There is an “imminent” threat to Taiwan, America warns

The speech was the clearest declaration yet of the administration’s stance on Asia. The defence secretary spoke during his first appearance at the Shangri-La Dialogue, a gathering of defence establishments in Singapore run by the International Institute for Strategic Studies, a think-tank. He pointed to China’s military build-up, threatening exercises around Taiwan and “grey-zone" bullying of the Philippines. China, he said, was “credibly preparing to potentially use military force to alter the balance of power in the Indo-Pacific". It wanted its forces to be capable of taking Taiwan by 2027, and was “rehearsing for the real deal". Any attempt to use force or coercion to change the status quo in the “first island chain" (which runs from Japan to Malaysia), was “unacceptable". An invasion of Taiwan “would result in devastating consequences for the Indo-Pacific and the world". And in a phrase that made the audience sit-up, he added: “The threat China poses is real, and it could be imminent."

Is Mr Hegseth’s assessment correct? In fact a fog of uncertainty hangs over Taiwan. Last year American officials played down the importance of 2027 as a target date for the Chinese government, and suggested that the danger of invasion had receded. They cited China’s shortage of amphibious landing craft and repeated anti-corruption purges in the top ranks of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) that suggest Xi Jinping, China’s leader, lacks confidence in his commanders. Western defence officials say there is no intelligence indicating an imminent assault on Taiwan. They note, however, that Chinese war games have become so large and frequent that a limited attack—the takeover of outlying islands, say, or a blockade—could take place at any moment. China’s defence minister, Dong Jun, stayed away from the conference. But Rear Admiral Hu Gangfeng, of the PLA’s National Defence University, rejected Mr Hegseth’s “unfounded accusations" against China, suggesting they were designed to “provoke, split and instigate confrontations" in the region.

The second question is whether Mr Hegseth’s warning of American intervention is credible. The urgent call to confront the threat from China is striking from an administration that says it seeks peace in a strife-torn world. Mr Trump has accused Taiwan of “stealing" the chip industry. Even a stalwart defender of Taiwan, Elbridge Colby, the under-secretary of defence for policy, seems to have bent to isolationism, saying this year that an invasion of Taiwan would not be an “existential" threat to America. After imposing 145% tariffs on China earlier this year Mr Trump backed down. That indicates that he would lack the stomach to impose a crippling economic embargo on China in response to any Taiwan coercion.

Some Chinese delegates implied Mr Hegseth lacked authority to speak about China. A few non-Chinese delegates may have wondered about that, too. The defence secretary, a former major in the National Guard and Fox News talk-show host, has made headlines for his culture war to purge “woke" ideology from military ranks and kindle the “warrior ethos". Like many in the administration his attitude towards allies has been erratic. He shocked Europeans in February by dismissing much of the three-year Western effort to help Ukraine repel Russia’s invasion. He said Ukraine could not regain territories it had lost to Russia, and could not join NATO. He admonished allies about low defence spending: “President Trump will not allow anyone to turn Uncle Sam into Uncle Sucker."

In Singapore he re-embraced Western and Asian allies alike, and several officials were pleasantly surprised by his willingness to listen. He adopted something akin to Mr Colby’s earlier view that Taiwan must be defended through “deterrence by denial", ie, by deploying sufficient mobile defensive weapons to make a Chinese invasion too costly. He hailed America’s network of allies as an advantage that China “envies" and a “force multiplier" for Uncle Sam. Unexpectedly, he said European countries were models to emulate as they have rushed to raise defence spending, up from about 2% of GDP to perhaps 3.5%. Nonetheless his warming to allies in Singapore had limits. Mr Hegseth indicated Europe should stay out of the Indo-Pacific, notably the naval patrols there featuring British, French and Italian aircraft-carriers. “We believe that N in NATO stands for North Atlantic and that our European allies should maximise their comparative advantage on the continent." That position is in tension with America’s military leaders who privately welcome the European presence as raising the political cost to China of any military action.

The tensions and contradictions in the Trump administration’s position were highlighted by the comments of Shangri-La’s other headline speaker, Emmanuel Macron. The French president called for a “coalition of action" between European and Asian countries to promote trade, support global order and avoid “being bullied" by America and China. In any regional war in Asia, Mr Macron admitted, Europe would offer little military help. “The day China decides a big operation [...] will you intervene on day one? I would be very cautious." But, he added, “everybody will be very cautious"—by implication, even America. Mr Hegseth insisted that President Trump had promised that “Communist China will not invade Taiwan on his watch." Informed sources said he was referring to private comments by the president, omitting an important rider: that Mr Trump thinks China will take Taiwan after he has left office.