Strategic PSYOPs as a Peaceful Alternative in the China–Taiwan Conflict
In the current global affairs, several tense international conflicts influence not only the countries directly involved but also those with tight economic or political relationships with the nations in question. One such ongoing issue is the conflict between China and Taiwan, with China attempting to arrange a reunification with Taiwan and the latter refusing to do so and insisting on its independence. The conflict has long ceased to be local since many other parties are affected and will be even more involved if the situation escalates. The USA is among the countries affected by the China-Taiwan conflict, as Taiwan is on the list of US-friendly territories that are highly important to US foreign policy. In light of growing tensions, the USA should think of ways to prevent future hostility and benefit while helping its Taiwanese allies.
The most viable solution in this situation is the use of psychological operations (PSYOPs) as opposed to outright military operations. Strategic PSYOPs will allow persuading the Chinese population to antagonize the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). In case a military conflict arose, operational PSYOPs could help promote the effectiveness of military strategies among the Taiwanese military. Finally, tactical PSYOPs can support the USA’s mission in key areas. While operational and tactical PSYOPs should be resorted to in the worst scenario, strategic PSYOPs are the best solution to avoid a military conflict and keep on good terms with the Taiwanese allies.
Problem
Tensions between Taiwan and China have lasted for many decades, but have risen rapidly since the last election. Tsai Ing-Wen, the leader of the Democratic Progressive Party, who was elected in 2016 and reelected in 2020, has been resisting the calls for reunification with China. This has complicated the two countries’ relationships (Jacobs & Carley, 2022). As a result of Taiwan’s resistance, China has increased its incursions into the Taiwanese air defense identification zone from nearly 20 flights in 2019 to about 900 in 2021 (Buckley & Qin, 2021).
The main point of the argument is the difference in Taiwan’s and China’s views on Taiwan’s independence (Jacobs & Carley, 2022). If the conflict escalates, it risks becoming a flashpoint between China and the US since China’s actions toward Taiwan fall within the US Special Operations Command’s definition of the gray zone. The latter is delineated as the intense political, military, informational, and economic competition that is more intense than normal diplomacy but short of war.
The military interactions between the USA and China have a more extended history than many can imagine. The first instance of the US projection of military power to China and the Asia-Pacific occurred in 1835, when the East India Squadron was established by President Jackson (C. W. Freeman, 2021). This event manifested the rising sense of being privileged with a special role in international affairs compatible with Manifest Destiny, positing the USA’s “God-given duty to remake the world in its image“ (C. W. Freeman, 2021, p. 295). Since then, the USA’s commercial interest in China has not subsided, resulting in a temporary US military presence in China and along its coasts at different periods.
One of the significant causes of hostility between the USA and China was the communist regime upheld by the latter. Until the middle of the 20th century, any attempt to build relationships with China could be considered treasonous (Thurston, 2021). The CCP’s hostility toward the USA had been fueled by American intelligence, political, and economic support of the Chinese National Party, which was the CCP’s rival in the Chinese Civil War of 1927-1949 (C. W. Freeman, 2021).
Since then, the relationships between the USA and China have remained rather tense. China is considered the only country that can challenge the USA regarding political, military, economic, or technological relationships (Jacobs & Carley, 2022). Hence, despite the two states’ cooperation in many fields, the hostility remains high, and much is at stake.
However, researchers’ focus is not only on the relationship between the USA and China. China’s periphery, which contains the zone in which China’s borders interact with those of other countries, is rather crucial in the analysis of the USA-China relationship and the China-Taiwan conflict. In fact, as C. P. Freeman (2021) notes, China’s periphery is “central, not peripheral“ to the USA-China relations (p. 335). That is why the analysis of the gray zone is crucial since it entails the recognition of conflict diversity and understanding its risks (Hoffman, 2018).
The US-China relationship entails the US-Taiwan relationship since Taiwan and China are in conflict. In contrast, the USA wants to avoid turning into a military one and strives to support Taiwan by peaceful means as long as possible. Still, in case a military attack on Taiwan by China is launched, the USA will support the latter (Wang & Tan, 2021). Analyzing the history of the present problem is crucial to resolving the conflict.
History Leading to the Problem
The problem of the USA-China tensions is primarily concerned with China’s intention to reunify with Taiwan, which the latter opposes. Since the USA supports Taiwan in this opposition, the conflict between China and Taiwan will likely negatively affect communication between the USA and China. The relations between the USA and China declined over the past decade, whereas those with Taiwan significantly improved (Copper, 2019). As a result of the Trump administration’s retaliatory measures against China to improve the USA’s trade deficit, the two states’ relations became more hostile.
Meanwhile, US ties with Taiwan improved to a great extent. Some observers consider this to be Trump playing the “Taiwan card,“ meaning that the US-Taiwan closeness is a policy instrument constraining China (Copper, 2019, p. 75). In addition, the Democratic Party, the US media, the academe, and Hollywood joined the President’s efforts.
While they did not quite like Trump, they also immensely disliked China, which made them support Trump’s endeavors to support Taiwan (Copper, 2019). Furthermore, during the coronavirus pandemic, Trump led a strategic communication war against China’s propaganda (Lim, 2021). These joint efforts generated an even deeper downturn in the USA-China relations and a higher uptake in relations with Taiwan.
However, despite the USA’s support, Taiwan’s resilience against China is the key determinant of the conflict. Wang and Tan (2021) note that Taiwan has three basic strategies to choose from when dealing with China’s encroachment attempts. These strategies include balancing, hedging, and bandwagoning, which are crucial in Taiwan’s domestic politics. While frequently, citizens are reported not to engage with their countries’ foreign policies to a great extent, research indicates that in Taiwan, the situation is the opposite.
The majority of Taiwanese people are highly active and attentive to their country’s relations with China and hold strong opinions regarding it (Wang & Tan, 2021). Since the Biden administration continues taking a hardline approach toward China, Taiwan’s cross-strait policy will likely gain a stronger balance. The balancing approach presupposes the formation of an external alliance or internal military build-up. The bandwagoning strategy implies the small state’s allying with the threatening one to avoid harm (Wang & Tan, 2021). Finally, hedging is a hybrid approach that combines balancing and bandwagoning, thus allowing a small state to counter the threatening power of a larger state.
Finally, in the context of the present analysis, it is crucial to consider the history of China’s non-military warfare strategies and gray zone challenges. Researchers have observed that China’s recent use of diplomatic assertions and purposeful deployment of maritime law enforcement forces will likely undermine the existing international order (Hoffman, 2018). China’s aggressive seizure of disputed islands in the Pacific Ocean and its assertiveness in the South China Sea threaten to alter the norms of international behavior (Hoffman, 2018). Using maritime militia forces, China was able to disrupt energy development, foreign surveys, and commercial fishing and consolidate the areas it considers Chinese territories with escalating risks.
A growing number of interrelated issues may ultimately lead to disastrous outcomes. The relations between the USA and China are considered striking for their “turbulence and vicissitudes“ (Lieberthal & Thornton, 2021, p. 365). China’s conflict with Taiwan and the USA’s support of the latter will likely bring international involvement. The USA should strive for more peaceful solutions since military involvement is the least desired option.
Proposed Solution
The proposed solution to mitigating the China vs. Taiwan international conflict with the best outcomes for the USA is the use of PSYOPs. Specifically, resorting to strategic PSYOPs is the most viable option as it can help avoid a military conflict. However, operational and tactical PSYOPs can also be involved if such a conflict cannot be avoided.
The ultimate goal of the USA’s use of PSYOPs is to spread discontent with the CCP’s opposition and, along with persuasion, to eliminate China’s ability to advance or sustain military operations. To understand the full potential of PSYOPs and the rationale behind them, one should analyze the trends in non-military warfare, their acceptance by the population, and their use by different players on a global scale.
PSYOPs have served as a practical means of mitigating and initiating conflicts. Psychological operations, as opposed to military ones, are easier to arrange and implement and harder to detect at first sight. For instance, China has been known to have engaged in political warfare against Taiwan for a long time (Haciyakupoglu & Raska, 2021).
The channels utilized to gain success through political warfare include diplomatic pressure and legal, economic, and information domains. Out of these, the information domain presents the most significant concern involving PSYOPs. The players involved in PSYOPs include cyber troops, co-opted individuals from the target population, content farms, and galvanization of netizens, each of which can potentially serve as orchestrators of operations (Haciyakupoglu & Raska, 2021). Moreover, political warfare is not a one-way process, so Taiwan also has tools that help it spread information and influence. Thus, PSYOPs are viewed as an effective means of conflict mitigation.
Further research indicates more facts about China’s use of PSYOPs, which means that the USA should utilize them for conflict mitigation and self-protection. China has been reported to be a long-term threat to the USA. This necessitates the latter to learn how to employ political warfare if not more effectively than the former, at least with the same level of effectiveness (Gershaneck, 2020). Should the USA fail to comprehend China’s political warfare and the ways of countering it, the former may lose in the strategic and military dimensions, in case it becomes a reality.
Issues with disinformation as a national security threat have been acknowledged as some of the most crucial challenges for the USA. As Gioe et al. (2021) note, the contested information environment in societies challenges social norms that have dominated for centuries. PSYOPs undermine people’s trust in democratic processes and increase the aversion to the rule of law. The vital thing, therefore, is to utilize this power against one’s rivals rather than allow them to use it against oneself.
PSYOPs do not necessarily become part of a significant military operation. Instead, they enable countries to participate in continuous conflicts and low-intensity wars that may be geographically removed from their borders (Krieg & Rickli, 2019). Hence, this solution suits the USA in mitigating the China-Taiwan conflict. However, as Robinson et al. (2018) argue, the USA’s interest in political warfare significantly decreased after the Cold War due to losing a primary ideological rival.
Gershaneck (2020) also notes that the USA has lost its capacity to compete and win in the domain of political warfare after the collapse of the Soviet Union. At the same time, China is viewed as an “existential threat“ to the USA (Gershaneck, 2020, p. 64). That is why reviving the political warfare domain in the USA is crucial.
PSYOPs are becoming increasingly important as the role of the China-Taiwan conflict in US-China relations is the most significant. The USA must utilize diplomatic dexterity to balance the need for positive relations with China and support Taiwan (Sullivan & Drun, 2022). To maintain this equilibrium, the USA cannot but engage in PSYOPs.
Without a masterful use of this strategy, it risks losing peaceful relations with China and promoting the peaceful resolution of the China-Taiwan conflict. At the same time, while the USA strives for stability and peace across the Taiwan Strait, it also has an eye on Taiwan as a strategic asset (Jie, 2022). Consequently, Taiwan’s separation from China is considered in the USA’s national interest.
Finally, PSYOPs present a valid approach to mitigating the China-Taiwan conflict due to their potential to influence large groups of people. Means such as the media, different types of print and video production, personal communication, and others are utilized to gain the results that would otherwise require military involvement (Shakirov, 2020). Political and public leaders, creative artists, and the military elite are the most influential targets of PSYOPs.
In a broad sense, PSYOPs are viewed as the intended use of information dissemination to reach a particular influence on people’s behaviors and attitudes. In a narrow sense, PSYOPs are utilized by the armed forces to disorient and demoralize the enemy (Shakirov, 2020). Using PSYOPs in both these domains will be the most beneficial strategy for the USA as a mitigator of the China-Taiwan conflict.
How the Policy Will Work
PSYOPs work in a variety of methods and directions. Still, the general notion about their functioning is that they allow for disseminating the information aimed at disorganizing and distracting the enemy. Information warfare is an unconventional approach to imposing a country’s will on its rival with a high degree of anonymity and without violating the international laws on other states’ sovereignty (Bakshi, 2018).
Info space is regarded as the fifth dimension of warfare, with PSYOPs being one of its major actors along with cyber and electronic warfare. PSYOPs, thus, can serve as a powerful means of transferring the information the USA needs to Chinese citizens. One of the core goals of PSYOPs in the current situation would be to destabilize the role of the CCP in China, which would lead to its opponents supporting Taiwan’s insistence on its independence.
The work of PSYOPs is closely related to access to software and information systems, which is relatively favorable in the USA. The location of the internet giants, such as Google and Facebook, in the USA makes it easier to collect and manipulate data. The potential for information superiority in the digital age is extremely high (Bakshi, 2018).
In PSYOPs, information is both the target and the weapon, which signifies that information security is being placed into an entirely new dimension. The battle fought by PSYOPs is held in a virtual realm instead of physical ones, such as land, air, sea, or space (Bakshi, 2018). Hence, PSYOPs will work regardless of time or distance and encompass different dimensions of the rival’s tactics.
PSYOPs will encompass many people and entities due to being relatively cost-effective and non-intrusive. Using PSYOPs to mitigate the China-Taiwan conflict will allow for non-lethal influence promoted by the lack of universal laws or regulations (Ahluwalia, 2020). It is expected that PSYOPs will enable radical changes in the perceptions of Chinese people due to the impact made in geo-political and geo-economic environments.
The USA can also make use of PSYOPs launched against it during the past several years to make use of similar tactics in the cyber war against China. For instance, PSYOPs can be used for misinformation, integrated disinformation, and propaganda against the CCP (Iasiello, 2020). The USA is reported to have utilized similar tactics during its invasion of Iraq, when Bush’s administration was accused of engaging in information distortion, qualifying as “large-scale manipulation“ (Thompson, 2019, p. 191). However, as is evident from the recent changes in warfare and international relations, what was considered a negative trend two decades ago has become one of the most potent means of conflict mitigation now.
Using PSYOPs in terms of the present strategy recommendation is viewed as a military art with a strategic purpose. As Smith (2020) defines it, information warfare is the skill of deliberately misleading a rival and impacting their decision-making. In the case of the USA’s activity on conflict mitigation between China and Taiwan, PSYOPs will be used to alter the general mood of the Chinese population toward Taiwan’s situation. The ultimate goal of using PSYOPs is to resolve the situation peacefully. Social networks, online news resources, video materials, and other PSYOP methods will be involved in the process.
Pros and Cons
Benefits
The main obvious benefit of using PSYOPs is their non-military nature. No matter how complicated the situation between China and Taiwan is, it is evident that resolving it in a non-military way is a much better way than engaging in military action. Also, the importance of information warfare is becoming increasingly prominent (Vuletić & Stanojević, 2022).
Hence, another advantage of PSYOPs is that they are likely to become one of the most influential means of warfare in the near future. In this regard, it is beneficial for the USA to use this tactic and consistently develop dexterity and efficiency in managing it. Also, as Kirdermir (2019) notes, technological transformation can potentially change how people consume information and even perceive the world. Thus, using PSYOPs is a good decision since it is the most viable social mechanism.
Apart from that, it is essential to consider the cost-effectiveness of PSYOPs compared to physical warfare. Both in terms of resources needed for the launching of PSYOPs and casualties that are unavoidable during physical combat, PSYOPs are a more preferable tactic. For instance, when comparing the China-Taiwan crisis and the Russian Federation war against Ukraine, the former has the chance of eliminating massive casualties both among the military and civilians compared to the latter (Karalekas, 2022). Furthermore, if PSYOPs allow avoiding a military conflict, the USA’s and China’s international status will not suffer like that of the Russian Federation. Overall, PSYOPs present a beneficial method of conflict mitigation since they allow for limiting casualties, are time- and cost-efficient, and enable reaching the set goals with peaceful means.
Limitations
The first disadvantage of PSYOPs that comes to mind is their non-ethical nature. As Zelcer et al. (2018) remark, the law of armed conflict and the just war theory clearly distinguish between acceptable behavior toward combatants and noncombatants. Meanwhile, in PSYOPs, these discrepancies are threatened due to public and ethics policy violations. However, considering that no warfare is ever fair or ethical, PSYOPs are at least better in that they do not involve direct military antagonism.
Another limitation of PSYOPs is cybersecurity, which can be compromised during PSYOP endeavors. The USA should be cautious about cybersecurity when using PSYOPs. Cyberspace has never been safe, and utilizing PSYOPs presupposes they may also be utilized against oneself (Vuletić & Stanojević, 2022).
The USA should realize that China can also use PSYOPs or, more than that, can attack the servers or networks engaged in the USA’s conflict mitigation strategy. Hence, the USA should enhance its cyber power and resilience (Devanny et al., 2022). Still, as Iasiello (2020) states, using PSYOPs allows for achieving strategic results despite the danger of cyber attacks. Therefore, despite all the limitations of PSYOPs, the benefits are undeniably more numerous.
Why This Is the Best Solution
The use of PSYOPs by the USA to mitigate the China-Taiwan conflict is the most suitable solution since it makes it possible to avoid a military conflict. As military involvement is always associated with considerable financial losses and human victims, it is always important to consider avoiding it and resorting to it only as a last resort. Out of the three dimensions in which PSYOPs can be applied, strategic PSYOPs is the best choice.
This approach will enable the USA to embolden the national pride among Taiwanese people and undermine the Chinese people’s support of the CCP. However, if strategic PSYOPs are not enough to effectively mitigate the situation, operational PSYOPs may be needed to promote the effectiveness of military operations. In contrast, tactical PSYOPs can help advance the United States’ objectives in important regions.
While PSYOPs are a positive conflict resolution strategy, there is still much to be done in America’s movement toward perfecting its informational warfare. The most eminent rivals of the USA are known to behave more aggressively in cyberspace (Andres, 2019). US security initiatives need adjustment and improvement (De Wit, 2019). However, with some effort, the USA can increase its potential for the use of PSYOPs to a great extent, which will ultimately promote the resolution of the China-Taiwan conflict and benefit the USA and its allies.
References
Ahluwalia, V. K. (2020). Psychological warfare: Call out adversaries’ designs. CLAWS Journal, 12-41. Web.
Andres, R. B. (2019). Cyber conflict and geopolitics. Great Decisions, 69-78. Web.
Bakshi, B. (2018). Information warfare: Concepts and components. IJRAR- International Journal of Research and Analytical Reviews, 5(4), 178-185. Web.
Buckley, C., & Qin, A. (2021). In a surge of military flights, China tests and warns Taiwan. The New York Times. Web.
Copper, J. F. (2019). Accounting for the recent uptick in USA-Taiwan relations. East Asian Policy, 11(04), 74–87. Web.
De Wit, D. (2019). Competing through cooperation: Leveraging security cooperation to counter Chinese and Russian influence in Africa. MCU Journal, 19(2), 162-174. Web.
Devanny, J., Goldoni, L. R. F., & Medeiros, B. P. (2022). Strategy in an uncertain domain: Threat and response in cyberspace. Journal of Strategic Security, 15(2), 34-47. Web.
Freeman, C. P. (2021). China’s periphery: A rift zone in U.S.-China relations. In A. F. Thurston (Ed.), Engaging China: Fifty years of Sino-American relations (pp. 335-377). Columbia University Press.
Freeman, C. W. (2021). U.S.-China military relations: From enmity to entente and maybe back again. In A. F. Thurston (Ed.), Engaging China: Fifty years of Sino-American relations (pp. 295-334). Columbia University Press.
Gershaneck, K. K. (2020). Political warfare: The People’s Republic of China’s strategy “to win without fighting.” Journal of Advanced Military Studies, 11(1), 64-93. Web.
Gioe, D. V., Smith, M., Littell, J., & Dawson, J. (2021). Pride of place: Reconceptualizing disinformation as the United States’ greatest national security challenge. Prism: A Journal of the Center for Complex Operations, 9(3), 140-157. Web.
Haciyakupoglu, G., & Raska, M. (2021). China’s political warfare in Taiwan: Strategies, methods and global implications. In M. Weissmann et al. (Eds.), Hybrid warfare: Security and asymmetric conflict in international relations (pp. 173-194). Bloomsbury Publishing.
Hoffman, F. G. (2018). Examining complex forms of conflict: Gray zone and hybrid challenges. Prism: A Journal of the Center for Complex Operations, 7(4), 31-47. Web.
Iasiello, E. (2020). What is the role of cyber operations in information warfare? Journal of Strategic Security, 14(4), 72-86. Web.
Jacobs, C. S., & Carley, K. M. (2022). Taiwan: China’s gray zone doctrine in action. Small Wars Journal. Web.
Jie, D. (2022). U.S. evolving strategic thinking about Taiwan. China International Strategy Review, 4, 217–232. Web.
Karalekas, D. (2022). Taiwan and the software of war: Learning resilience from Ukraine. Contemporary Chinese Political Economy and Strategic Relations: An International Journal, 8(3), 481-518. Web.
Kirdemir, B. (2019). Hostile influence and emerging cognitive threats in cyberspace. Centre for Economics and Foreign Policy Studies. Web.
Krieg, A., & Rickli, J.-M. (2019). Surrogate warfare: The transformation of war in the twenty-first century. Georgetown University Press.
Lieberthal, K., & Thornton, S. (2021). Forty-plus years of U.S.-China diplomacy: Realities and recommendations. In A. F. Thurston (Ed.), Engaging China: Fifty years of Sino-American relations (pp. 365-390). Columbia University Press.
Lim, Y. J. (2021). Nationalism not racism: President Trump’s strategic communication war against China’s coronavirus propaganda. Texas Speech Communication Journal, 45, 85-98. Web.
Robinson, L., Helmus, T. C., Cohen, R. S., Nader, A., Radin, A., Magnuson, M., & Migacheva, K. (2018). Modern political warfare: Current practices and possible responses. RAND Corporation. Web.
Shakirov, S. (2020). Units of psychological operations: History of creation and modern trends. The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology, 2(11), 151-157. Web.
Smith, Z. M. (2020). Burnt by the digital sun: How the information environment is testing the mettle of liberal democracies. Center for Strategic and International Studies, 17-26. Web.
Sullivan, J., & Drun, J. (2022). The United States and Taiwan: Foundations and challenges of the one China policy. In O. Turner, N. Nymalm, & W. Aslam (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of US foreign policy in the Indo-Pacific (pp. 241-254). Routledge.
Thompson, L. (2019) “PsyOps works best when you mean it”: Literary manipulation in Phil Klay’s Redeployment. Critique: Studies in Contemporary Fiction, 60(2), 191-204. Web.
Thurston, A. F. (2021). Engaging China: Fifty years of Sino-American relations. In A. F. Thurston (Ed.), Engaging China: Fifty years of Sino-American relations (pp. 3-31). Columbia University Press.
Vuletić, D. V., & Stanojević, P. (2022). Concepts of information warfare (operations) of the United States of America, China and Russia. The Review of International Affairs, 73(1185), 51-71. Web.
Wang, T. Y., & Tan, A. C. (2021). Balancing, bandwagoning or hedging: Taiwan’s strategic choices in the era of a rising China. Political Science, 73(1), 66-84. Web.
Zelcer, M., VanPelt, G., & Casey, D. (2018). Military psychological operations: Ethics and policy considerations. In D. Boonin (Ed.), The Palgrave handbook of philosophy and public policy (pp. 111-122). Palgrave Macmillan.