Straight News: In view of the PLA's recent continuous dispatch of a large number of military aircraft into Taiwan's so-called "air defense identification zone," the report of Taiwan's defense department puts forward a coping strategy of "getting closer to the island and the stronger the countermeasures." How do you interpret this?
Special Commentator Liu Heping: Actually, some politicians on the island had previously clamored that if a PLA military plane entered Taiwan's so-called "territorial airspace," the Taiwan military would resolutely shoot it down. Therefore, compared with this radical remark, the coping strategy proposed by Taiwan's defense department that "the closer the PLA military plane is to the island and the stronger the Taiwan military's countermeasures" is still relatively implicit.
Then, why did the Taiwan military throw such words of deterrence at this juncture? I believe that behind this reflects the two mentalities of the Taiwan military and the Tsai Ing-wen authorities, one of which is the mentality of impatience; in the face of the unprecedented intensity and density of military aircraft circumnavigated by the PLA, the Taiwan military has fallen into a serious state of overwhelm, and has even developed anxiety and impatience; the other is the mentality of fear; the other is the mentality of fear, the Tsai Ing-wen authorities, especially the Taiwan military, are worried that one day the PLA military planes will suddenly break through the routine and not only enter the "air defense identification zone" unilaterally demarcated by Taiwan, but also suddenly enter the so-called "territorial airspace" claimed by the Taiwan side. " within range.
Although according to the Chinese mainland according to the one-China principle that Taiwan is a part of China, Taiwan has neither the power to unilaterally demarcate the so-called "air defense identification zone," let alone unilaterally demarcate the so-called "airspace." The mainland side can completely ignore its existence and come in and out as it wants, however, in the view of the Tsai Ing-wen authorities, the so-called "airspace" and the "air defense identification zone" are two things of completely different natures, and the "air defense identification zone" is still tolerable when it is broken by the mainland, but the so-called "airspace." It is not only the so-called military defense line that the Taiwan military must uphold, but also the last psychological defense line of the Taiwan people. Once the PLA military plane enters Taiwan's so-called "territorial airspace," not only will Taiwan's military defense line be broken, but the Taiwan people's psychological defense line will also completely collapse. What is particularly difficult for the Tsai Ing-wen administration is that once a PLA military aircraft enters Taiwan's so-called "territorial airspace," the Taiwan military will not know how to respond.
If we open fire and shoot down according to the words of some radical politicians in Taiwan, it means that the war in the Taiwan Strait will officially or even fully erupt, but if the Taiwan military chooses to bury its head in the sand as an ostrich, it means that the so-called "territorial airspace" of PLA military aircraft entering Taiwan will become normalized. Therefore, the so-called "territorial airspace" unilaterally declared by the Platon Army from entering Taiwan will become a major watershed in whether the situation in the Taiwan Strait will suddenly change and break the situation. In this regard, the Tsai Ing-wen authorities are sincerely afraid that the sword of Damocles above their heads will one day fall inadvertently, and even the Biden administration is worried about it. I believe that it is precisely for this reason that the Taiwan military will send out the signal that "the closer the PLA military plane is to the island, the stronger the Countermeasures of the Taiwan military will be," and its purpose is to prevent such an "unexpected situation" from occurring by means of deterrence to the mainland.
In my opinion, there is a Chinese saying that it is better to seek others than to seek oneself. Rather than worrying about the crossing of the line by PLA military aircraft, the Tsai Ing-wen administration and the Biden administration should reflect and examine themselves. It should be known that whether the Chinese mainland will take breakthrough behavior militarily depends entirely on whether the Tsai Ing-wen administration and the Biden administration will take political breakthrough behavior, and if the United States and Taiwan do not take breakthrough behavior politically, then Chinese mainland is unlikely to take breakthrough behavior militarily. Earlier, the Biden administration issued a rumor that it would rename Taiwan's representative office in the United States, the "Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the United States," to "Taiwan Representative Office," and Tsai Ing-wen recently threatened that the People's Republic of China and the current regime on the island would not be subordinate to each other, which would be a politically dangerous act of crossing the line and breaking through. That's the root of the problem.
Straight News: U.S. Department of Defense spokesman Kirby said at a regular news conference that the United States will continue to maintain unofficial relations with Taiwan in accordance with the three Sino-US joint communiques, the six U.S. pledges to Taiwan, and the "Taiwan Relations Act." What is your comment on this?
Special Commentator Liu Heping: Actually, the devil is really hidden in the details. Listening carefully to the speech of US Department of Defense spokesman Kirby, I found that there are really considerable differences between the words and deeds of many hawkish politicians in the United States in recent times, and even the Taiwan Strait policy pursued by the Biden administration in the past period of time, there are also many subtle and key differences.
The first difference is that over the past period of time, because the Biden administration, especially many politicians in the US Congress, have sat on the side of Taiwan, when they talk about the US Taiwan Strait policy, they often emphasize the six US guarantees for Taiwan and the "Taiwan Relations Act." They rarely mention the three sino-US joint communiques on the establishment of diplomatic relations that can restrain the US side, and even give people a feeling that in their minds, the three joint communiques on the establishment of Sino-US diplomatic relations "have never existed at all." This time, Kirby not only mentioned the three sino-US joint communiques on the establishment of diplomatic relations and the "Taiwan Relations Act" at the same time, but also placed the three Sino-US joint communiques on the establishment of diplomatic relations in front of the "Taiwan Relations Act."
The second difference is that in the past few decades, the Chinese side has repeatedly urged the US side to abide by the three joint communiques on the establishment of diplomatic relations between China and the United States, especially when the US side disregards China's feelings and insists on selling weapons to Taiwan, but this time it seems that the sun has come out of the west, not that the Chinese side is urging the US side to abide by the three joint communiques on the establishment of Sino-US diplomatic relations, but that the US side has beaten a rake and in turn urged the Chinese side to abide by the three joint communiques on the establishment of Sino-US diplomatic relations.
The third difference is that when asked by the reporter whether Kirby agreed to the U.S. military's action to defend Taiwan, Kirby actually said that he would not answer hypothetical questions. At the same time, in response to the Wall Street Journal's recent report that members of the US special forces and marine corps are training the Taiwan military in Taiwan, Kirby also said that I will not make any public comments on these reports. Obviously, Kirby is avoiding and dodging these sensitive issues, which is quite different from the blatant clamor of some hawkish politicians in the United States to help defend Taiwan by force. As everyone knows, in recent times, there has been a powerful china hawk and pro-Taiwan force in the United States advocating that the US strategy of military assistance in defending Taiwan has moved from vague to clear, and Kirby's statement is obviously doing the opposite, and he still wants to retreat to the past vague strategy on the issue of whether to assist in the defense of Taiwan.
It is worth noting that it is not only the US Department of Defense spokesman Kirby who made such a statement, but also made an almost completely identical statement on the 12th of this month. Obviously, this is not a personal impromptu statement by the two press spokesmen, but a unified arrangement of the Biden administration. This means that the Biden administration's Taiwan Strait policy has shown clear signs of recycling, that is, from desperately supporting Taiwan to taking into account the feelings of Chinese mainland, and to re-find a delicate balance between Chinese mainland and Taiwan. Or rather, the Biden administration is shrinking back to the "U.S. version of the one-China policy" that the United States has pursued for more than four decades.
So why did the Biden administration retreat at this juncture? I think it is clear that in recent times, Chinese mainland has increased the density and intensity of military aircraft circumnavigating Taiwan on a record basis, and this behavior has given the Biden administration a premonition of the terrible consequences, that is, it is very likely that China and the United States will move from confrontation to conflict on the Taiwan issue.
What is very interesting is that in the past, on the issue of the three joint communiques on the establishment of diplomatic relations between China and the United States, Chinese mainland adopted a defensive posture, that is, after the United States sold arms to Taiwan, Chinese mainland repeatedly persuaded and urged the United States to abide by the three joint communiques, and the United States ignored them. Now, Chinese mainland changed its tactics, began to attack instead of defending, and frequently sent military planes around Taiwan, but it had an unexpected effect, forcing the US side to begin to urge the Chinese side to abide by the three joint communiques. This is called toasting without eating and eating penalty wine, why should I know this in the first place?
Author: Liu Heping, special commentator of Shenzhen Satellite TV's "Live Broadcasting, Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan".