Follow us on social

google cta
Shutterstock_231380035-scaled

A word of caution: China's aggressive Taiwan flyovers could be just the start

By signaling greater support for Taipei's independence, Washington is risking the island's safety and 40-years of Sino-U.S. peace.

Analysis | Asia-Pacific
google cta
google cta

Last weekend’s flight of more than two dozen Chinese military aircraft across the midline of the Taiwan Strait and the strong U.S. verbal response reaffirming support for Taiwan reflect the continued escalation of Sino-U.S. tensions, a dynamic that needs to be brought under control as soon as possible.

While Beijing depicted the exercise as routine, Ned Price, the State Department’s new spokesman, denounced it, describing it as the latest in a "pattern of ongoing P.R.C. attempts to intimidate its neighbors, including Taiwan.”

As the stern U.S. response to the Chinese flights suggested, the new Biden administration clearly wants to show, as Secretary of State-nominee Tony Blinken stated in his confirmation hearings, that Washington will continue the “get-tough” approach to China taken by the Trump administration, yet do it differently. 

But “get-tough” is no policy, it’s an attitude, and an inadequate one at that. What is urgently needed in Washington is a serious strategy toward Beijing that reflects the complex realities of the bilateral relationship, without the use of the simplistic labels and Trump administration’s almost exclusively zero-sum approach. 

Efforts at deterrence are great when needed, but only when combined with clear signals of reassurance that can limit the tendency for either side to escalate further. The United States repeating the standard mantra on Taiwan (upholding the Three Joint Communiques, the Taiwan Relations Act, and the U.S. One-China policy) is rapidly losing its credibility for Beijing as a signal of Washington’s continued commitment to the key understanding reached between the two powers at the time of Sino-U.S. normalization in 1979.

That understanding, which has kept the peace for over 40 years, exchanged a Chinese commitment to stress the search for a peaceful resolution of Taiwan’s status as a first priority for a U.S. commitment not to contest Beijing’s view that Taiwan is a part of China. Although both sides have certainly undermined this understanding in various ways since normalization, neither side has yet clearly broken it. The deepening Sino-U.S. rivalry, however, threatens to produce just such a break with potentially disastrous consequences. 

If Beijing continues to rely more on sticks than carrots in dealing with Taipei, and Washington continues to offer little but deterrent messages toward Beijing while moving ever closer to Taipei, we could soon be facing a crisis of major proportions. This will become especially likely if, as overall Sino-U.S. relations continue to deteriorate, U.S. policymakers begin to look upon Taiwan as a kind of strategic asset to keep out of Beijing’s hands. Signs of such a policy evolution were already emerging during the Trump administration in the context of its “get-tough” policy. 

The Biden administration needs to halt that dangerous trend by showing clearly that it will uphold its side of the original normalization understanding with Beijing and limiting its official ties to Taipei in contrast to the eleventh-hour efforts by former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, in particular, to promote official contacts at senior levels. 

At the same time, the Chinese will need to show their continued stress on the search for a peaceful solution by offering greater incentives to Taipei to engage with the mainland. They can do this by reducing their military pressure on the island and initiating contact with the Tsai Ing-wen government. 

Exchanges of resolve between Beijing and Washington will not move us one inch closer to stabilizing the Taiwan situation, which is urgently needed. The Biden administration needs to give serious consideration to how best to balance deterrence with reassurance to avert a catastrophe.      


A Chinese J-10 fighter jet similar to this one shown at an airshow in 2014 in Zhuhai, Guangdong province, was one of the many warplanes to fly over Taiwan last weekend. (Shutterstock/plavevski)
google cta
Analysis | Asia-Pacific
Did the US only attack Iran because of Israel?
Top image credit: President Donald J. Trump holds a joint news conference at the White House with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Feb. 4, 2025. (Shutterstock/ Joshua Sukoff)

Did the US only attack Iran because of Israel?

QiOSK

In the months that led up to the Iraq War, the Bush administration went to extraordinary lengths to convince the world of the need to oust Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. Leading officials laid out their case in public, sharing what they claimed was evidence that Iraq was moving rapidly toward the deployment of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. When U.S. tanks rolled across the border, everyone knew the justification: the U.S. was determined to thwart Iraq’s development of weapons of mass destruction, however fictitious that threat would later prove to be.

In the months that led up to the Iran War, the Trump administration took a different tack. President Trump spoke only occasionally of Iran, offering a smattering of justifications for growing U.S. tensions with the country. He claimed without evidence that Iran was rebuilding its nuclear program after the U.S.-Israeli attack last June and even developing missiles that could strike the United States. But he insisted that Tehran could make a deal with seven magic words: “we will never have a nuclear weapon.”

keep readingShow less
Iran says ‘no ship is allowed to pass’ Strait of Hormuz: Reports
Top image credit: A large oil tanker transits the Strait of Hormuz. (Shutterstock/ Clare Louise Jackson)

Iran says ‘no ship is allowed to pass’ Strait of Hormuz: Reports

QiOSK

Hours after the U.S. and Israel launched a campaign of airstrikes across Iran, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps is warning vessels in the Persian Gulf via radio that “no ship is allowed to pass the Strait of Hormuz,” according to a report from Reuters.

The news suggests that Iran is ready to pull out all the stops in its response to the U.S.-Israeli barrage, which President Donald Trump says is aimed at toppling the Iranian regime. A full shutdown of the Strait of Hormuz would cause an international crisis given that 20% of the world’s oil passes through the narrow channel. Financial analysts estimate that even one day of a full blockade could cause global oil prices to double from $66 per barrel to more than $120.

keep readingShow less
What Pakistan's 'open war' on Taliban in Afghanistan really means
Top image credit: FILE PHOTO: Afghan Taliban fighters patrol near the Afghanistan-Pakistan border in Spin Boldak, Kandahar Province, following exchanges of fire between Pakistani and Afghan forces in Afghanistan, October 15, 2025. REUTERS/Stringer

What Pakistan's 'open war' on Taliban in Afghanistan really means

QiOSK

Pakistan’s airstrikes on Kabul and Kandahar over the last 24 hours are nothing new. Islamabad has carried out strikes inside Afghanistan several times since the Taliban’s return to power. Pakistan claimed that the Afghan Taliban used drones to conduct strikes in Pakistan.

What distinguishes this latest episode is the rhetorical escalation, with Pakistani officials openly referring to the action as “open war.” While the language grabbed international headlines, it is best understood as part of a managed escalation designed to signal resolve without crossing red lines that would make de-escalation impossible.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.