The US’ Marine Corps University on Monday conducted a World War III simulation that had Taiwan as one of the fronts, with China, Russia and North Korea as belligerents.
The university said that the exercise was not intended to be preparations for war with those countries, and that the main focus was the European front, where the majority of US forces were sent in the simulation.
There is no doubt, given regional tensions and China’s militarization of the South China Sea, that US military officials are seriously thinking about potential conflict in the region.
However, US preparedness relies heavily on its partnerships in the Indo-Pacific, which is where doubt remains.
At the Five Power Defence Arrangements meeting in Singapore on June 2, 2017, regional leaders discussed potential security arrangements that would bolster cooperation and reduce dependence on the US.
“We have to take responsibility for our own security and prosperity, while recognizing we are stronger when sharing the burden of collective leadership with trusted partners and friends,” then-Australian prime minister Malcolm Turnbull said at the meeting.
Singaporean Minister of Defense Ng Eng Hen (黃永宏) said that his country welcomed cooperation with the US, but was concerned about policymaking at the top levels of the US government and was worried about the US being the only nation “powerful enough to set red lines with China.”
In a poll cited in a report published on the Foreign Policy Web site on Jan. 8, respondents in ASEAN said that they lacked confidence in the US’ policies in the region.
The US’ freedom of navigation exercises in the area had not deterred China from obstructing economic activity by those nations in their own waters, the report said.
A report published by the National Interest Web site on Nov. 6 last year cited the growing challenges US businesses face in the Chinese market as “an underlying driver of bipartisan willingness to get tough on China.”
However, a heavy-handed approach would not work, because the US’ allies in the region still heavily depend on Beijing economically, it said.
The US needs to be more flexible and needs a clear strategy, it said, adding that US allies in Asia do not want to take sides in a US-China conflict.
Resolving the South China Seas crisis would require multiparty dialogue and it is imperative to bring China to the negotiating table.
China wants to be respected, and it sees the area within the “nine-dash line” as its territory, so there is no way it will agree to remove bases from it.
Regional leaders should seek to negotiate an agreement with China that protects their economic interests in those waters, and should seek shared responsibility to protect those operating in the area from conflict, piracy and other illegal activity. If China is to have military personnel stationed there, why not put them to use? Drug trafficking, human trafficking and piracy are major problems along major sea lanes, and China could work with other regional governments to combat this.
If China were to be in partnerships, it would be less likely to antagonize.
Taiwan could also participate in shared policing of the South China Sea.
The US and its partners in the Indo-Pacific — including Taiwan — must engage China in productive ways, while reducing their dependency on China’s market.
A strong China in itself is not a threat, but if it feels alienated or ostracized, it is likely to lash out. Therefore, cooperation that holds China accountable is needed.
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
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS