It is time to leave 75 years of status quo behind and prevent global escalation.
Close
Taiwan is at a crossroads when it comes to defense. Its leadership must determine the strategies the country will pursue against a possible – if not likely – invasion from China. Beijing has recently stressed its goal of ending the decades-long standoff between the mainland and the island, with a peaceful resolution to this dilemma becoming less likely with each passing day. Against this backdrop, Taiwan could benefit from not arming itself with more weapons, but using diplomacy to de-escalate the situation and open the door to dialogue.
China has been engaged in a significant naval and military buildup for many years, suggesting possible preparations for a military operation. Chinese President Xi Jinping’s New Year’s address in 2024, in which he declares that “the reunification of the motherland is a historical inevitability,” is another sign of this preparation – his rhetoric suggests that the current status quo should end with a communist triumph over the island.
The most likely element of an invasion scenario would be a naval blockade that cuts off all supply routes to the island at the very beginning of the war. Taiwan is an island with very little arable land and is therefore dependent on food imports to feed its population. The country’s economy as a whole would also be at risk from such a blockade, as Taiwan relies on raw material imports for its manufacturing and technology sectors and relies on oil imports for its energy production.
This potential blockade would turn the conflict into a war of attrition, similar to the Battle of the Atlantic in World War II, in which Britain had to withstand German submarine attacks seeking to undermine the island’s supply lines. Without direct U.S. naval support, the island could lose strength and surrender over time, rather than suddenly through a shock-and-fright plan.
Another difficult problem would be air defense. The island’s proximity to the mainland makes it very vulnerable to systematic bombings that can damage infrastructure and industry. Taiwan has taken significant steps to improve its air defenses by investing in missile systems, but even so, it could not withstand the damage that a total blockade would cause in the long term.
Finally, the most important aspect of the Taiwanese military is the soldiers themselves. A Washington Post report published on August 3 points out that Taiwanese troops lack professionalism and morale, which are essential requirements for an army preparing for defense. This recent analysis lays out the main causes of a defeatist attitude towards the numerical superiority of the communist forces, difficulties in building up sufficient reserves, and a lack of public confidence in the military.
All of these are significant disadvantages to Taiwan’s war effort, encouraging China to be more aggressive on the issue. This is the current danger of the situation, which ironically benefits neither party involved. In a war scenario, China risks its own economy, which depends on its connection to global trade, but Taiwan risks much more if it is overwhelmed by superior firepower and a deadly naval blockade.
At the same time, the question of whether or not to be involved in this situation is also crucial to U.S. interests. Taiwan is one of the biggest risk zones, along with Ukraine and Israel, where the U.S. maintains a strong political position. Backing away from its commitments would mean the U.S. abandoning a strategic partner, further delegitimizing its position as a superpower while supporting Taiwan with more arms shipments. It is also a dangerous game of confrontation, which is terrible in the face of a nuclear escalation scenario. For Taiwan, further military spending only means making war more likely without providing any significant advantage on the battlefield. For the U.S., direct involvement also means further escalation, while backing away from its political commitments and embarrassing itself on the world stage.
The solution is a dual strategy of diplomacy and deterrence. Losing its seat at the United Nations might have cost Taiwan its political legitimacy, but accepting the status quo as a lost cause and engaging in dialogue between itself and Beijing may well devalue the communist rhetoric of conquest. The diplomatic process in such a case is likely to be incredibly arduous for both sides, but it can also pave the way for normalization, as previously seen between North and South Korea, thus ruling out any justification for war in the long run.
Deterrence is the more difficult side of this strategy, but it is also doable. What Beijing is currently dealing with is the ambiguity of US-Taiwan relations, which does not determine US responsibility for the island’s defense. At the same time, by making clear that the US Navy would indeed be involved in a conflict and opening the door to talks, one can at least buy enough time to survive the “eventual reunification” argument that is currently fueling belligerence in Beijing.
Preventing war and promoting diplomatic means benefits Taiwan by preventing aggression, serves the US by making it the arbiter in this case, and can earn China diplomatic respect for its involvement in a dialogue process. Emphasizing military strength alone cannot truly benefit Taiwan – it is time to look to diplomacy as a way out of this geopolitical paradox.
Deniz Gulay is in his second year and studies history.
The views expressed in the opinion pages represent the opinions of the columnists. The only contribution that represents the opinion of the Pipe Dream editorial staff is the editorial feature.
