The pivotal reason that peace has endured for 70 years has disappeared. President of the People’s Republic of China Xi Jinping has declared he wants to oversee movement toward unification during his lifetime.
How often over the past decades have we been warned that the Taiwan Strait is a potentially explosive flashpoint? Often enough to numb the mind. So why should we pay attention this time? Because the pivotal reason that peace has endured for 70 years has disappeared. Unlike his predecessors, Xi Jinping, President of the People’s Republic of China (PRC), is no longer prepared to leave unification of the mainland and Taiwan to
future generations.
Xi has not only proclaimed that he wants to oversee movement toward unification during his lifetime, he has also repeated his predecessors’ message that Beijing will not renounce the use of force to attain its goal. These threats are credible.
Unification is central to the legitimacy of the Communist Party of China (CPC) and to Xi’s vision of the ‘China Dream’. Observers often start their analysis with “Were the PRC to attack Taiwan …” However, this is an outdated assumption. Despite Beijing’s threat to use force, a deadly war is not the most likely route Xi will choose to achieve unification. Outright military conflict cannot be ruled out but is highly unlikely.
Australia needs to pay attention to rising tensions in the Strait and prepare for another, more probable scenario: a protracted and intensive campaign by Beijing, using ‘all means short of war’, to force the Taiwanese leadership to start negotiating. The United States and others in the region, including Australia, would find it extremely difficult to counter these moves. No individual action by the PRC would warrant a military response, but collectively they could allow Beijing to achieve its aim. This has been its approach in the South China Sea.
The changing status quo
The status quo, which is today under severe strain, is a fiction – agreed upon long ago and interpreted differently by each party – about what Taiwan is and what it should become. From Taiwan’s viewpoint, the status quo means that it functions as an independent and separate society from the PRC.
Taiwan has its own political system, military and currency, but it is internationally isolated. Nearly all nations recognise Beijing as the sole representative of China and – at Beijing’s insistence – merely maintain economic and social ties with Taiwan. Although economically the PRC and Taiwan are intertwined, most Taiwanese today
identify as Taiwanese in the first instance, not Chinese.
They would prefer to kick the can down the road and – albeit grudgingly – live with the
status quo. From Beijing’s viewpoint the status quo is a bleeding sore. PRC leaders view Taiwan as a province of the PRC. They are adamant that “one day” Taiwan will be united with the motherland, at which point the Chinese civil war will finally end and China will attain closure. Xi has redefined and brought forward that “one day”.
Most Taiwanese will not voluntarily accept unification with the PRC of today. No amount
of PRC economic incentives would convince the majority of Taiwanese that unification in
the near term is in their interest. The authoritarian measures adopted by Xi since 2012, especially Beijing’s actions in Hong Kong, have hardened the views of many Taiwanese
who were previously undecided about future unification.
The PRC’s preferred unification model, ‘One Country, Two Systems’, is obsolete. Nevertheless, in an ominous sign of political tone-deafness, Beijing in January issued the Plan to Build the Rule of Law in China (2020–2025), which calls for advancing the
process of unification under the “One Country, Two Systems plan for Taiwan”. It is well to remember that Beijing relied on legal measures – the passing of the Hong Kong National Security Law in June 2020 – to justify actions that, in essence, are now eroding Hong Kong’s autonomy.
From the viewpoint of the US, the status quo means that Washington acknowledges Beijing as the sole representative of China, but insists that any future unification takes place peacefully and with Taiwan’s consent. The administration of Donald Trump took several unprecedented steps to deepen Taiwan–US ties and normalise Taiwan’s international engagement. President Joe Biden is likely to continue these policies.
Many reasons for Australia to care
Were the PRC to take possession of Taiwan, East Asia’s strategic dynamic would change dramatically. The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) would no longer be confined to the ‘first island chain’: the PLA Navy (PLAN) would instead have the ability to project power further into the western Pacific. This would alter the US defence posture in the
western Pacific and adversely affect Australia’s strategic environment.
Australia should also care about Taiwan’s fate because, with its 23 million people, Taiwan typifies the kind of vibrant, free and democratic society that Australia wants to see flourish across the IndoPacific. Forced annexation of Taiwan would be a setback for Australian values.
The havoc resulting from either a military confrontation or a comprehensive cross-Strait crisis would severely impact regional trade, and cause serious damage to Australia’s trade-dependent economy. Moreover, Taiwan produces half of the world’s semiconductor chips. Australia would suffer from a halt or substantial disruption in production.
Would the United States intervene?
In its official strategy, the US is committed in a conflict to denying the PRC sustained air and sea dominance inside the ‘first island chain’; defending Japan and Taiwan; and dominating all domains outside the ‘first island chain’. Given the vastly strengthened capabilities of the PLA and, in particular, its anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) weaponry, it is no longer certain that the US could prevail in a Taiwan conflict.
The Biden Administration has expressed a “rock-solid” US commitment to Taiwan. However, no one knows with certainty if Washington would actually intervene militarily were Beijing to take military action against Taiwan. For more than 40 years this strategic ambiguity has been a key to maintaining peace. Contrary to what media reports often state, the US is not legally bound by the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act to actually defend Taiwan militarily.
Today, some experts call for the US to change course and explicitly and categorically declare that it would respond to any use of force by the PRC against Taiwan. Biden is unlikely to do this. It would provoke Beijing; and it could also be used after 2024 by the next president of Taiwan – who could be more radical than the incumbent Tsai Ing-wen – to actively seek recognition of Taiwan’s independence, thereby provoking Beijing further.
Can Taiwan be coerced to negotiate?
Beijing does not want to fight a war over Taiwan. A much more likely scenario entails step-by-step coercion of Taiwan – the use of ‘all means short of war’ – to destabilise Taiwanese society and force it to accept unification talks. In an attempt to break the will of Taiwan, Beijing could adopt an aggressive mix of new technologies and conventional methods to apply pressure. These range from economic pressure or an embargo, via intimidation, cyberattacks, and covert actions and subversion, to assassination and the limited use of military force (see scenario below). The aim would be to force Taiwan’s leadership to agree to unification talks premised on Beijing’s precondition that there is only ‘one China’.
Once these political talks start, Xi could declare success for having paved the way to unification. Talks could take years, but Xi would be lauded for bringing the nation closer to the ‘China Dream’ of which unification is a central tenet. How resilient would the Taiwanese people be when faced with the risk of war and utter chaos? There are too many factors and unknown variables to answer this credibly.
A key unknown is the role of those Taiwanese who already favour unification – approximately 1.9 million people, a small proportion of the population (8.1% ). But their actions could be decisive if Taiwan were under siege, especially if they were to be joined by a portion of the Taiwanese who do not favour unification but do not want to risk catastrophic loss of human life in the event of a war. A movement could emerge to accept the negotiation of a compromise solution in order to avoid an escalation of violence.
After all, Beijing will not initially demand more than a commitment from Taiwan’s government to negotiate. Some could argue that the Taiwanese side would in principle still have room for manoeuvre.
Conclusions and recommendations
■ Despite the improbability of war, Australian decision makers need to make every effort to understand the complexities of the standoff over the unresolved political status of Taiwan. It is the one issue over which a military conflict could arise between the PRC and the US. Washington would take for granted Australia’s participation in any war effort. Determining what role Australia wants to take – if Canberra decides to join the US – is vital.
■ Most importantly, Australian decision makers need to prepare for a scenario in which Beijing resorts to ‘all means short of war’ to force the Taiwanese leadership to start political talks. There are countless possible thorny situations that would require a rapid policy response. What should Canberra do if Beijing shuts down the power and communication networks in Taiwan? Would Australia ban exports of iron ore to the PRC? Canberra must decide how important Taiwan is as an independent entity. Is Canberra willing to suffer retaliatory measures far greater than the current ones being meted out by the PRC?
■ The strong possibility of a PRC campaign using ‘all means short of war’ requires fresh thinking in Australia about cooperation within the ANZUS alliance. Specific scenarios and counter measures need to be discussed with other US allies too.
■ While Australia-PRC political ties remain frozen, Canberra should encourage others to apply quiet diplomacy to prevent the type of scenario described in this brief. Beijing needs to be persuaded to accept Taiwan’s long-standing offer to enter into cross-Strait political talks without preconditions from Beijing, something it has refused to do.
■ Outsiders should not pass judgment on a negotiated settlement in advance, as long as Taiwan is not coerced. Although inconceivable today under Xi, one cannot rule out that a loose, largely symbolic, ‘Greater Chinese Union’ could be acceptable to both sides in the future.
■ Some dismiss persuading Beijing to change tack as impossible. Persuasion and pressure – for example, a warning that recognition of ‘one China’ is in danger – are only possible if there is solidarity, ideally among European, North American and most Indo-Pacific nations. That is a tall order. Australia should consult with others about ways to jointly push back against Beijing if it intensifies pressure on Taiwan. First of all, the term ‘use of force’ must be redefined to include ‘all means short of war’. What a collective effort
would entail must be agreed upon. Whatever is decided needs to be communicated to Beijing by those nations who have a better chance of being listened to than Canberra.
This article was first published in China Matters in February, 2020. Reprinted with permission.
Linda Jakobson is the founding Director and Deputy Chair of China Matters, an independent Australian policy institute that aims to advance sound China policy and inject realism into discussions about the rise of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and Australia-China relations.
Ms Jakobson was the Beijing-based Director of the Program for China and Global Security for the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute; Director of the East Asia Program at the Lowy Institute; and a visiting professor at Sydney University. A Mandarin speaker, she has lived and worked in China for 22 years. She is the author of five books about China and East Asia and has advised governments on China policy in seven countries.
Comments
25 responses to “Why should Australia be concerned about rising tensions in the Taiwan Strait?”
It’s easy to avoid war. All Taiwan needs to do is to agree (and recommit) to the idea of one China and Taiwan being part of it, and seek further integration with China conditional on: (i) Taiwan continuing to govern itself according to its own rules, (ii) Beijing taking responsibility for foreign affairs, and (iii) Taiwan keeping its own independent armed forces.
(i) and (ii) will be perfectly fine with Beijing. (iii) is controversial, but (me speculating) could be accepted if Taiwan stops acquiring arms from the US.
This outcome leaves Taiwan as it currently is (apart from no longer acquiring arms from the US), and with the benefit of further economic integration with China. (Note that the terms of any further integration will presumably on terms that Taiwan finds acceptable, since Taiwan continues to govern itself domestically.)
If there is war, it is because: (i) Taiwan seeks independence, and/or (ii) the US continues to supply arms and violates China’s sovereignty (e.g., by having official relations with Taiwan). In short, if there is war, it’s because the US encourages it.
In fact, the regimes in mainland China and Taiwan have not announced the end of the war since 1949. If a Taiwan Strait war begins one day, legally, it will be a civil war.
From many of the comments here, it’s clear that many people don’t attach much importance to the fact that Taiwan‘s people do not want to be part of the PRC, enjoy the freedoms they have, do not want to lose them and have as much right to self determination as anyone. By all international legal standards, Taiwan has all the requisites to be a sovereign independent country. The only argument China has in its favour is military might and the threat of force. In the past, the hope in Taiwan was that China would evolve in a way that would make it feasible eventually for it to consider some form of integration with China, in which Taiwan’s freedoms etc. would be preserved. Unfortunately China’s trajectory in recent years has taken it in the opposite direction.
“By all international legal standards, Taiwan has all the requisites to be a sovereign independent country.”
Since when, whose international legal standards, and why ? The UN recognizes the PRC not ROC. So does Australia and the even the US.
Tell me why the US had the ‘legal’ right to make Hawaii a state of America in 1959 after annexing it in 1898?
The internationally accepted standards for being accepted as a sovereign international country are clear enough and Taiwan meets them all in spades. You can read up on this if you care to spend the time. As for Hawaii, my point is made: might and force constantly overrule international law and standards. It’s basic really.
So you are presenting an argument based on me doing the research?
Sophistry at its finest.
I’ll help you George. Try starting with the Montevideo Convention: “The state as a person of international law should possess the followingqualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.” There’s lots more.
Once China pulls ahead of the US in cutting-edge microprocessors, Taiwanese IT, their flagship industry, will turn from the US to mainland China. Western-“educated” freedom-and-dignity believers will undoubtedly give trouble in Taiwan, but not as much as in the West, which they are relentlessly destroying.
China has as much right to consider Taiwan as part of China, as the US has the right to consider North America, Alaska, Guam, and Hawaii as its own.
China has as much right to consider Taiwan as part of China, as Australia has the right to consider Australia (and its thousands of islands including Tasmania and Norfolk Island) as its own.
The Boxer rebellion in China was in 1899. It sowed the seeds for the disposal of the Qing dynasty in 1912, and that was followed by the declaration of Sun Yat Sen of a Chinese republic. It lasted for a brief moment before Yuan Shikai turned China into the chaos of warlords and waring states once again. Sun escaped to Japan (China’s enemy through many invasions) of all places to learn military techniques.
At the same period in time the US walked in and annexed Hawaii, made it a territory in 1898 and then it became a state of America as late as 1959. I kid you not. It suited the US’s geopolitical and strategic interests to have a state slap bang in the middle of the Pacific. Not that far away contaminating nuclear testing programs were carried out in the Marshall Islands, despite the concerns of the traditional owners who eventually developed cancers.
‘1959’, was only 10 years after Mao won the civil war in China and when the Peoples Republic of China was declared. He became the official leader of China.
The issue of Taiwan is inseparable from US meddling in Chinese affairs for more than 175 years. America’s first president George Washington got the ball rolling, it goes back as far as that.
The US were always on the side of Chiang Kai-shek and supplied him with huge quantities of money to bankroll his conflict against Mao. His face appeared on the cover of Time magazine many many times.
At the end of WWII the Americans organised Chiang Kai-shek and 20,000 of his troops to take back Taiwan from the Japanese who had held it since 1895. Before that mainland Chinese people had moved and lived there from the 17th century onward.
Chiang Kai-shek lost the war and Mao Zedong was the victor. They both represented mainland China as leader, that is the only change as far as ownership of Taiwan is concerned. So why are China and Taiwan ever considered separate countries by some people? Do the rights of ownership of land change because a country changes its governance from one party control under one leader, to another one party under control with one leader too? Am I missing something here?
The US has always been the fly in the ointment because of its absurd paranoia over yellow peril and communism (Chinese and Russian), a condition that has brought us close to nuclear wars on several occasions. And now its not just communism but capitalism because China’s economy is rivalling that of the US. None of this is a secret anymore. China just can’t get it right for America’s wishes.
Going back to Hawaii, why has the US more claim to the set of Hawaiian islands than China has to Taiwan? They just moved in and took the place.
To be fair we should support China carrying out freedom of navigation exercises and war games around Hawaii, and a secret diplomatic campaign to get the indigenous Hawaiian people back in control by taking their country back. Surely it does not belong to the USA?
While I read about Xi Jinping being the bad guy here putting pressure on Taiwan, I don’t read much about the US’s meddling. And US meddling is even more duplicitous given they repeated only a few days ago that they still supported the “one China policy”.
How dare you pointing out historical facts, we only accept politically correct narrative around here by only looking at a certain period of events in isolation and put some spin around it to suit our political agenda. There’s a reason why Ms Linda Jakobson is respected and you are not.
The amount of positive comments I get here from people like you and particularly from people with Chinese heritage, many of whom are also Australian citizens who understand what I am doing, is more than enough for me to ever want to be anyone else having to comply with certain pro-Western views that make them popular.
Why do you make no mention of the Taiwanese who had no say in the KMT take over of Taiwan in 1949, and many of whom strongly resisted the Mainland rule? Should the Taiwanese still have no say in who rules them? Your reading of Taiwan’s history is abysmally flawed.
Well George, as expected, when we come to China, we differ. I go back to the point I usually make, about the wishes of the Taiwanese. Hong Kong provides very obvious lessons about the trustworthiness of CCP promises about one nation, two systems. It’s patently clear that the only thing saving the Taiwanese from a military takeover is CCP uncertainty about the US response. If I were Taiwanese, I’d be saying thank goodness for the US.
George, it might have been you, but certainly a poster on here, who – in suggesting the closeness of Taiwan culturally to China – compared it with Tasmania going on its own as an independent nation. And I think that’s a good parallel, because while mainlanders would be disappointed it is inconceivable that we would have hostile air and naval incursions, cyber threats, attempts to bully other nations sympathetic to Tasmania, and all the thuggishness of the PRC apparatus.
Skilts argued cogently on another thread for how China had done better by its citizens than the US has in its various satellites, such as the Philippines, and how lifting people from poverty was the number one priority. But that is not the case in Taiwan, where the level of poverty is considerably below the mainland.
Finally, I’m pretty sure that if you polled the people of Hawaii they would choose to remain part of the United States. Did they not have to consent to statehood in 1959? So, back to my first point, it is the attitude of the people who live there that matters most.
George, thank you for your informative history lesson – it certainly allows a better understanding, and explains to me just how wrong the US, UK and Australia are on their provocation of China.
“Many reasons for Australia to care”? Well, for starters three is not ‘many’ and it’s actually less than three.
The third reason listed is havoc resulting from war but as the author herself doesn’t think China will attack Taiwan that’s not much of a reason.
Second reason “Forced annexation of Taiwan would be a setback for Australian values” is laughable. Given our invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan it would be very much in keeping with our values.
As for “East Asia’s strategic dynamic would change dramatically ” surely this is of greater concern to the countries that are actually in East Asia and much closer to China than we are?
It’s not a very convincing case for why Australia should care or be involved and given the zero level of influence that we have with the Chinese government all talk about
influencing the situation with “quiet diplomacy” is irrelevant. Besides Morrison doesn’t know what quiet diplomacy is.
You can tell Linda is writing complete garbage based on the fact her job and $$ is tied to spew propaganda to give the illusion that somehow Australia actually matters in an Chinese internal matter.
1. The PRC-ROC dance is actually just a proxy conflict between China and the US. Once US falls, Taiwan will naturally want to reunify no matter how much propaganda Taiwan feeds its own citizens.
2. The West never gave a sh-t about ROC (or anyone else). When ROC was under military dictatorship under Chiang Kai Shek, the West still eagerly recognised ROC until the 70s when recognition was switched to PRC to counter USSR. So ROC was thrown under the bus.
3. US won’t go to war with Taiwan because it can’t win. US is making a lot of noise at the moment because it knows it can’t win but still pretends it is somehow relevant, because that’s all it’s got when projecting power in the Asia Pacific. Once that illusion is gone, US is gone for good. Again Linda spew some BS propaganda on this will “provoke Beijing”, wtf is she on about.
4. Time is on China’s side. China is getting more powerful, Taiwan is stagnant which is why Taiwan’s internal propaganda machine is in full swing closing stations, censoring even a children’s book about Corona Virus, again none of this is reported by dear Ms Linda Jakobson. US has been declining. There is no rush.
5. China is waiting for collapse of this so called “universal values” religion. Corona has already dealt a massive blow to “universal values”, the next blow is for China to become a fully developed nation, at that stage, it will be the biggest economy of the world by a wide margin and these “universal values” will collapse, the brainwashing of Taiwan will end and Taiwan will be much more easily absorbed with minimum aftermath cleanup. (Think reunification of Germany).
Taking Taiwan by force just means the aftermath clean up will be messier as there are still millions of brainwashed Taiwanese believe in “universal values”. China wants to avoid this.
6. No sane country will endanger trade with a fast growing market poised to be #1 biggest market in the world in the name of “DEMOCRACY!” by recognising Taiwan. What is in it for them other than fulfilling Linda’s fantasy. If US was serious, it would have ditched PRC and switched back recognition to ROC. Not even Pompeo can deny the One China policy, why? $$$.
Anyway this kind of garbage is what poisons the minds of those who reads it but hey I know Linda’s gotta eat so what can you do.
Great analysis!
One other assertion that Linda made was “most Taiwanese today identify as Taiwanese in the first instance, not Chinese”. If anyone can visit Taipei today, on the eve of the Year of the Ox, they would have absolutely no doubt that the Taiwanese people, apart from their native Aboriginal people, are emphatically Chinese!
The media manipulation with massive help from Google and Facebook (and the CIA) has created a significant number of misguided youth in Taiwan. This ‘I am not Chinese’ is similar to the Hong Kong youngsters’ refrain- a load of nonsense which has been encouraged by the imperialists!
There are about 800 mainland flights a week from the province to about 18 airports on the mainland and about 30% of Taiwan’s exports go the PRC. The only other province that has a higher percentage of exports going to PRC is that other economic province of PRC us in Australia. The reunification of Taiwan into PRC is proceeding apace, peacefully and through the economic and cultural ties between PRC and the province. The DPP is desperately trying to undo this peaceful unification process.
Skilts, I trust you don’t have any PRC related business. If you do, you had better register as an ‘agent of foreign influence’, lest you get a knock on your door by the AFP!
Mate i wish. I have put out plenty of hints on here that i would appreciate some Beijing gold to top up the pension. Sadly not a yuan. But i would like to renew my acquaintance with the morons from ASIO.
No sane country would endanger trade with the worlds biggest and growing middle class (about the same size as Europe and growing) and that is Morrison’s Australia. PRC just signed an agreement to increase agricultural imports from Central Asia by a whopping 50% over five years. Guess what that is replacing. No doubt the beef farmers of central Queensland will be delighted with the ten gallon hat half a pint brains crew running the Nats.
The best thing we can do is to make it clear to the US that we will not be going to war with Chins over Taiwan. China has an all but impeccable claim to Taiwan in international law. The only reservation, morally strong but legally extremely weak. is the large Taiwanese majority who want independence and Western political forms. But that morality pales against the risk of a world or large Pacific war with untold suffering and mayhem. There are often only choices between very imperfect policies and intended outcomes. We would not, for example, go to war with Indonesia for West Papuan independence seekers, however strong their claims, nor sanction Saudi Arabia for their suppression of women.
Neither ahould we encourage US warmongering and revanchism. The US backed the losing and corrupt KMT horse in China. We should help them to get over it by discouraging their remnant delusions.
Further, we are under no treaty or moral obligation to do otherwise. Nor is it in our selfish interest to back the US to try to ensure their defence of us if we need it. The US would only ever do that if they thought it was in their own interest to do so. They are quite as perfidious as Albion, as the Syrian Kurds have lately learned. We should not place any such risky bet.
So well summed up Rod. We cannot be drawn into another US war in Asia.
This breathtakingly presumptuous poppycock is grounded neither in law nor practicality.
In law, Taiwan stopped being an independent nation and became a Chinese state in 1972 by [1] The Shanghai Communiqué and the 1982 [2] Joint Communiqué and [3] the August 17 Communiqué. It’s the 23rd province of China. All of this his was codified and made permanent on October 1971, when the United Nations General Assembly passed Resolution 2758, which recognized the government of the People’s Republic of China as the only legitimate representative of China at the United Nations and established the One-China Principle.
In practice, the US and its (militarily occupied) ‘allies’ are no match for the PLA and have never been, as they learned in 1951. Today, China’s army, navy, and air force are far bigger in the Taiwan theater and more powerfully armed than any combination of Western forces.
No, the US is seeking to goad the PRC into invading Taiwan so that it can impose sanctions, oblivious to the fact that such a move would give China control of 85% of the world’s integrated circuit manufacturing capacity.
This breathtakingly presumptuous poppycock is grounded neither in law nor practicality.
Exactly complete poppycock!