Have Beijing’s ‘red lines’ on Taiwan sparked a white-hot dilemma?

Name: Xi, Biden discuss Taiwan and Xinjiang in first in-person meeting
Uploaded: 2022-12-03T04:00:10.000Z
Duration: 3 min 33 s
Description: Xi, Biden discuss Taiwan and Xinjiang in first in-person meeting

Despite repeated warnings and threats to foreign powers over Taiwan, observers say Beijing has avoided spelling out consequences

Mainland China’s red lines have also created challenges in managing domestic expectations, experts say

Reading Time:4 minutes

Why you can trust SCMP

Despite repeated warnings and threats to foreign powers over Taiwan, observers say Beijing has avoided spelling out the consequences of crossing its “red lines”. Photo: ZUMA Press Wire/dpa

Kinling Loin Washington

Published: 12:00pm, 3 Dec 2022Updated: 2:55pm, 3 Dec 2022

In his first meeting with Joe Biden since he entered the White House, Chinese President Xi Jinping labelled the “Taiwan issue” the “first red line that must not be crossed” in China-US relations.

While the language seemed unambiguous, the statement appeared to do little to advance relations between the two nations, which have spiralled downward to the point where there are concerns of a potential military confrontation.

The self-ruled island – which Beijing considers a renegade province – has become a geopolitical flash point. Both China and the United States have increased their military presence in the Taiwan Strait as they continue to insist they oppose “unilateral changes in the status quo”. And while the phrase “red line” is being used more often, exactly where that line is remains unclear.

03:33

Xi, Biden discuss Taiwan and Xinjiang in first in-person meeting

Historical misunderstanding?

When considering what constitutes crossing a red line that would trigger Beijing’s use of military force, Beijing’s Anti-Secession Law, which was passed in 2005, is the most commonly cited document by experts from Taiwan, mainland China and the United States.

The document provides a legal framework that specifies three conditions under which Beijing said it would use “non peaceful means” for Taiwan’s reunification. These include Taiwanese authorities formally pursuing secession from China, “incidents entailing Taiwan’s secession from China”, or a situation in which “possibilities for a peaceful reunification should be completely exhausted.”

Two years before the law was enacted, People’s Liberation Army military officers warned that a Taiwanese independence referendum could be considered cause for war.