The past few years have served as a lesson to expect the unexpected. Despite expert warnings about the inevitability of a global pandemic, COVID-19 still caught the world unawares. Russia’s attack on Ukraine seemed to send us collectively careening further out of control, as few dared to believe that a hot war in Europe was likely. Now with Hamas and Israel locked in a brutal conflict, it is beginning to feel like none of the world’s flashpoints are to remain cool for long — Taiwan leading the list.
If this portrayal resonates with you, you would not be alone. Even before Hamas’ attack, the idea of a “polycrisis” was beginning to gain traction. Attendees of the World Economic Forum in Davos earlier this year favored the term coined in the 1970s to describe the interaction between disparate crises “such that the overall impact far exceeds the sum of each part.” Global anxieties were already trained on Taiwan, but with large-scale conflicts now raging in Palestine as well as Ukraine, a cross-strait conflict seems many times more likely than before.
Media have locked on to the concern, asking US officials how Washington is to handle the compounding crises. US President Joe Biden on Friday last week countered with a US$105 billion ask from Congress that combines aid for Israel and Ukraine. It also includes US$2 billion for Taiwan and Indo-Pacific security, bundling two conflicts with efforts to deter another, thereby inadvertently lending credence to the public expectation of conflict. In Taipei last week, American Institute in Taiwan Chair Laura Rosenberger also assured Taiwan that US support would not be affected amid fears of taut resources.
As tempting as it is to view global conflict as an inevitable collective, a flare-up in one place does not necessitate a total conflagration. Each actor has their own set of desires, concerns and cost-benefit analyses, Beijing included. It appears to be positioning itself carefully.
After Hamas’ attack on Oct. 7, Beijing has remained self-consciously neutral, declining to condemn Hamas as the aggressor and instead calling on “all relevant parties to remain calm, exercise restraint and immediately end the hostilities.” State media also said that Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) has offered to broker talks on a two-state solution. It is only the latest of China’s efforts to establish itself as a global mediator, after in March brokering a deal between Saudi Arabia and Iran, and on multiple occasions throwing its name in the ring as an option to facilitate talks between Russia and Ukraine.
In global politics, Beijing wishes to present itself as a great power alternative to the US. To do so, it needs to be viewed as a sober and reasonable actor that speaks on behalf of countries that have been ignored and condemned by those calling the shots until now. Playing by the rules while bending them to its wishes is how China has gotten this far, and there appears to be no immediate reason why it should change its playbook by starting a divisive conflict.
It is also important to remember that China itself is not a monolith. Al-Jazeera in an article published on Friday stressed that even within China’s military, not everyone believes the West to be the primary enemy, nor does everyone think the country should be “preparing for future conflicts that it might not win.” Xi has inadvertently confirmed this sentiment by instituting indoctrination campaigns and removing key leaders — including former Chinese minister of national defense Li Shangfu (李尚福) — which the reporter’s sources said they do not think are fully working. As much as Xi is trying to consolidate his power, it appears he still has a ways to go.
From what is known about Xi and his ambitions, everyone recognizes the causes for worry, but little is said about the causes for restraint. As the “polycrisis” feels more salient than ever, it is important to remember that no crisis is inevitable with the right preparation and balance.
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