What is the impact of China’s new belligerent expansionism on its neighbours, and the balance of power in the region and beyond?

As Taiwan was celebrating its 110th National Day, Xi Jinping called again for reunification. Taiwan had to be a part of the Chinese mainland. The US has called for restraint, but with Xi Jinping and Joe Biden expected to meet this year — how far is the US prepared to go to defend Taiwan?

Chinese fighter jet manoeuvres within the Taiwan’s Air Defence Identification Zone (ADIZ, not its air space) were meant to send a clear warning to President Tsai prior to Taiwan’s National Day celebrations. President Xi underlined his country’s uncompromising ‘One China’ policy and that the mainland would not tolerate any attempt by Taiwan to seek independence.

China has repeatedly offered that Taiwan integrate with the mainland under its ‘One Nation, Two Systems’ and be like Hong Kong. President Xi again gave the call for integration, preferring to call it “peaceful reunification” for a change — an obvious ‘blow hot, blow cold’ approach.

As far as US-China are concerned, even as Chinese aircrafts flew over the ADIZ ― 6 October 2021 saw White House Security Advisor Jake Sullivan meet his Chinese counterpart Yang Jiechi in Zurich, Switzerland.

The virtual meeting between US Trade Representative Katherine Tai and Chinese Vice Premier Liu also remained unimpacted. Both sides discussed trade policies; the sanctions introduced by Trump, and kept intact by Biden, much to China’s annoyance.

China today is looking at and negotiating in terms of a far more comprehensive security architecture which looks at various factors beyond narrow security considerations and allowing considerations of trade, economy, technology and security to play on and with each other. China is no longer apologetic about having a different system. To the contrary, it openly brandishes it as the better and more successful system than the one propped up by Western values of democracy.

There is a clear attempt to portray this as a clash not only of different systems, but even of different cultures, civilisations and ideologies.

In response to China’s belligerence, President Xi has staunchly declared that Taiwan would not bow down. Will major powers around the world step-in to protect Taiwan’s sovereignty or independence?

China has repeatedly been throwing the gauntlet at the US over Taiwan. It has steadfastly maintained an uncompromising stand over its one-China policy. Originally the ROC (Taiwan) was the only member of the UN Security Council. The position changed in 1971 when this place was ceded to the PRC (China).

The process of easing relations with the US began with the Nixon-Kissinger initiative to bring in China into the global mainstream. It ended with the US establishing full diplomatic relations with Mainland China in 1979 which all along has insisted upon adherence to the ‘One China’ policy as a pre-condition.

The big question still remains: will China use offensive means to ‘reunify’ Taiwan? The second big question is its corollary — will the US or other powers act to protect Taiwan in such a situation?

It is equally difficult to give a “yes” answer to either of these questions.

Today the question of how far will the US go to support Taiwan looms larger? Given its domestic politics and the unwillingness to enter into distant wars, will any US president find support enough to intervene in such a conflict?

China may continue to do a lot of sabre rattling over Taiwan, but we must remember that Taiwanese economy is also closely integrated with the Chinese economy so conditions of war suit neither.

Why should India be concerned? Can India really take a position?

Very few countries recognise Taiwan or have full diplomatic relations with it. But Taiwan has emerged as an important trading economy and trades independently with all. The point is the Indo-Pacific and Taiwan may be very important to the US, but as far as China is concerned, that country has now set its sights far beyond this geography.

China is stretching far abroad. It is keen on expanding its sphere of influence beyond the Indo-Pacific which it sees as constraining it.

As China started opening up to the global economy, Chinese intellectuals had already started pushing the notion that national power required holistic consideration of various factors which included not just security but the economy, its resources, rare earths, technology, etc.

CNP or Comprehensive National Power began entering the doctrine of the Chinese Communist Party.

The launch of the OBOR (later BRI) or the Digital Silk Route were part of a strategy to enhance Chinese influence across Africa, Europe, West Asia, Southeast Asia. The idea was to expand Chinese influence, yet expand it without giving such expansionism the trappings of a security alliance — these were growth and infrastructure projects designed to expand influence, and yes, add to China’s overall security.

The US and its allies have yet to come together to mount an equal challenge to this kind of expansionism.

There has been a lot of symbolism. Show of various fleets at the Malabar exercises, but when it comes to hard cash, where are the projects that respond to the Chinese challenge?

The more comprehensive challenge thrown by China is more an ideological challenge which it calls “socialism with Chinese characteristics for a new era.” This socialism for a new era is held up as a model against what it calls failing democracies across the world — the US and others, amongst them.

We hear a lot of glib talk on the dangers of the Chinese debt trap, but struggling nations with weak infrastructure see no sign of any alternative World Bank or IMF loans sallying forth to the rescue.

China has a strong control over global supply chains. Its influence on global affairs is showing up in the current energy crisis, or the semi-conductor crisis. The supply chains in existence today were built up over more than 30 long years. These have been disrupted by various factors, including COVID and trade conflicts.

We keep talking about our V-shaped economic recovery, but the fact is that uncertainty in a world emerging out of COVID ensures that any recovery is more like a “ping pong” rather than a “V.” It will rise and fall.

There is uncertainty of investments, there is uncertainty of how demand will move. Holding large inventories or stocks only risks certain bankruptcy. So supply chains are broken. Stocks of goods, ships and containers to carry them, or factory floors to use them are all out of sync.

Shortages have caused prices of commodities such as coal, natural gas, semiconductors as also freight to zoom.

This kind of uncertainty is bad news. It is bad news for recovery and it can push us closer to a financial crisis. Eventually the solution lies in coordinated efforts to face these problems together. That readiness is what seems wanting.