At the end of last month, China unilaterally canceled an “offset” measure of its southbound M503 flight pathway. China argues that the M503 route is entirely in the Shanghai flight information region (FIR) and therefore there was no need to negotiate with Taiwan.
However, Taiwan strongly protested, insisting that China’s new route would squeeze the prewarning and reaction time for Taiwan’s air defense.
On Wednesday last week, Taiwan took a policy U-turn to continue a three-year ban on cross-strait group travel as a political response to China’s new M503 policy.
The M503 story reflects the complex nature of border conflicts in 3D space. One issue is the difference between the southbound and northbound routes.
According to international norms, civilian aircraft that are in trouble (for example, due to poor weather or potential collisions) should veer to starboard (ie, to the right).
In the case of M503, southbound planes would steer west toward China, while northbound craft would steer east toward the Taipei FIR. In other words, the northbound route is even more sensitive to Taiwan’s security.
From this perspective, China’s intentions must be studied carefully.
In early 2015, China for the first time unilaterally announced the establishment of the southbound M503 air corridor, but moved it 6 nautical miles (11.1km) to the west after negotiating with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) administration at the time, which was pro-China.
However, in early 2018, two years after the pro-independence Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) won the presidency, China unilaterally launched a new northbound M503 without prior consultation with the DPP administration.
Now, China is testing the waters by announcing the southbound route change.
It is reasonable to believe that China is reserving a more critical northbound route change to instigate a showdown with Taiwan.
The M503 situation should not be seen solely as a dispute between China and Taiwan. It is also a prime example of Beijing’s strategic “volumetric sovereignty” tactics by implementing 3D infrastructure projects to exert power beyond its borders.
Satellite facilities in the name of China’s Belt and Road Initiative and land building projects in the South China Sea are other examples. China’s expanding influence via 3D tactics over other countries is a method it uses to achieve “domestication.”
In addition to China’s claims that self-governed Taiwan is part of its territory and its assertion that Taiwan affairs are domestic affairs, the M503 situation has at least four other ways that it imposes “domestication” on the nation.
First, domestication means to “bring into use in one’s own country.”
Like colonial and modern states that utilized unused or under-used resources for their own interests, China exploits not-properly-used sky over the Taiwan Strait to strengthen its territorial claims.
Prior to the delineation of M503, no commercial aircraft were allowed in the area, so the airspace had no economic value to China.
However, with the establishment of the M503 route, China charges overflight fees akin to rent and the new route provides an alternative to the crowded A470 above eastern China, facilitating the fast circulation of capital across China and beyond.
Second, domestication entails a blurring between international and internal spheres.
Tear gas was used in World War I before being “domesticated” as a non-lethal weapon for police to control citizen protesters.
The median line of the Taiwan Strait was delineated to help Taiwan and China avoid mistakes after the Cold War. The establishment of M503, plus China’s warplanes and balloons repeatedly crossing the median line, is a sign that China is domesticating the Taiwan Strait for military purposes under the guise of civil aviation.
Third, according to colonization history, the domesticating side (aka the colonizer) is likely to be more paternalistic and authoritarian than the domesticating counterpart (namely the colony).
That is exactly the case of China’s attitude toward Taiwan. China claims that its paternalist actions are to promote the well-being of Taiwanese, with its favorite rhetoric being that people across the Taiwan Strait are “one family.” On top of that, China’s authoritarian figures do not to engage in peaceful dialogue, but smear as separatists those who they worry are a risk to sovereignty.
To maintain its assertion that Taiwan affairs are domestic affairs, China is hostile toward any foreign power that seeks to interfere.
Finally, inspired by recent geopolitical and feminist international relations research, the domesticated side might be more resilient by conducting feminist and soft diplomacy approaches to resist the domesticating side.
Instead of confrontation directly against China internationally, Taiwan established multiple trilateral aid projects with the US and other nations in the Global North, including to tackle refugee crises in the Middle East. It also offered medical assistance to countries in need during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The government and society have created a global caretaker image to distinguish Taiwan from China’s notorious reputation of “wolf warrior” diplomacy.
By doing so, Taiwan gained more respect and friendship from like-minded countries.
The M503 situation as seen through the lens of domestication provides an opportunity to understand how and why in Eurasia and in the South China Sea, China draws from seldom or never-used volumetric resources, builds dual-purpose infrastructure and uses paternalistic attitudes in its international relations.
Attention should be paid to determine whether democracy is a soft-power approach that civil societies and governments could use to resist China’s expanding volumetric sovereignty influence, just as Taiwan has strategically reacted to China.
Chien Shiuh-shen is professor of geography, environment and development studies at National Taiwan University. He is a former chair of the Taiwan Association of Development Studies. Cheng Chung-yen is a doctoral student of geography at Durham University in the UK.
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
Taiwan is confronting escalating threats from its behemoth neighbor. Last month, the Chinese People’s Liberation Army conducted live-fire drills in the East China Sea, practicing blockades and precision strikes on simulated targets, while its escalating cyberattacks targeting government, financial and telecommunication systems threaten to disrupt Taiwan’s digital infrastructure. The mounting geopolitical pressure underscores Taiwan’s need to strengthen its defense capabilities to deter possible aggression and improve civilian preparedness. The consequences of inadequate preparation have been made all too clear by the tragic situation in Ukraine. Taiwan can build on its successful COVID-19 response, marked by effective planning and execution, to enhance
Since taking office, US President Donald Trump has upheld the core goals of “making America safer, stronger, and more prosperous,” fully implementing an “America first” policy. Countries have responded cautiously to the fresh style and rapid pace of the new Trump administration. The US has prioritized reindustrialization, building a stronger US role in the Indo-Pacific, and countering China’s malicious influence. This has created a high degree of alignment between the interests of Taiwan and the US in security, economics, technology and other spheres. Taiwan must properly understand the Trump administration’s intentions and coordinate, connect and correspond with US strategic goals.
RSS