U.S. policymakers’ assessment of military risks in the Taiwan Strait is obviously being revised upward, yet Taiwan society has demonstrated a strategic determination of calmness, showing no strong reaction to this development from either the public or the officials. What is the reason for this?

First, “the boy who cried wolf.” Ever since the first direct presidential election of Taiwan in 1996, whenever there is a presidential election or a major event, the PLA has held large-scale military drills in the Taiwan Strait. In particular, since 2016, the PLA has been conducting many military exercises around Taiwan and has entered Taiwan’s air defense identification zone (ADIZ). Taiwan has been portrayed as being in the midst of a stormy and critical situation for the past few decades. As it is taught in “The Commentary of Zuo,” for all things, “the first strike arouses, the second weakens and the third absolutely devitalizes.” Over the years, the newsworthiness and deterrent effect of the PLA’s military actions have naturally diminished in accordance with the marginal effect.

Second, “the theory of the CCP diverting pressure.” There is a view in Taiwan’s policy circles that under the CCP’s official “Two Centennial” schedule, the timeline for cross-strait reunification is not the centennial of the CCP’s founding in 2021, but the centennial of the People’s Republic of China in 2049, when the so-called “great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation” will be accomplished.

That being the case, Beijing is actually not interested in pursuing unification by force in the foreseeable future. In this regard, when Tsai Ing-wen was inaugurated as Taiwan’s president for the second time last May, it would be normal for the CCP to actively intervene. However, retired PLA air force major general Qiao Liang, seen as a hawkish voice in the PLA and co-author of “Unrestricted Warfare: China’s Master Plan to Destroy America,” released a special article titled “The Taiwan problem cannot be solved with rashness and radicalism.” He warned that a little impatience spoils great plans, and urged not to start a war rashly at this juncture.

Taking this analysis one step further, more than anything else, Taiwan judges that the muscular display of the Mainland’s military drills is intended to “relieve” internal nationalist sentiment. As the pressure is gradually relieved, there is naturally no need to “erupt” dramatically. Simply put, the reason for the exercises is precisely because there is “no intention” to fight for real.

Many Taiwan analysts would point to Beijing’s short-term diplomatic needs for additional reference. With the 2022 Beijing Olympic Winter Games just around the corner, the CCP should be on good terms with other countries at this time, so as to create a scene of China rising to power with every country in the world in submission. Therefore, this is definitely not the time to use force.

Is this an adequate explanation? No, not really. So far, the CCP is not deterred from intensifying its wolf warrior diplomacy even though the Beijing Winter Olympics is approaching. According to the structural realism theory of international relations, the focus of strategic balance is on strength rather than intention. Hence, the following considerations need to be taken into account in order to explain Taiwan society’s apathy toward the military exercises.

Third, the international landscape. The strategic rivalry between China and the U.S. has been established, and an opportunity to mitigate it is hard to see. Looking at the smaller picture first, in the strategic triangle between Beijing, Taipei and Washington, the better the relationship between China and the U.S., the more Taiwan should fear a “China-U.S. co-rule of the Taiwan Strait” situation. In contrast, given Taiwan’s strategic position as the crux of the first island chain and the choke point of China’s southeastern coast, the worse the relationship between China and the U.S., the more indispensable Taiwan is to the U.S., and the more credible the U.S. becomes with respect to Taiwan’s security. In this way, as long as the relationship between the U.S. and China is not favorable, the more intense the PLA’s military dramas become, the more difficult it will be for the U.S. to back out of its position in Taiwan, and the more secure the Taiwanese will feel.

If we look at it from a broader perspective, the U.S. is demonstrating its ability to collaborate with allies, which has been rare in recent years. Moreover, the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad), which is implicitly aimed at resisting China, is progressively expanding towards “globalization.” In addition to the U.S., Australia, Japan, and India, the UK has recently proposed to join the alliance, Germany and Japan have signed a military intelligence cooperation agreement, and France has just participated in a joint French-Australian-Japanese-Indian naval exercise in the Bay of Bengal that is equivalent to The Quad Plus One. Since China and the U.S. are not on good terms and neither are the two sides of the Taiwan Strait, the more cross-regional connectivity and cohesiveness of the West, the more confidence Taiwan society will have in its own security.

In summary, Taiwan society sees the CCP’s military threat to be diminishing, and Beijing’s proposed timeline has led to a downward revision of its assessment of de facto intentions to use military force. This, coupled with the new U.S. administration’s “values-based diplomacy” and the strengthening of links among international liberal democracies, is increasing the deterrence against CCP military adventurism. It is no wonder that Taiwan society is so confident and so willing to support liberal societies with similar values, such as the international “Milk Tea Alliance.”

The article was originally published on Apple Daily on 13 April 2021.

The post China’s military exercises are frequent yet Taiwan is not worried appeared first on The China Story.

Whether it likes it or not, Australia is a major stakeholder in any future conflict arising around Taiwan. As an ANZUS treaty ally, Australia is at risk of being dragged into events. Yet as a middle power, Australia has the potential wherewithal to mediate and prevent the fighting.

With so much to lose and enough ability to make a difference, it is imperative that Australia understands what is at stake.

This year has proven to be one of reorientation in Washington-Taipei-Beijing trilateral relations. The US has significantly lifted protocol restrictions on official exchanges with Taiwan. It has upgraded the rank of State Department officials allowed to visit Taiwan, specifically from Deputy Assistant Secretary level to Under Secretary level, and possibly even higher in the future.

In response, to signal its disapproval and deter further upgrades, China has staged war games and sent fighter jets to cross the so-called “median line” of the Taiwan Strait, as well as passing through various Taiwanese air identification zones.

Politically, the heightened tension creates political pressure on leaders from all sides, with the potential to overreact to provocations. The risk of miscalculation on both sides is ever present.

And events could escalate suddenly. Uncertainty and potential turmoil resulting from the US election is adding to an already heady atmosphere. It would not be beyond the realm of imagination that an unplanned skirmish, such as an accidental collision or a maverick Chinese or Taiwanese fighter jet pilot going rogue, could trigger retaliation that quickly escalates.

Accordingly, a debate is underway among US policy elites about whether to end its “strategic ambiguity” about America’s security obligations to Taiwan, which was designed to shore up deterrence against Beijing. American strategic thinking on this has been shifting clearly away from the centre towards the pro-Taiwan side.

Strategic ambiguity once made sense, in part because it created “dual deterrence” against both Beijing and Taipei. The logic is about making the American security pledge to Taiwan uncertain, i.e. neither openly committing to defend Taiwan in the event of a Chinese-initiated cross-strait conflict, nor openly rejecting conjectures that it would not. In doing so, the US could presumably attain the dual effects of deterring Taipei from taking bold steps to pursue de jure independence in ways that could entrap the US into an undesirable conflict with China, on the one hand, and on the other deterring Beijing from launching an all-out invasion against Taiwan on the Chinese (mis)understanding that the US would not intervene in such an event.

However, the strategic ambiguity strategy is being hotly contested because this dual deterrence framework may be somewhat redundant. China is increasingly emerging as a near-peer competitor to the US in the Indo-Pacific theatre, especially in China’s strategic neighbourhood that is the Taiwan Strait and the South China Sea. Meanwhile, America being an “extra-regional power” entails the credibility of its long-term commitment to the security and stability of the region is the subject of doubt – even more so recently, due to America’s narrowing power asymmetry vis-à-vis China and the Trump administration’s expressed quasi-isolationist and “America First” sentiment.

The likelihood of Australia being drawn into a US-China conflict is a growing concern. There has been long-running debate in Australia about how Canberra should respond if the US invoked the ANZUS Treaty and asked for its cooperation in a conflict over Taiwan. However, the precise manner in which Canberra could exert its influence over its superpower ally prior to and during a conflict scenario now requires more urgent attention. In the context of Australia’s recent efforts to push back against China’s coercive diplomacy in the Indo-Pacific and its vocal support for upholding the liberal international rules-based order, it is natural for Australia to hold sympathy for the defence of like-minded Taiwan.

Australia’s deteriorating relationship with China has also generated a pressing need to revisit Australia’s defence and strategic policies concerning its role in the region. The 2020 Defence Strategic Update set out an ambition to enhance Australia’s defence capability. But more can be said about how to strengthen regional multilateralism to respond to challenges in the region collectively, as well as to shape the regional security environment. This includes working with other nations that see the challenges in the same way.

Canberra needs to leverage multilateral mechanisms to pool risks and capacities with other similarly affected regional partners. Considering both logistics and political sensitivity, a starting point can be utilising existing multilateral platforms such as the ASEAN Regional Forum and the East Asia Summit. Piggybacking on them, Canberra can call for the establishment of ad hoc “mini-lateral” consultation groupings on the sidelines to discuss regional security linkages and crisis management arrangements.

Multilateral diplomacy will clearly require finesse. Canberra walks a tight rope. It needs to be sensitive, open and inclusive, so as to prevent Beijing’s accusation of outside actors “internationalising” the Taiwan issue. Meanwhile, it must avoid leaving a view among regional actors that Australia is undermining ASEAN centrality in the evolving regional architecture.

Despite these challenges, by virtue of its geographical position and regional influence, Canberra is well-suited to play a positive role.

This article was originally published on The Interpreter.

The post Taiwan: Rising stakes for Australia appeared first on The China Story.