Media reports indicate that at the end of last month, the Straits Exchange Foundation (SEF) was informed by its Chinese counterpart, the Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait, that if Taiwanese merchant vessels need Chinese warships as escorts for protection, they may apply through the SEF.
The Mainland Affairs Council has yet to authorize the SEF to handle such requests, but has indicated that it is assessing the possibility of sending Taiwanese navy vessels to the Gulf of Aden to protect the nation’s ships from pirates.
China’s offer to protect Taiwanese ships is an expression of its concern for and willingness to protect the lives and property of Taiwanese people under the “one China” principle and is in line with a softer approach to Taiwan. On the other hand, some people no doubt worry that China intends to use the offer to undermine Taiwan’s sovereignty.
But such concerns are not a good reason to send our warships. If we want to avoid directly accepting China’s offer, we can instead say we accept help from any and all countries participating in the patrol mission, as we would in any emergency in international waters.
Neither the Ministry of National Defense nor the navy is empowered to make a decision on sending vessels to escort cargo ships. The navy is capable of carrying out such a mission; it has many years’ experience of sending ships on long voyages to promote relations with other countries. But sending ships to escort merchant vessels and attack pirates is a different matter and differs from conventional naval warfare.
It would require special training for the officers and seamen of the vessels and it would require the ships to carry special forces personnel, helicopters and so on.
It is also unclear whether we would get help from nearby countries or other navies in a situation that our ships could not handle alone — such as if pirates hit one of our helicopters with a shoulder-launched missile. Such a scenario is possible and the navy cannot afford to ignore the risks.
East and South Asian countries that have sent naval forces to combat Somali pirates include China, Pakistan, Malaysia, India and Japan. There is a real need to protect shipping lanes from the Middle East to East Asia via the Malacca Strait.
Additionally, the anti-piracy mission provides a justification for some countries to show their ambition to extend their naval power.
Participating in the international drive to combat piracy by dispatching warships would, of course, benefit Taiwan in some respects.
It would provide training opportunities and demonstrate Taiwan’s willingness to cooperate with international organizations on military matters.
However, the possible reactions of the US, Japan and China must be considered.
The US Fifth Fleet has appointed Rear Admiral Terence McKnight to take command of the newly established multinational force patrolling the Gulf of Aden — Combined Task Force 151.
The next step may be to expand the anti-pirate force to include more than 20 countries, so as to effectively enforce security in sea lanes extending southward and eastward from the Suez Canal.
It is uncertain whether other participants in the mission would agree to let Taiwan participate. China might welcome Taiwanese ships to take part in joint escort, logistical and beach rescue efforts under the title of “Taiwan, China.”
In such a case, our government would need to proceed with caution.
Wang Jyh-perng is a reserve navy captain.
TRANSLATED BY JULIAN CLEGG
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS