie flat’” to highlight its desire to have peace across the Taiwan Strait. However, its use of the expression “lie flat” (tang ping, 躺平) drew sarcastic comments, with critics saying it sounded as if the party was “bowing down” to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Amid the controversy over the opposition parties blocking proposed defense budgets, Cheng departed for China after receiving an invitation from the CCP, with a meeting with
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) is leading a delegation to China through Sunday. She is expected to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing tomorrow. That date coincides with the anniversary of the signing of the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA), which marked a cornerstone of Taiwan-US relations. Staging their meeting on this date makes it clear that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) intends to challenge the US and demonstrate its “authority” over Taiwan. Since the US severed official diplomatic relations with Taiwan in 1979, it has relied on the TRA as a legal basis for all
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
RSS