Recently, the Chinese Communist Party announced sanctions against nine American military companies involved in arms sales to Taiwan as retaliation against the United States. Analysts argue that these sanctions hold little substantive meaning and are more of a show for domestic audiences. Currently, under U.S. leadership, the Taiwan Strait issue has been internationalized, and Beijing lacks confidence in launching an attack on Taiwan, instead opting for what is known as the “Anaconda Strategy,” which may not prove effective.
On Wednesday (18th), China announced retaliatory measures against the nine American military companies involved in arms sales to Taiwan, including freezing assets within China and prohibiting transactions and cooperation with them by organizations and individuals within China.
Prior to this, the U.S. State Department approved a $228 million arms sale to Taiwan. This sale primarily consisted of providing Taiwan with weapon components and maintenance services. This marks the 16th arms sale to Taiwan during President Joe Biden’s term.
The decision by the Chinese Foreign Ministry, as stated in the “Decision on Countermeasures against American Military Companies,” cited the recent U.S. announcement of weapon sales to Taiwan as a severe violation of the One China principle and the three Sino-American joint communiques, interfering in China’s internal affairs and undermining China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.
The nine American military companies facing sanctions include Sierra Nevada Corporation, Stick Rudder Enterprises LLC, and Cubic Corporation.
Zhong Zhi Dong, a research assistant at the National Defense Strategy and Resources Research Institute in Taiwan, told Dajiyuan, “This isn’t the first time. Whenever the U.S. sells arms to Taiwan, the CCP imposes sanctions on these defense industries. This has become a new normal, aimed at intimidation and propaganda.”
“However, the U.S. defense industry has long anticipated and prepared for this, so the actual impact is minimal, especially considering their limited business in China,” Zhong added.
Su Zi Yun, director of the National Defense Strategy and Resources Research Institute, believes that the symbolic significance of China’s sanctions outweighs their substantive impact. “Beijing’s move is a way to express dissatisfaction towards the U.S. and, more importantly, for domestic audiences, especially the nationalist youth. However, since these companies are no longer doing business with China, the sanctions are meaningless.”
Su added that China may potentially target the executives of these companies in the future, imposing personal sanctions such as barring them from entering China, which could create psychological pressure. However, this move might provoke greater backlash.
For example, China’s sanctions against some European Parliament members in 2019 and 2020 sparked strong reactions from the European Union. Su pointed out, “They are beginning to feel the repercussions, such as Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, seeking to deter China from invading Taiwan.”
“Although Beijing appears cunning, strategically, it’s a blunder,” he said. He believes that further actions by China may intensify anti-China sentiments within the U.S.
In recent years, China’s threatening actions towards Taiwan have intensified, leading to heightened tensions in the Taiwan Strait. Concerns about a potential military attack on Taiwan are rising among observers.
Following the San Francisco meeting in November 2023, a senior White House official mentioned that Xi Jinping informed Biden about reports in the U.S. media regarding China’s alleged plans to attack Taiwan in 2027 or 2035 but denied having such plans. Xi emphasized the need for comprehensive solutions at times, despite preferring peace.
In June this year, the Financial Times reported that Xi Jinping had informed Ursula von der Leyen, Chair of the European Commission, about U.S. attempts to instigate a conflict between China and Taiwan, asserting China’s reluctance to fall into that trap.
Since taking office, President Biden has publicly reiterated the U.S.’s long-term commitment to Taiwan’s security. In June, Biden told TIME magazine that the U.S. would defend Taiwan if Beijing attempted unilateral changes.
Analyzing Xi Jinping’s recent statements on attacking Taiwan, Zhong Zhi Dong believes that Xi’s lack of confidence in a military assault on Taiwan, especially when considering potential U.S. intervention, along with Biden’s reassurances to support Taiwan, have deterred China from such actions.
“Xi has replaced two of his appointed defense ministers and faced internal corruption within the PLA. It raises doubts about their preparedness for potential conflict. I believe Xi Jinping himself lacks the needed confidence,” Zhong said.
Regarding the overall situation, Zhong Zhi Dong believes that while a large-scale conflict is unlikely in the short term, minor incidents are possible due to China’s continuous provocations in the grey areas of conflict, such as military maneuvers and exerting pressure on Taiwan. Taiwan should be prepared for such scenarios.
Discussing the situation in the Taiwan Strait, Su Zi Yun suggests that China employs an “Anaconda Strategy” to wear down Taiwan’s defense will through military demonstrations and influence operations, rather than direct invasion.
However, Su doubts the effectiveness of this strategy, citing low approval ratings for Beijing in recent polls. Beijing’s actions, such as imposing tariffs on Taiwanese produce, only alienate Taiwan further. Su concluded, “Xi Jinping often fails to align objectives with actions, shooting himself in the foot.”
On the possibility of war, Su remarked, “It not only depends on Beijing but also on Taiwan’s defense capabilities. Weakness invites aggression, and unless Taiwan’s military strength is significantly weakened, a direct amphibious assault would be difficult and highly risky.”
“In the history of humankind, maintaining peace requires preparedness for conflict,” Su emphasized.