Follow us on social

US-China politics collide over Taiwan airspace

US-China politics collide over Taiwan airspace

Growing conventional wisdom in Washington says that Beijing is preparing to attack the island. Not so fast.

Analysis | Asia-Pacific

Since late last year, the Chinese military has begun significantly increasing its offshore air activities near Taiwan. 

This trend has grown over time to include a wide range of different types of military aircraft, often sortied in ever-larger numbers, mostly to the west and southwest of the island. But many flights are also crossing the so-called midline of the Taiwan Strait between the island and mainland China, and almost all of them cross into Taiwan’s very expansive Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ).

This significant increase in Chinese military activity near Taiwan is of considerable concern, as it represents a largely unprecedented set of actions (in scale and frequency and type of aircraft involved), thus raising tensions across the Strait. This situation has naturally generated all manner of both informed and uninformed speculation by a wide range of pundits on the meaning of the Chinese flights. 

Unfortunately, rather than shedding light on the issue, much of this commentary simply serves to reinforce the growing conventional wisdom in Washington that Beijing is preparing to attack the island at the first opportunity, or is at the very least gearing up for vastly more provocative actions, such as flights over Taiwan, or perhaps the seizure of a small offshore island under Taipei’s control, thus daring the U.S. to respond. 

The problem is thus seen as a very simple one of growing Chinese military aggression; hence, for most pundits, the answer is equally simple: we need ever greater levels of military deterrence, including far more arms for Taiwan. For some that means an unambiguous U.S. commitment to defend the island if attacked, regardless of the reason, and for others a call to place Taiwan within the U.S. defense perimeter, which could imply the placement of U.S. forces on the island.

What most of these assessments lack is an understanding of the much more complex dynamic at work, which goes far beyond any military calculations. As I and others have argued in the past, Beijing is not about to launch an effort to seize Taiwan by force, although this possibility cannot be discounted over the longer term if present trends continue. But it is certainly applying greater levels of pressure on Taiwan, while improving its capacity to increase such pressure if needed, and also testing and straining Taiwan’s defense capabilities. 

All of this is happening in response to what Beijing likely sees as a basic shift in U.S. policy and in Taiwan politics, involving an ever tighter level of political and defense relations between Taipei and Washington (approaching official levels). In addition, an ongoing weakening of the political influence of Chinese nationalists on Taiwan, growing U.S. Congressional support for Taiwan as a de facto independent state, and an increasing call in some U.S. defense circles to regard Taiwan as a strategic asset for the United States — an asset that must be kept from Beijing at all costs. 

Add to this the long-standing Chinese belief that Washington deliberately maintains the Taiwan situation at a steady boil to keep Beijing focused close to home and to justify ever larger forward-deployed US forces in Asia, and you have a major crisis in the making, especially given the overall wretched state of the Sino-US relationship.

When one also takes into account the fact that China’s ability to apply military pressure to Taiwan, and to complicate the ability of the U.S. to assist Taiwan militarily have both grown greatly since the 2010s, and that Chinese nationalism has grown alongside its economic and military strength, it is entirely unsurprising that Beijing is using one of the strongest tools it has available. It does this to contend with its perception of the main forces driving this crisis, which to most Chinese emanate, as suggested above, from Washington and Taipei. The Chinese leaders are showing, unmistakably, that it has the capacity to radically alter life on Taiwan in very negative ways. This is highly dangerous and even reckless. But, as indicated, it is acting in response to political, not military developments, exercising what it views as its own form of deterrence against the continued erosion that is occurring of the one political agreement between Washington and Beijing that keeps the peace in a worsening US-China relationship: the One-China concept.

Addressing this problem on the U.S. side requires far more than simply “more military deterrence.” That will only produce more versions of Beijing’s own forms of deterrence, resulting in a never-ending arms race while greatly upping the chances of accidental conflict, as increasing deployments of forces on all sides bump up against one another in various displays of resolve. Formulaic repetition by Washington of its continued adherence to the One China policy, and Beijing’s continued verbal support for a peaceful solution to the problem will not put a halt to this dangerous dynamic either. The Taiwan issue must be neutralized as a source of strategic competition between Beijing and Washington, through credible political and diplomatic actions intended to reaffirm the One China policy and separate the issue from what should become a manageable form of overall Sino-U.S. competition. 

Unfortunately, neither side shows any signs of moving in this direction at present. Deepening mutual distrust and hugely damaging domestic political pressure and posturing inhibit leaders on both sides from taking the kind of courageous and decisive action needed to stabilize the situation. It is time for Beijing and Washington to overcome their largely domestic political limitations, and lay out a pathway toward stability regarding Taiwan based on credible mutual assurances, vastly more effective crisis management mechanisms, and an end to the verbal bluster and finger-pointing. 

In this, both sides need to recognize that they are both contributing to the slow-motion train wreck we are witnessing, and that such an outcome can only be averted by striking a credible balance of deterrence and political reassurance regarding Taiwan and, in fact, the relationship in general. And this requires sustained, substantive dialogue.

President Biden and President Xi Jinping recently agreed in a phone conversation to improve contacts at senior levels between the two nations, presumably to stabilize the relationship. The current meeting taking place between National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan and senior Chinese foreign affairs official Yang Jiechi is presumably the latest example of this. And late Tuesday, Biden said he had spoken with Xi about the Chinese flights near Taiwan and that both sides had reaffirmed that they will abide by “the Taiwan agreement,” which presumably means the original normalization era agreement in which Washington affirmed its One China policy and Beijing affirmed its commitment to seeking a peaceful resolution to the issue as a first priority. 

Such conversations are of course most welcome. But they will likely get nowhere if neither side is willing to take the political risks necessary to alter the current Taiwan trajectory. 

By now-ritualized statements by both sides about the need to “call China to account”, to “deal from a position of strength”, or for the U.S. side “to admit its mistakes and take on the sole responsibility of correcting the problems in the relationship,” must give way to real and reasonable signals of restraint and reassurance.

Taiwan's President Tsai Ing-wen waves to the media aboard the PFG-1112 Ming Chuan, a Perry-class guided missile frigate, after a commissioning ceremony at Kaohsiung's Zuoying naval base.REUTERS/Tyrone Siu/File Photo|Taiwan's President Tsai Ing-wen waves to the media aboard the PFG-1112 Ming Chuan, a Perry-class guided missile frigate. REUTERS/Tyrone Siu/File Photo
Analysis | Asia-Pacific
Will US troops have to  go to war for Mohammed bin Salman? (VIDEO)
Biden's Saudi War Obligation

Will US troops have to go to war for Mohammed bin Salman? (VIDEO)

Video Section

Even as the war in Gaza rages on and the death toll surpasses 35,000, the Biden administration appears set on pursuing its vision of a Saudi-Israeli normalization deal that it sees as the path to peace in the Middle East.

But, the agreement that the administration is selling as a peace agreement that will put Palestine on the path to statehood and fundamentally transform the region ultimately amounts to a U.S. war obligation for Saudi Arabia that would also give Mohammed bin Salman nuclear technology.

keep readingShow less
Following a largely preordained election, Vladimir Putin was sworn in last week for another six-year term as president of Russia. Putin’s victory has, of course, been met with accusations of fraud and political interference, factors that help explain his 87.3% vote share.   If this continuation of Putin’s 24-year-long hold on power makes one thing clear, it’s that he and his regime will not be going anywhere for the foreseeable future. But, as his war in Ukraine continues with no clear end in sight, what is less clear is how Washington plans to deal with this reality.  Experts say Washington needs to start projecting a long-term strategy toward Russia and its war in Ukraine, wielding its political leverage to apply pressure on Putin and push for more diplomacy aimed at ending the conflict. Only by looking beyond short-term solutions can Washington realistically move the needle in Ukraine.  Since Russia’s full-scale invasion, the U.S. has focused on getting aid to Ukraine to help it win back all of its pre-2014 territory, a goal complicated by Kyiv’s systemic shortages of munitions and manpower. But that response neglects a more strategic approach to the war, according to Andrew Weiss of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, who spoke in a recent panel hosted by Carnegie.   “There is a vortex of emergency planning that people have been, unfortunately, sucked into for the better part of two years since the intelligence first arrived in the fall of 2021,” Weiss said. “And so the urgent crowds out the strategic.”   Historian Stephen Kotkin, for his part, says preserving Ukraine’s sovereignty is critical. However, the apparent focus on regaining territory, pushed by the U.S., is misguided.   “Wars are never about regaining territory. It's about the capacity to fight and the will to fight. And if Russia has the capacity to fight and Ukraine takes back territory, Russia won't stop fighting,” Kotkin said in a podcast on the Wall Street Journal.  And it appears Russia does have the capacity. The number of troops and weapons at Russia’s disposal far exceeds Ukraine’s, and Russian leaders spend twice as much on defense as their Ukrainian counterparts. Ukraine will need a continuous supply of aid from the West to continue to match up to Russia. And while aid to Ukraine is important, Kotkin says, so is a clear plan for determining the preferred outcome of the war.  The U.S. may be better served by using the significant political leverage it has over Russia to shape a long-term outcome in its favor.   George Beebe of the Quincy Institute, which publishes Responsible Statecraft, says that Russia’s primary concerns and interests do not end with Ukraine. Moscow is fundamentally concerned about the NATO alliance and the threat it may pose to Russian internal stability. Negotiations and dialogue about the bounds and limits of NATO and Russia’s powers, therefore, are critical to the broader conflict.   This is a process that is not possible without the U.S. and Europe. “That means by definition, we have some leverage,” Beebe says.   To this point, Kotkin says the strength of the U.S. and its allies lies in their political influence — where they are much more powerful than Russia — rather than on the battlefield. Leveraging this influence will be a necessary tool in reaching an agreement that is favorable to the West’s interests, “one that protects the United States, protects its allies in Europe, that preserves an independent Ukraine, but also respects Russia's core security interests there.”  In Kotkin’s view, this would mean pushing for an armistice that ends the fighting on the ground and preserves Ukrainian sovereignty, meaning not legally acknowledging Russia’s possession of the territory they have taken during the war. Then, negotiations can proceed.   Beebe adds that a treaty on how conventional forces can be used in Europe will be important, one that establishes limits on where and how militaries can be deployed. “[Russia] need[s] some understanding with the West about what we're all going to agree to rule out in terms of interference in the other's domestic affairs,” Beebe said.     Critical to these objectives is dialogue with Putin, which Beebe says Washington has not done enough to facilitate. U.S. officials have stated publicly that they do not plan to meet with Putin.    The U.S. rejected Putin’s most statements of his willingness to negotiate, which he expressed in an interview with Tucker Carlson in February, citing skepticism that Putin has any genuine intentions of ending the war. “Despite Mr. Putin’s words, we have seen no actions to indicate he is interested in ending this war. If he was, he would pull back his forces and stop his ceaseless attacks on Ukraine,” a spokesperson for the White House’s National Security Council said in response.   But neither side has been open to serious communication. Biden and Putin haven’t met to engage in meaningful talks about the war since it began, their last meeting taking place before the war began in the summer of 2021 in Geneva. Weiss says the U.S. should make it clear that those lines of communication are open.   “Any strategy that involves diplomatic outreach also has to be sort of undergirded by serious resolve and a sense that we're not we're not going anywhere,” Weiss said.  An end to the war will be critical to long-term global stability. Russia will remain a significant player on the world stage, Beebe explains, considering it is the world’s largest nuclear power and a leading energy producer. It is therefore ultimately in the U.S. and Europe’s interests to reach a relationship “that combines competitive and cooperative elements, and where we find a way to manage our differences and make sure that they don't spiral into very dangerous military confrontation,” he says.    As two major global superpowers, the U.S. and Russia need to find a way to share the world. Only genuine, long-term planning can ensure that Washington will be able to shape that future in its best interests.
Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin (R) shakes hands with U.S. Vice President Joe Biden during their meeting in Moscow March 10, 2011. REUTERS/Alexander Natruskin/File Photo
Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin (R) shakes hands with U.S. Vice President Joe Biden during their meeting in Moscow March 10, 2011. REUTERS/Alexander Natruskin/File Photo

Playing the long game with Putin

Europe

Following a largely preordained election, Vladimir Putin was sworn in last week for another six-year term as president of Russia. Putin’s victory has, of course, been met with accusations of fraud and political interference, factors that help explain his 87.3% vote share.

If this continuation of Putin’s 24-year-long hold on power makes one thing clear, it’s that he and his regime will not be going anywhere for the foreseeable future. But, as his war in Ukraine continues with no clear end in sight, what is less clear is how Washington plans to deal with this reality.

keep readingShow less
Georgia bill passes: Why the West needs to stay out of the protests

Demonstration at Georgia's Parliament in Tbilisi on May 12, 2024, the night before the vote on a law on foreign influence. (Maxime Gruss / Hans Lucas via Reuters)

Georgia bill passes: Why the West needs to stay out of the protests

Europe

Mass protests are roiling the Republic of Georgia as tens of thousands have taken to the streets against a proposed bill by the Georgian government on “foreign influence” that has worsened tension in an already polarized Georgian society.

That bill was passed Tuesday after turmoil in which punches were actually thrown between lawmakers on the parliament floor.

keep readingShow less

Israel-Gaza Crisis

Latest