Dr. Ashfaq Ahmed
United States (US) House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s recent Asia tour was fraught with danger. It resulted in public disquiet due to saber-rattling and coercive diplomacy. Peoples Republic of China (PRC) considers Taiwan as core issue. Public statements were issued unpretentiously by the Spokesperson of Chinese Foreign Ministry Zhao Lijian, People’s Liberation Army’s Eastern Theater Command posted video on Weibo. Rhetoric was joined by the US President Joe Biden, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken at the United Nations (UN), US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and National Security Council (NSC) coordinator for strategic communications John Kirby.
Coercive diplomacy, military signaling, growing tension and probability of escalation leading to military confrontation can be viewed from three different perspectives. First the Chinese perspective, second Taiwanese perspective and third the American perspective. First, PRC considers Taiwan as an integral part of Chinese mainland. President Biden’s continuous commitment to Taiwan could have resulted in declaration of independence by Taiwan during Pelosi’s recent controversial visit. Consequentially, Beijing’s regional position could have been challenged by regional neighbours. Further, Taiwan’s declaration could have sparked other secessionist movements or at least created unrest on ethnic lines. Naturally, XI’s administration was concerned about House Speaker’s visit to island and respond to it by military exercises, public statement issued by top-government officials to stop Taiwan from “formal declaration of independence”. Ongoing situation cannot be analysed without taking into consideration January, 2021 PRC Defence Ministry spokesman Wu Qian categorical warning that “Taiwan independence means war.” Xi’s administration repeatedly warned Taiwan from declaring independence. Peoples Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) operational and tactical measures including i.e., naval blockade of breakaway province, military drills, fighter jets incursion into Taiwan’s airspace and firing of missiles in North and South of the Island are PLA and PLAN’s expression of firm resolve, military strength and war preparedness to tackle any provocative move. History affirms PRC believes in peaceful co-existence opposed to military confrontation and military expeditions. Pelosi’s visit to self-proclaimed independent state was a matter of national security, sovereignty and territorial integrity. Potential independence declaration would have been synonymous with what realist theorists describes as an external threat posed to state security an issue of traditional security.
Second, contrary to Beijing’s stance Taiwan considers itself as a sovereign state, maintains armed forces and has its own constitution. Warnings from Beijing, military exercises near the island and firing of missiles created fear of PLAN’s possible takeover. It responded with deployment of air reconnaissance patrol forces, ships and put shore-based missile forces on stand-by are clear signs of rising strategic temperature, escalation and military signaling. Resorting to such military activities are known as “Chicken Game,” Burn One’s Own Bridges,” and “Crisis Escalation.” However, mismanagement of the crisis can result in major catastrophe. Third, American perspective US media speculations that Pelosi’s plane can be shot down by PLA increased sensation as “House Speaker” is in the Presidential line of succession. Cancellation of Taiwan visit was regarded as a sign of military weakness by several quarters in US. It could have challenged future US military presence, undermined national interest and security objectives. Public warnings from PRC increased sensation. Warnings heightened US stakes in Pelosi’s visit, required Washington to preserve status-quo and convince regional allies of strong US commitment finally Taiwan was visited. Several US analysts believe Beijing could have authorized Peral Harbor like attack against US or regional military bases including Guam military base with Guam Killers Missiles. Perhaps therefore US maintained military presence in Philippines sea through US aircraft career USS Ronald Regan and associated strike groups. the USS Antietam, a cruiser, and the USS Higgins, a destroyer left Singapore towards Japan. In response to Chinese blockade of Taiwan Washington can also respond with similar actions. US has history of imposing diplomatic and economic sanctions against geographically and economically weak and small nations for instance Iran and North Korea. Critical assessment of US policy ascertains despite limited options available to economically and militarily weak states Washington could not produce desired results. Chinese economic share/ contribution in global economy is more than twenty-five percent, its geographical size and military strength is gigantic. Washington can neither fracture energy security nor damage Chinese economy or declare victory against Beijing. The following section discusses different scenarios in case naval blockade is imposed. It can result in following possible scenarios.
1. PRC Policy of
Open Confrontation
US measures to disrupt energy supplies will certainly reduce Beijing’s commercial activities within and outside its borders. Dire energy shortages can dreadfully affect Chinese exports resulting in economic crisis, power shortages sub-sequentially leading to political crisis at home. Peoples Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) presence in Indian Ocean at Sri Lanka, Gawadar and Djibouti. Huge defence budget endows People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to carryout research and development activities in defence sector. China has evolved powerful armed forces and Anti Access/Area Denial (A2/AD) capabilities. Material resources available to PLA and dire consequences of economic strangulation enable Beijing to adopt policy of open confrontation. PLA can inflict formidable damage to US navy. Strategic planners in Pentagon may perceive to adopt policy of non-contact by imposing naval blockade similar to John F. Kennedy’s 1962 Cuban naval blockade against its contemporary rival. Pentagon’s musing of non-contact warfare strategy can dangerously result in crisis leading to conflict escalation and open war with nuclear overhang.
2. Conflict-Prevention
Strategy
Chinese authorities in response to US naval blockade may decide to avoid adopting policy of open confrontation. Conflict-Prevention strategy can involve oil-pipelines construction to import oil from Russia and Kazakhstan. Other options include PLAN contingents to safeguard oil-shipments. However, US navy attempt to directly confront PLAN security contingents safeguarding oil-shipments or missile strikes against oil-pipelines will result in crossing Chinese threshold and patience level. Certainly, PLA’s reputation publicly challenged will demand counter-strike. Inability to respond will fracture Beijing’s deterrent capability in the region. Incapability will encourage regional rivals perhaps New Delhi to join hands with Washington and settle territorial disputes through coercive measures including use of force or threat of use of force.
3. Soft-Strategy
Beijing can orchestrate soft power strategy- a state’s ability to achieve its national interest or persuade other states through attraction rather than coercion or threat of use of force-to maintain status-quo by utilizing energy reserves and importing extensive energy from Russia, Kazakhstan and utilizing Gawadar port for oil-imports. Simultaneously, Beijing will engage diplomatically for conflict prevention and conflict resolution with Washington. However, it should not be considered as a sign of weakness and hamper China’s nuclear deterrent capabilities.
4. US Conventional
War-Winning Strategy
US air, sea and land war fighting doctrines are considered as war-winning strategies because of numerical strength and qualitative edges it enjoys over enemies. Pentagon can orchestrate war fighting strategy against China because of PLA’s smaller nuclear force size. In this scenario Beijing requires to expand nuclear forces and create sense of mutual vulnerability in strategic circles based in Washington. Fear of long-range residual nuclear deterrent force will erode efficacy of US’s sophisticated military technology and efficiency of deterrent forces. Certainly, it will preserve strategic stability and prevent future conflicts.
5. US Allies Response
to China Specific Embargo
In prevailing international order states affairs are interconnected it resulted in complex interdependence. Therefore, world economy is interdependent US declaration of economic warfare against China will harm Western allies’ economies. Will they tolerate sanctions? Can they sustain cost of economic war waged against China? The longer the blockade is continued the longer would be sufferings of US allies. Efforts to disrupt Beijing’s sustainable development will certainly disrupt sustainable development of European Union signatories. PRC is playing crucial role in global economy imposing energy embargo has global implications. In conclusion Nancy Pelosi’s unwarranted visit to Taipei increased Sino-Taiwan strategic temperature. Mismanagement of crisis can result in US military involvement. Regional peace and stability are at-stake today.
