U.S. and Chinese Military Chiefs Tangle over Taiwan, Regional Stability

Analysis by Michael Klare, Co-Chair, Committee for a Sane U.S.-China Policy, June 13, 2022 

Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin met with his Chinese counterpart, Minister of National Defense General Wei Fenghe, in Singapore on June 10 to air mutual defense concerns and to consider means for crisis-prevention in the western Pacific. Both leaders then went on to deliver speeches at the Shangri-La Dialogue, an annual defense conference held in the famous hotel of that name in Singapore. From what can be determined from their private and public comments, both Austin and Wei sought to avoid a major breach in U.S.-China relations, but neither did much to stop the slide towards increased tensions and hostility. 

No transcript was provided of the private Austin-Wei meeting on June 10, but both sides issued summaries of what was shared. Clearly, both sides are concerned about the growing risk of an unintended or accidental military clash arising from contending U.S.-China military operations in the East or South China Seas or in the waters around Taiwan, and are keen to prevent such an event.  

According to the Pentagon “readout” of the June 10 conversation, “Secretary Austin discussed the need to responsibly manage competition and maintain open lines of communication.” In doing so, “the Secretary underscored the importance of the People’s Liberation Army engaging in substantive dialogue on improving crisis communications and reducing strategic risk.  

The Chinese government, for its part, reported that the two military leaders agreed to “enhance strategic mutual trust and properly manage differences between the militaries of the two countries.”  

It is obvious, however, that the two sides were unable to agree on other matters of strategic significance, particularly the question of Taiwan. “Wei stressed that Taiwan is an inalienable part of China,” the Chinese reported. “The scheme to use Taiwan to contain China is doomed to fail.”  Secretary Austin responded by reiterated U.S. opposition to any unilateral changes in Taiwan’s status and called on the PRC to refrain from further destabilizing actions toward the island. 

The differences between the two sides, especially on Taiwan, became more apparent on the following days, when both Austin and Wei delivered major remarks to the Shangri-La Conference. 

Austin used his time to elaborate on his (and the Biden administration’s) vision of “rules-based international order,” in contrast to one based on “aggression and bullying.” Although China was never specifically mentioned as the prime architect of that alternative vision, there could be no doubt in the minds of those present that he had China in mind. “We seek a region free of aggression and bullying,” he avowed,” a clear reference to Chinese efforts to dominate the South China Sea. Clearly attempting to smear China with the same opprobrium now being directed by many Western nations against Russia, he added, “let’s be clear: Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is what happens when oppressors trample the rules that protect us all. It’s what happens when big powers decide that their imperial appetites matter more than the rights of their peaceful neighbors. And it’s a preview of a possible world of chaos and turmoil that none of us would want to live in.” 

In making his case, Austin insisted that any changes in the regional status quo, especially with respect to Taiwan, were China’s fault alone. “Our policy is unchanged and unwavering,” he avowed. “We remain firmly committed to our long-standing ‘one-China’ policy,” acknowledging the Chinese view that Taiwan and the mainland are both part of “one China.” But China, he claimed, has engaged in increasingly menacing behavior towards Taiwan, sending combat aircraft into Taiwan’s air-defense zone. “So our policy hasn’t changed. But unfortunately that doesn’t seem to be true for the PRC.” 

Now, it may be that the Chinese have stepped-up their military activities in the airspace near Taiwan, but it is inaccurate to say that “our policy hasn’t changed.” As documented by the international media and the Committee for a Sane U.S.-China Policy, the United States has changed its policy, by (1) sending high-level government officials to meet with their Taiwanese counterparts (something not done prior to 2020), (2) increasing the frequency of U.S. naval transits through the Taiwan Strait, and (3) making more explicit threats to defend Taiwan in the event it’s attacked by China (in contrast to the policy of “strategic ambiguity” that has prevailed since passage of the Taiwan Relations Act in 1979. 

Austin also devoted a considerable portion of his presentation to describe the Pentagon’s drive to bolster the combat capabilities of its own forces in the region and to enhance military cooperation among U.S. allies there, placing particular emphasis on the growing importance of the “Quad” (the joint security arrangement between Australia, India, Japan, and the U.S.) and “AUKUS” (the recently signed Australia-U.K-U.S. security pact) – both viewed by Beijing as U.S.-led efforts to encircle China with an unbroken chain of hostile states.  

From a Chinese perspective, then, Austin comments smack of hypocrisy, and it is no surprise that General Wei expressed exasperation with the U.S. stance. “The People’s Liberation Army has fought many powerful adversaries and won many victories,” he declared. “We do not provoke trouble, but we will not flinch in the face of provocation. We will not bully others, but we will not allow others to bully us.” 

On Taiwan, Wei was even more emphatic: “Let me be clear: If anyone dares to secede Taiwan from China, we will not hesitate to fight. We will fight at all costs, and we will fight to the very end.” 

In reviewing all this, one can say that the Shangri-La Dialogue afforded an opportunity for top leaders of both the U.S. and China to air their strategic concerns with one another, and in that way open the space for a more genuine, productive dialogue in the future. But neither side exhibited any inclination to compromise on core issues or to acknowledge the legitimacy of their adversary’s concerns. This does not bode well for the future!