I assessed whether a war in the Asia-Pacific region
was inevitable or impossible last week. Biden's trip to Asia, what he said
about Taiwan, and what happened after the QUAD
summit all made for a raging storm week in the headlines.
While relations between the United States and China,
which have been tense over Taiwan for a long time, changing on a geostrategic level, the risk of an
unexpected conflict grows with each passing day.
China's meteoric
rise to economic power is perhaps one of the most significant developments
of the twenty-first century. While this rise altered global balances, it also
shifted the momentum of the global hegemony struggle.
The reaction of the United States, which is the patron
of the current international liberal order, to China's rise is now posing a national security risk.
In the early 2010s, the two countries' burgeoning
rivalry reached a critical juncture, especially with Trump's election as US
President.
With Biden's election as US President, the case
remained unchanged, and US-China relations took on a more militarised tone.
The response of US President Biden, who recently met
with Japanese Prime Minister Kishida, to a question about Taiwan not only
strained US-Chinese relations, but also triggered a regional security crisis.
Biden's statement that the United States would respond
militarily if China intervened on the island of Taiwan broke with the strategic
ambiguity approach that has been used in the past and has sparked an intense
debate, particularly among experts who closely follow the issue.
Although the US Department of Defense attempted to
explain that "Taiwan policy has not
changed" Biden's rhetoric caused controversy.
A day later, Biden stated that the US's strategic policy toward Taiwan had not
changed. Despite Biden's statement, it is uncertain whether the comment in
question was a mistake or deliberate.
Biden had previously made statements on a range of
topics, and the White House subsequently corrected him.
Biden most likely interpreted the United States-Taiwan
Relations Act in a different way. Under the Taiwan Relations Act, the United
States has accept that it supports Taiwan's self-defense and opposes any
unilateral change to the status quo.The US is also committed to the 'One China' commitment, which is
constantly emphasized by China.
What Biden said is in violation of the Taiwan Relations Act. It is possible to
evaluate the article to oppose unilateral changes to the status quo, but this
would be too forced.
No President of the United States has ever interpreted
the Taiwan Relations Act in this manner. For a long time, the United States has
consciously performed strategic ambiguity.
Kurt
Campbell, who is in charge of the United States' regional policies, believes that
acting within the framework of "strategic
clarity" is pointless.
Although Biden says he does not expect China to
intervene on the island, the region has become a military flashpoint.
While the circumstance is becoming tense, China tend
to maintain strategic patience until the very last moment, but during the QUAD
summit in Japan, joint patrols of Russia and China with nuclear bombers over the Sea of Japan increased tensions.
With the changing of the circumstances, China has two
options about Taiwan. The first is to exercise strategic patience and choose
choose to preserve the status quo. The second option is to use a rapid
amphibious operation to Taiwan to 'reunite
the island with the mainland.' Both alternatives have drawbacks.
If he chooses to wait strategically, he will witness
the US fortifying itself with regional allies and Taiwan arming itself. Given
the presence of AUKUS and QUAD, it will be under blockade.
It is an
unstable and unsustainable situation.
If he chooses the second option, a serious regional
war will erupt. Here, he must act quickly to prevent the alliance working
against him from responding. Time is currently working against China.
A war between the United States and China over Taiwan
may be difficult, but it appears to be becoming more likely. Russia's problems
in Ukraine, in particular, have put significant pressure on the Chinese Army to
be ready for any change in status quo
about Taiwan.
While this pressure has created a fearful atmosphere,
it has also prompted China to mobilise in order to accelerate military
exercises and complete modernization.
On the other hand, given that the US military presence
in the Indo-Pacific region accounts for more than 60% of its total, predicting what the US will do about Taiwan may
be difficult.
It is highly likely that US senior officials are
assessing the possibility of war and a shift in strategy.
Could Biden's widely repeated words "we would respond militarily"
be a reflection of these assessments?
However, the US appears more likely to try to put
China in a difficult position by imposing a total blockade rather than making a
military move.
Russia's situation in the Ukraine issue, as well as
its constant wear and tear, may have prompted to be predicted that similar
things could happen to China.
In this context, the United States would not react
negatively to China's intervention in Taiwan at this time. Because such an
intervention would allow the US to rapidly consolidate its ally network toward
China.
Yet, it is certain that the US's failure to respond to
such a move would set off a chain of events, too.
So, could
China, which has modernised its military capabilities, think that a suitable
global conjuncture has emerged for Taiwan's inclusion in the mainland?
It is difficult to provide a definitive answer to this
question. Because of the Ukraine issue, there is pressure in this direction,
but there is also evidence that China is not yet ready to completely take over
the island.
According to Pentagon simulations, China will have
achieved the military capability to seize the island of Taiwan by 2027.
The Chinese Army's deficiencies in amphibic operations
and lack of combat experience have raised some concerns.
Taiwan is also known to be developing an asymmetric
defence strategy.
However, in this asymmetrical situation, it is still
possible to argue that China is more advantageous about Taiwan. Chinese
President Xi Jinping has previously stated that a "military option" for Taiwan has been on the table since
2019.
As a result of Biden's words, the tense situation has
devolved into a security dilemma.
It's such a dilemma that both sides are on the verge of strategic confusion
rather than strategic ambiguity.
While China is under pressure as a result of the
Russia-Ukraine conflict, NATO-like structures such as AUKUS and QUAD take on a
character that surrounds China, testing its strategic patience.
In the case of a possible intervention in Taiwan, the
United States, on the other hand, weighs the pros and cons of
"responding" and "not responding." If he responds, a likely
regional defeat would severely erode his global position. Not to mention the
possibility of a regional conflict spreading.
If he does not respond, it will be assumed that the US
is attempting to appease China.
To postpone these possibilities, the United States has
used a strategy known as strategic uncertainty. But he's now under pressure to
make it absolutely clear.
It is fair to argue that what Biden said reflects
these efforts.
It appears that China's strategic patience and the
United States' strategic ambiguity will be decisive in the possibility of
war.
But one thing is certain: a change in the status quo will force both sides to pay high prices and
enter a much more uncertain process.
Dr.Hüseyin Korkmaz. The author is a researcher focusing on China and geopolitics in the Asia, primarily related to the US-China relations.
0 Comments