
Taiwan's Defense Ministry sent two F-16 fighters in late June to intercept two Chinese aircraft that crossed into its airspace in what it described as the first such incursion by China since 1999.I don't buy this is the first time that Taiwan has had to send up fighter planes to repel an incursion by China in Taiwanese airspace since 1999, rather this happens much more frequently than we are told, and there is a reason why we are learning about this specific incident right now.
The ministry said Monday that the Chinese planes quickly turned around, and that it believed the brief incursion, which it said took place on June 29 over the Taiwan Strait, was an accident.
Luo Shou-he, a spokesman for the ministry, declined to comment on a report Monday in a Taiwan newspaper, the United Daily News, that the Chinese aircraft were SU-27 fighter jets trying to drive away a U.S. U-2 reconnaissance plane.
It also comes just days after John Cornyn, a Republican senator for Texas, quoted Secretary of State Hillary Clinton telling him the U.S. would make a final decision on whether to sell 66 new F-16 C/D fighters to Taiwan by Oct. 1.Yep, that would be the reason.
Two points here. First, this incident came during the period where the US was exercising and working with the nations of the South China Sea back on June 29th. China was trying to be aggressive because they were not happy about the US activities in the South China Sea. The second and perhaps most important point here is that the Chinese actually confirmed the incident to the Financial Times before the US military confirmed it to folks like the Washington Times.
That's new.
Taiwan is the source of this incident and the opinion of this news has divided the country along political party lines. The reason we are hearing about it is almost certainly due to the discussions regarding selling F-16s to Taiwan. A lot of folks believe that selling 66 advanced F-16s to Taiwan will boost the defense of Taiwan substantially. The folks who believe that are political scientists, not tacticians.
China is aiming well over 1000 ballistic missiles at Taiwan, and 66 F-16s will go boom if a war ever breaks out between China and Taiwan. If Taiwan wants to be nasty in a fight against China, they will need high quality submarines and other sea based denial capabilities to prevent the landing of men and material from the mainland. Air superiority would be nice, but 66 F-16s can't fly from runways taking a pounding by ballistic missiles and they aren't going to be enough against China, who has the worlds largest air force. F-16s represent a symmetrical response by Taiwan to a symmetrical threat by China. This path to defense is industry driven, thus political, not strategic.
Lets be blunt though - it really doesn't matter. If for any reason war breaks out between China and Taiwan, it represents a failure of US policy in maintaining peace and stability in the Pacific, and it would represent the biggest crisis in the Pacific since Vietnam, if not World War II.
I do not know if the US will come to help Taiwan should a war break out along the Taiwan Strait, but I do know that in Section 2, Part B of the Taiwan Relations Act it states "It is the the Policy of the United States to maintain the capacity of the United States to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security, or the social or economic system, of the people on Taiwan."
The Taiwan Relations Act also discusses arming Taiwan, but I think that quoted section is the most important aspect of the law. Few Americans realize the Taiwan Relations Act is one of the very few laws that directly informs the Department of Defense regarding what specific purpose US military forces must be organized to do. That is not trivial, and something to keep in mind when thinking about the complexity of these issues.
----
Worth noting: Have you seen this analysis from The Jamestown Foundation by James Holmes and Toshi Yoshihara on Taiwan's Naval Strategy for the 21st Century? Worth checking out, and well timed release based on current news.
No comments:
Post a Comment