James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies
Combating the spread of weapons of mass destruction with training & analysis

CNS Reports

© 2000 New York University. All Rights Reserved.

MONTEREY, Calif. -- The recent victory of Taiwan's opposition Democratic Progressive Party was certainly a positive sign for the development of democracy in Asia. But the election results should not become the basis for making dangerous miscalculations concerning the serious security issues that continue to confront not only the Taiwanese and Chinese but the United States as well.

Much of what has been written and said on all sides both before and since the elections has failed to address the real security situation in the Taiwan Strait. If anything, the potential for miscalculations or misunderstanding by all concerned parties has increased, as many observers have focused on the wrong issues. Such misreadings of conditions and assumed reactions only heighten the potential for conflict.

For example, U.S. observers err when attempting to say that "China thinks this or that." There is still a major debate going on within the Chinese leadership today and the United States would do well to try and figure out how to influence that debate. There is an unfortunate tendency, especially in Congress, to make statements and take actions that ultimately reinforce those who are most opposed to U.S. interests in China.

It is clear that, after NATO's bombing of the Chinese embassy bombing in Belgrade last year, the voices of those military leaders who are more narrowly focused (nationalist versus internationalist) have become much stronger in the inner councils of the Chinese Communist Party and government.

There are many other reasons for their increased influence, such as the U.S.'s plan to deploy a Theater Missile Defense system to protect Taiwan, and the result can be seen in the more nationalistic tone expressed in Beijing's recently published "White Paper."

While the White Paper contained little new, it gave voice to those Chinese military leaders who see bringing Taiwan back into the fold as part of their historic mission. By emphasizing their need to see some movement toward sincere good-faith negotiations soon, they made clear that they're willing to take some sort of military action.

These Chinese military leaders who currently have such a strong voice are generally not well-educated, in a cosmopolitan sense, and are very parochial. They had a strong anti-Western bias even before the most recent events and statements by the West, which they interpret as provocative. While they have an over-inflated view of their own capability, they are not stupid and should not be underestimated.

These military leaders believe they can change the character of warfare, just as they did during the 1930s when they invented The People's War. Their plan is not to confront an opponent strength-to-strength but rather to look for vulnerabilities. They believe their strategy of local warfare, concentrating on high-tech targets, will allow them to inflict just enough damage on U.S. forces so that the American public will not allow a protracted war.

They've seen this strategy be successful in the past. They look at Vietnam and Somalia as case studies. With their purchase of missile-carrying destroyers and submarines from Russia, as well as their own development of short- and medium-range ballistic and cruise missiles, they believe they can sink an aircraft carrier.

Whether it is even true or not is not at issue. If they believe it to be true, they will be emboldened to try.

The U.S. military is equally vulnerable to making miscalculations. After their experiences in the Gulf War and the Kosovo campaign, there are few U.S. military leaders who do not believe they are relatively invincible when waging war from afar with missiles and air strikes. Many think they could take out the entire Chinese navy in 24 hours.

If an American president, faced with a military conflict over the Taiwan Strait, were to ask if he could intervene military without serious human cost, the military would probably answer yes, using its new "casualty avoidance" estimates.

Again, the point is not whether the assessment is true or not. It's these types of assessments that can get us into a serious war.

For Taiwan, their potential miscalculation is the belief that the U.S. military is certain to come to their aid. Given that they feel they've now proven themselves to be one of the world's democracies, and based on their successful history of lobbying the U.S. Congress, they may think that such a belief is fully justified. Such a miscalculation could lead them into taking actions, even short of a declaration of de jure independence, that could lead to hostilities.

We are closer now to direct military conflict with China than at any time since the Korean War. While the United States must not get involved in settling the political issues between China and Taiwan, it is involved in the security issues of the region. Our policy must be to bring all three sides together on these key issues. What is critical is to find new ways of reassuring all parties so as to limit the potential for miscalculations.

We must play a neutral role, emphasizing that our only concern is that the political issues -- so susceptible to misunderstanding and miscalculations -- be resolved peacefully.