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 its civilian resilience.
President William Lai (賴清德) has prioritized national preparedness by setting up the Whole-of-Society Defense Resilience Committee. In December last year, the Presidential Office held its first tabletop exercise, simulating Chinese escalation to improve government coordination and civil society response.
The first city-wide field exercise was held in Tainan on March 27. Lai observed the event, coordinating central and local government agencies, including a medical command center and trauma treatment areas.
Kaohsiung Mayor Chen Chi-mai (陳其邁) is developing a smart city model to maintain city-wide stability. In Taipei, Mayor Chiang Wan-an (蔣萬安) has advanced disaster response drills to prepare residents for evacuations. Taichung Mayor Lu Shiow-yen (盧秀燕) employs technology to bolster energy and cybersecurity. Such civilian preparedness work is expanding to enhance cities’ resilience capacity.
Structured simulations with military planners are also needed to test civilian preparedness. Tabletop exercises promote collaborative problem-solving.
Unlike typical defense studies, work under way at Stanford University’s Department of Health Policy, in partnership with the Hoover Institution and the RAND Corp, focuses on civilian well-being, especially children and women, modeling health system capacity, supply chain reliability, and community stability for naval blockades, among other conflict scenarios.
Different types of naval blockades require different stockpiles of food, water, medical and energy supplies. A direct military invasion would require evacuation facilities, civilian force utilization, trauma treatment centers and temporary housing.
Translating simulations and modeling to civilian response needs builds awareness and confidence, facilitates civilian training and provide insights to civilian leaders in planning, including protecting and acquiring critical infrastructure and supplies.
Awareness is the first step. Taiwan’s collective preparedness efforts would signal a broader lesson for democracies facing aggression. Unclassified war games from US think tanks and other groups highlight the severe costs of a Chinese invasion — casualties, economic disruption and global trade impacts — but indicate that Taiwan could endure.
Taiwan’s plan to withstand mounting geopolitical escalation could provide practical lessons for countries such as the Philippines, which faces Chinese aggression in the South China Sea. By leveraging its proven COVID-19 response, Taiwan can continue to lead in disaster preparedness and resilience to protect its citizens against Chinese coercion.
Ruth M. Gibson is a postdoctoral fellow in Stanford University’s Department of Health Policy. Kharis Templeman is director of the Hoover Institution Project on Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region. Jason Wang is director of the Center for Policy, Outcomes and Prevention at Stanford University.
“History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes” (attributed to Mark Twain). The USSR was the international bully during the Cold War as it sought to make the world safe for Soviet-style Communism. China is now the global bully as it applies economic power and invests in Mao’s (毛澤東) magic weapons (the People’s Liberation Army [PLA], the United Front Work Department, and the Chinese Communist Party [CCP]) to achieve world domination. Freedom-loving countries must respond to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), especially in the Indo-Pacific (IP), as resolutely as they did against the USSR. In 1954, the US and its allies
A response to my article (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” Aug. 12, page 8) mischaracterizes my arguments, as well as a speech by former British prime minister Boris Johnson at the Ketagalan Forum in Taipei early last month. Tseng Yueh-ying (曾月英) in the response (“A misreading of Johnson’s speech,” Aug. 24, page 8) does not dispute that Johnson referred repeatedly to Taiwan as “a segment of the Chinese population,” but asserts that the phrase challenged Beijing by questioning whether parts of “the Chinese population” could be “differently Chinese.” This is essentially a confirmation of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formulation, which says that
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in China yesterday, where he is to attend a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin today. As this coincides with the 50 percent US tariff levied on Indian products, some Western news media have suggested that Modi is moving away from the US, and into the arms of China and Russia. Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation fellow Sana Hashmi in a Taipei Times article published yesterday titled “Myths around Modi’s China visit” said that those analyses have misrepresented India’s strategic calculations, and attempted to view
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) stood in front of the Potala Palace in Lhasa on Thursday last week, flanked by Chinese flags, synchronized schoolchildren and armed Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops, he was not just celebrating the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the “Tibet Autonomous Region,” he was making a calculated declaration: Tibet is China. It always has been. Case closed. Except it has not. The case remains wide open — not just in the hearts of Tibetans, but in history records. For decades, Beijing has insisted that Tibet has “always been part of China.” It is a phrase
RSS