Is the War in Ukraine Not Enough?
Foreign media and academic publications should refrain from amplifying Chinese cognitive warfare that aims to cultivate the view that war in the Taiwan Strait is imminent and inevitable.
It’s been more than three years now since Vladimir Putin’s military crossed the border into Ukraine to wage a war of annihilation against Russia’s neighbor. In a world of short — and ever shortening — attention spans, three years is a very long time indeed. With the passage of time, the “shock value” of the largest land war in Europe since the conclusion, eighty years ago this month, of World War II on the continent has dissipated (though not for those who are on the receiving end of Putin’s depredations, it goes without saying). The law of diminished returns also applies to news media, which, in a highly competitive environment made worse by the effects of “new” online media and armies of instant experts on every subject, are compelled to seek, and if they do not exist, to create, new imminent catastrophes (of the man-made kind, as global warming doesn’t seem to register anymore).
And they’ve found it: the Taiwan Strait.
As someone who has resided in Taiwan for two decades and who has made a career as an analyst of the conflict in the Taiwan Strait, I will the the first to state that the risk of armed conflict over Taiwan is something that we should all take seriously, as the consequences for global stability and trade, not to mention the future of democracy, would be far-reaching. Notwithstanding such concerns, it is also imperative that we avoid overstating the threat assessment. Sadly, however, overstating is exactly what a number of prominent media and think tanks have been doing with increasing frequency, many of them so that they can sell newspapers and magazines, others for more insidious reasons (more on the latter below).
As a result, we now regularly encounter articles and analyses in influential journals and newspapers that contain irresponsibly alarmist headlines and subheads, which in this world of diminished attention spans is often the extent of what an ordinary person will read. Since the invasion of Ukraine in 2022 is now “ancient history,” Taiwan has taken over, designated as the “most dangerous” place on the planet (The Economist) — never mind the Gaza Strip, Afghanistan, Syria, or a number of failed states on the African continent. One disastrous war is not enough; we need a new one. On the cover of its May 3-9 issue, The Economist was at it again, this time headlining “the Taiwan Test” as something that is, ominously enough, “closer than you think.” Many other publications and think tank reports have also used language which suggests that the clock is ticking and that war, or some type of military action by China, is inevitable.
In recent weeks, global media have made much ado about new “special invasion barges” that, presumably, would be a game changer in a Taiwan scenario (need we point out that the large, sluggish platforms would be prime targets for anti-ship missiles as they conducted their slow journey across the Taiwan Strait?).
And if it’s not outright invasion that the reports warn us about, it’s the imminence of a military embargo or quarantine of Taiwan (in some cases, the reports read as if Beijing is ready to launch such an operation next week) or the supposed unwillingness of the Taiwanese people to defend their country and way of life.
Besides creating a sense of historical inevitability and embattlement which resonates with Beijing’s propaganda (and cognitive warfare) on the “reunification” of Taiwan, the portrayal of Taiwan as a country facing an existential threat fundamentally differs from how other countries thus threatened are presented to the reader. Not only is the clock supposedly ticking (and fast) on Taiwan, but its leadership, by resisting China, is often (invidiously) blamed for fueling tensions in the Taiwan Strait. Contrast that with Israel, which, despite waging a war of outright disproportionality against Palestinians, is described as a “survivor nation.” Rarely, if ever, is Taiwan characterized as a resilient nation in headlines or on the cover of magazines — this despite the fact that Taiwanese society, in the face of a decades-long existential threat from China, is one of the most resilient in the world. Both Israel and Taiwan have prospered despite the difficult environments in which they both exist; and yet, one is a “survivor,” while the other is the most dangerous place on earth whose (presumably terrible) fate is closer than we think.
The fact of the matter is, we just don’t know whether armed conflict in the Taiwan Strait is imminent. Such decisions are contingent on a number of factors, including an aggressor’s intent and capabilities, the type of leadership involved, as well as the geopolitical environment in which such decisions are made. Publications that use scare headlines about the Taiwan Strait claim to know things that simply cannot be known by outsiders. Yes, the People’s Liberation Army is by every yardstick a much better equipped and trained military than it was a decade ago, and yes, the balance of power in the Taiwan Strait continues to widen in Beijing’s favor. But none of this makes it inevitable that Xi Jinping and his close advisers will decide to launch a war that runs a high risk of being catastrophic for everybody involved, China included. (Admittedly, we also cannot commit the obverse mistake of assuming that war could never happen, and that’s why Taiwan and its allies are making preparations for such contingencies. But let me repeat: war in the Taiwan Strait is not a historical inevitability.)
As they become more prevalent and normalized, such narratives run the risk of convincing populations and governments worldwide that not only is war over Taiwan inevitable, but furthermore, given the potential impact on global trade, that it should be avoided at all costs. And to do so, the reflex would be to end the support for Taiwan’s democracy and status as a sovereign state that have contributed to its resilience (and to deterrence). Such a policy would only result in the international isolation of Taiwan and play straight into Beijing’s hands. It would also conceivably scare investors and international firms away from making further investments in Taiwan.
Nobody wants war. War is terrible, and in the context of the Taiwan Strait, it could be catastrophic. Therefore, the inescapable logic of that narrative goes, the Taiwanese people should be pressured into avoiding that which angers the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and that’s insisting that Taiwan (or the Republic of China, as it is officially known) exists as a free, democratic, independent country. Through obstinacy and by refusing to capitulate — for that is what such a decision would amount to — Taiwan would become the troublemaker, the cause for mounting tensions and the necessarily inevitable war that ensues. Conversely, if there is no widespread belief that war is inevitable and imminent, countries may be more inclined to continue to demonstrate support for a fellow democracy.
It should come as no surprise to anyone that such a narrative is encouraged not only by opposition parties in Taiwan, some of whose members now seem to regard President Lai and his Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) as a greater enemy than the CCP, but also by many of the politicians, TV personalities, academics, and so-called influencers who have been co-opted by the CCP. In recent weeks, politicians from Taiwan’s main opposition parties, along with a number of academics, have visited capitals around the world to spread such views among their foreign counterparts (and to propagate the mendacious claim that the Lai administration has descended into Nazi dictatorship). All of them blame the Lai administration for the tensions, and all of them encourage the view that Taiwan does not have the wherewithal to defend itself. Many also contend that the U.S. is increasingly unreliable and would not assist Taiwan were China to attack it — something else that, unless they are in the heads of the decision makers in the White House, they simply cannot know.
Politicians and CCP proxies do what they do for their own reasons (ideology, money, and access chief among them). The least we can ask of media outlets and academic institutions that do not fall into that category (and that’s most of them) is for them to refrain from inadvertently becoming amplifiers of such nefarious narratives. That is not to say that they should stop reporting on the potential for armed conflict in the Taiwan Strait — far from it. But they should do so responsibly, without resorting to the doomsday scenarios on their cover pages or in their headlines that present a misleading picture of the current situation.
Let’s not play into China’s cognitive warfare by contributing to a situation in which the people of Taiwan feel they have no choice but to surrender or to elect politicians who would willingly cede control of the country to the despots in Beijing.