Advertisement
Opinion | Quite simply, a US military intervention over Taiwan would violate international law
- Just as the US military shooting of China’s civilian balloon violated UN principles against the use of force, any military intervention in a conflict across the Taiwan Strait would make America an aggressor on Chinese soil
Reading Time:3 minutes
Why you can trust SCMP
45
Long before former US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s high-profile visit to Taipei, the Taiwan issue had been deeply, frequently and regularly debated by US government officials, and those in Congress, academia and think tanks.
Advertisement
The latest discussion focuses on a possible visit by newly elected House Speaker Kevin McCarthy and the Defence Department’s military preparations for the consequences of such a visit.
But as they hotly debate the scenario of an inevitable US military intervention in a hypothetical cross-strait conflict, they forget to discuss – or they turn a blind eye to – the legality and justness of such an intervention. Yet they never seem to forget to criticise the Chinese government for its policy of peaceful reunification with Taiwan while not abandoning the right to use force.
What legal basis does the US have, under international law, to intervene militarily in a cross-strait conflict? To answer this, we need to examine the reasons for a possible US military intervention.
Think-tank dialogues with US experts show that about 80 per cent cite the protection of democracy. Another 15 per cent cite the Taiwan Relations Act, although this is merely US domestic law. The other 5 per cent frankly admit that, strategically, geopolitically and militarily, the US cannot afford to “lose” Taiwan.
Advertisement
The critical issue is whether these three categories of argument hold water under international law. This, as reflected in the UN Charter and international custom, only prescribes two scenarios for the legitimate use of force: UN Security Council authorisation or the right of self-defence. None of the three US categories of defence falls into either of the two scenarios for the legitimate right to use force.
Advertisement