Xinhua Commentary: Will "hornet's nest" strategy really make Taiwan Strait safer, serve U.S. interests?

BEIJING, July 30 (Xinhua) -- A new piece of terminology -- the "hornet's nest" -- has recently emerged in discussions of the Taiwan question. Following the idea of turning Taiwan into a "porcupine," some are advocating transforming the island into a "hornet's nest" packed with aerial, surface and subsurface drones.

The latest scheme, touted publicly by Raymond Greene, director of the American Institute in Taiwan, has once again revealed a familiar pattern -- touting new military concepts that would further militarize Taiwan while exposing the Taiwan Strait to greater security risks.

As Chen Binhua, spokesperson for the State Council Taiwan Affairs Office, has noted, Greene's recent remarks run counter to U.S. President Donald Trump's public statements made after his Beijing visit in May.

In an interview after the visit, Trump said the United States is not looking to have someone say "let's go independent because the United States is backing us," nor does it want U.S. troops traveling 9,500 miles to fight a war -- a clear message against the secessionist rhetoric and actions advocating "Taiwan independence."

Both Trump himself and the U.S. government have repeatedly stated that the U.S. policy on Taiwan has not changed, which means the United States has to honor its commitment to the one-China principle and abide by the three China-U.S. joint communiqués.

Against such a backdrop, Greene has acted in a strikingly different way, pressuring Taiwan's legislature to pass an irrationally massive military budget, advocating stronger support for the island in enhancing its so-called "asymmetric defense capabilities," and deliberately distorting the cross-Strait status quo.

Far from promoting peace and reconciliation across the Strait, these moves have sent gravely misleading signals to secessionists on the island, particularly Taiwan leader Lai Ching-te, who has spared no effort since taking office to seek U.S. support for his "Taiwan independence" agenda.

Will Lai view Greene's scheme as a fresh sign of U.S. backing and feel emboldened to "go independent"? That is precisely what Trump said he does not want to see.

The "hornet's nest" is not an isolated idea. It represents the latest iteration of a series of concepts promoted by certain U.S. strategic circles, from the "porcupine strategy" to the so-called "hellscape" scenario envisioning vast numbers of inexpensive drones, unmanned vessels and sea mines deployed around Taiwan.

Despite different labels, these schemes share the same underlying logic: turning Taiwan into a heavily-armed forward position in strategic competition with Beijing.

Such thinking inevitably raises an important question: who ultimately bears the costs?

Military buildup in Taiwan risks creating a dangerous security dilemma. Every U.S. arms sale to Taiwan, every new military tactic and every new attempt to strengthen the so-called "asymmetric capabilities" fuels mistrust, raises tensions and increases the possibility of miscalculation. Should Washington ultimately become entangled in a conflict 9,500 miles from its shores, the consequences would be borne by U.S. soldiers and people.

Whether or not the United States intervenes militarily, such a crisis would require substantial commitments of military, diplomatic and financial resources. It would disrupt the United States' global strategy and weaken its ability to respond to challenges elsewhere. As one of the world's busiest shipping lanes and a critical hub in the global semiconductor supply chain, the Taiwan Strait is indispensable to international trade. Any loss of stability there would reverberate through global commerce, supply chains and financial markets, ultimately damaging U.S. economic interests as well.

If the United States continues to embolden some of its politicians to advocate new military concepts involving Taiwan and push the island to the forefront of geopolitical confrontation, it could eventually find itself drawn into a crisis that is entirely avoidable -- an outcome fundamentally at odds with Trump's "America First" agenda.

For the people of Taiwan, building a drone-centered defense architecture would require enormous financial commitments, sweeping military restructuring and sustained investment in new technologies and supply chains. Resources devoted to such projects could otherwise support economic development, public welfare and social needs.

History has repeatedly shown that external powers often advocate confrontation from a distance while local populations shoulder the consequences. Conflicts around the world have demonstrated the devastating human, economic and social costs that prolonged geopolitical rivalry can inflict.

More importantly, no matter how much military hardware Taiwan deploys, it will not make the Democratic Progressive Party's secessionist ambitions achievable. The Chinese government and people will never accept Taiwan's secession. A strong Chinese military will not hesitate to thwart any attempt to pursue "Taiwan independence," even if that means facing off against intervening American forces.

The Taiwan question is a scar left over by a full-blown civil war fought between the forces led by the Communist Party of China (CPC) and the Chinese Kuomintang (KMT) about eight decades ago. In 1949, the remnants of the defeated KMT retreated to Taiwan, and the People's Republic of China was founded under the leadership of the CPC.

The unresolved civil war and foreign interference have left the two sides of the Strait in a prolonged state of political confrontation. However, the fact that Taiwan is an inalienable part of China's territory has never changed.

The Taiwan question not only remains the most important and sensitive issue in China-U.S. relations but also touches the core sentiments of more than 1.4 billion Chinese people. On this issue, the CPC, the Chinese government and the Chinese military have no room for compromise, regardless of how much pressure the United States may exert.

No matter what military doctrine it is wrapped in, turning Taiwan into an arsenal will never bring lasting peace to the Strait. Nor can advocating confrontation while claiming to preserve the "status quo" deliver genuine stability.

Only by adhering to the one-China principle and continuing to promote dialogue, exchanges and cooperation across the Strait can lasting peace and stability in the region be secured. And only in this way can U.S. interests be truly safeguarded. ■