Abstract: The August 29, 2025, verbal clash between Taiwanese and Chinese pilots above the Taiwan Strait captured in miniature the broader geopolitical drama. A simple taunt about freedom and a crude threat of annihilation revealed how uniforms and oaths carry symbolic weight that transcends tactics. Taiwan’s pilots embody democratic resilience, swearing loyalty to their Constitution and people. China’s pilots reflect authoritarian rigidity, bound by oaths to the Party and its vision of unity. Shared language and culture deepen the tragedy: brothers in heritage stand opposed to one another as adversaries.
Problem statement: How to understand the symbolic weight of uniforms and military oaths in cross-Strait encounters?
So what?: Taiwanese leaders should harness the symbolic power of democratic defiance to project soft power abroad, while partners like the U.S. and Japan reinforce operational safety protocols to reduce miscalculation. Policymakers must acknowledge that cockpit exchanges are not only military incidents but also cultural confrontations that shape perceptions and policies. Conceptual change is needed: deterrence must be paired with dignity, and security must account for the moral worlds in which soldiers act.
A Clash in the Skies
The morning of August 29, 2025, over Taiwan’s air defence identification zone (ADIZ), two pilots locked eyes through the glass of their cockpits and through the words they hurled across the radio.[1]
A Taiwanese voice broke the static: “Do you know what freedom is?” (“你們知不知道自由為何物嗎？”)
The reply came sharp and contemptuous: “Tiny Taiwan, just wipe it out!” (“小小的台灣，幹掉算了！”)
This exchange echoed earlier incidents, such as in 2021 when a PLA pilot declared mid-air, “Taiwan is all ours”.[2] These verbal confrontations, though rarely highlighted beyond regional media, distil the cross-Strait dilemma into a few charged syllables. Pilots do not speak in isolation; their words reflect the weight of their training, their oaths, and the uniforms they wear, each stitched with the symbols of their respective states.[3] These encounters are not merely tactical but symbolic, embodying the deep ideological divide between Taiwan’s democratic identity and the PRC’s authoritarian vision.
A History of Division
Since the late 20th century, the Taiwan Strait has witnessed confrontations reflecting a clash of political systems, not merely military tensions. In the 1995–96 crisis, Beijing fired missiles near Taiwan to intimidate voters in response to the U.S. granting a visa to President Lee Teng-hui, signalling opposition to Taiwan’s international engagement.[4] The U.S. deployed two aircraft carrier battle groups near the Strait to deter escalation and affirm support for regional stability.[5] Tensions rose again in 1999 when Lee described cross-Strait ties as “special state-to-state relations,” challenging the PRC’s “One China” principle and asserting Taiwan’s distinct political identity.[6] These events highlight an ideological fault line: Taiwan’s democratic system, emphasising autonomy and pluralism, contrasts with the PRC’s authoritarian insistence on unification, shaping ongoing cross-Strait dynamics.[7]
After lifting martial law in 1987, Taiwan embraced democracy, fostering freedom of speech, the press, and assembly, and placing the military under civilian control.[8] ROC military personnel, including pilots, are bound by service laws to uphold the Constitution and protect the nation, grounding their duties in democratic principles (Article 20).[9] In ADIZ encounters, pilots’ actions reflect these commitments, aligning with Taiwan’s democratic framework.
After lifting martial law in 1987, Taiwan embraced democracy, fostering freedom of speech, the press, and assembly, and placing the military under civilian control.
In contrast, the PRC’s response to the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests with a violent crackdown reinforced its authoritarian control, shaping its military and political culture.[10] The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) swears an oath of loyalty to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), socialism, and the “motherland,” reflecting the CCP’s doctrine that Party stability equates to national stability.[11] Unlike national militaries accountable to citizens, the PLA’s allegiance is to the CCP, aligning its objectives with Party goals, including the reunification of Taiwan.[12] This contrast of Taiwan’s democratic accountability versus the PRC’s party-centric authoritarianism defines the divide across the Strait, manifesting in military uniforms and oaths that symbolise allegiance to their respective systems.[13]
Key Concepts
Uniforms and oaths bridge history to the present. They are not just legal identifiers but visible declarations of belief. Uniforms mark belonging; oaths define duty. Together, they turn ideology into personal conviction.
In the Taiwan Strait, these emblems connect a shared cultural past to opposing political futures. Both sides speak the same language and draw on Confucian moral roots, yet interpret them through rival systems. For Taiwan, the uniform oath affirms loyalty to a democratic Constitution and the sovereignty of its people. For the People’s Republic of China (PRC), they signal obedience to the Communist Party and its vision of unity. These diverging meanings show how one heritage can produce two moral worlds, one civic and constitutional, the other ideological and centralised. Understanding this transformation is essential to grasping why every cross-Strait encounter carries both military risk and moral weight.
Symbols, Oaths, and Uniforms in International Relations
Power in international relations is often measured in missiles and budgets, yet symbols wield comparable influence by shaping state identity and military behaviour. The cockpit exchange between Taiwanese and Chinese pilots reminds us that conflict extends beyond hardware into the realms of language, ritual, and belief. Uniforms and oaths are not mere formalities; they are performative acts that embed ideology, turning routine encounters into contests of loyalty and identity.
Constructing Identity Through Symbols
Constructivist theory holds that power is as much symbolic as material, sustained through practice and performance.[14] Uniforms and oaths train individuals to internalise the values of their state. In the Taiwan Strait, these contrasts are stark: Taiwan’s blue-and-white sun represents republican continuity and democratic resilience, while the PRC’s red star proclaims revolutionary legitimacy and Party rule.[15]
Uniforms and oaths train individuals to internalise the values of their state.
These emblems exist in relation to each other. Taiwan’s democratic self-image takes shape in opposition to the PRC’s authoritarian narrative, and vice versa. When the two pilots traded words, their speech became performance, a symbolic construction of opposing sovereignties. What sounded like radio chatter was, in essence, a dialogue between two systems claiming the same heritage but different truths.[16]
Why Symbols Escalate Conflict
Uniforms and oaths carry moral weight, heightening tension in contested regions. They define identity, allegiance, and legitimacy. In the Taiwan Strait, where a shared language meets opposing ideologies, such symbols can turn ordinary contact into confrontation.
For a Taiwanese pilot sworn to defend the Constitution, a challenge to “freedom” strikes at civic identity. For a PLA pilot bound to the Party and “motherland,” aggression signals loyalty. What begins as a verbal exchange becomes a clash of oaths and a moral contest over whose idea of duty is rightful.
These symbolic confrontations fuel escalation. PLA incursions into Taiwan’s Air Defence Identification Zone have exceeded 300 per month for eight consecutive months as of October 2025.[17] Timed with symbolic events like Taiwan’s National Day, these operations blur boundaries and normalise coercion.[18] The PRC’s grey-zone tactics include balloon trespasses, electronic jamming, and new flight routes, further eroding Taiwan’s symbolic sovereignty, turning military presence into an ideological performance.[19]
Toward a Symbolic Understanding of Security
Deterrence without dignity breeds defiance, not stability. Traditional deterrence assumes rational calculation, yet the cross-Strait dynamic is sustained as much by performance as by power. Each act, whether Pelosi’s 2022 visit, a PLA incursion, or a pilot’s retort, carries symbolic meaning that reinforces identity and rivalry.[20] Security in the Strait will depend less on who blinks first and more on who listens longest. Managing this requires conflict-prevention mechanisms that respect the moral and cultural dimensions of military conduct.[21], [22] The hardest part of peace is not restraint in arms, but restraint in meaning. In this sense, stability in the Strait depends on whether symbols are allowed to speak with restraint rather than fury.
Traditional deterrence assumes rational calculation, yet the cross-Strait dynamic is sustained as much by performance as by power.
Contrasting Rhetorics: Democratic Defiance vs. Authoritarian Obedience
The cockpit exchange revealed more than hostile words. It revealed two competing worldviews carried by two young men in flight suits. One asked about freedom, the other threatened erasure. Both spoke in Mandarin, the fault line between democracy and authoritarianism. Freedom asks for courage; obedience demands certainty. The difference defines the two sides of the Strait.
Taiwanese Defiance
The Taiwanese pilot’s question, “Do you know what freedom is?” was more than a taunt. It affirmed a democratic identity rooted in the Republic of China’s Constitution, which every service member swears to defend. The Taiwanese pilot’s defiance was not aimed at the enemy but spoken for the people listening below. Spoken over military frequencies, it echoed values lived through open elections, vibrant media debates, and collective resilience. For this pilot, freedom was tangible, embodied in Taiwan’s democratic institutions and civic courage.
The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), governing since 2016, amplifies this defiance. Its platform rejects Beijing’s “one country, two systems” model, prioritising sovereignty and self-determination.[23] This stance draws strength from civil movements such as the 2014 Sunflower Movement, in which students occupied the parliament to protest opaque trade deals with Beijing, demonstrating a willingness to publicly defend democracy.[24] Such acts shaped a generation linking security to civic values. When the pilot invoked freedom, he channelled a society insisting on autonomy.
Surveys underscore this resolve. In 2025, over 80% of Taiwanese youth opposed political unification under Beijing’s framework, with more than 63% identifying solely as “Taiwanese”.[25] The military serves this community, not a distant regime. The pilot’s words carried the moral authority of a people committed to self-determination.
In 2025, over 80% of Taiwanese youth opposed political unification under Beijing’s framework, with more than 63% identifying solely as “Taiwanese”.
Authoritarian Obedience
The PLA pilot’s retort, “Tiny Taiwan, just wipe it out!” was crude but revealing, echoing propaganda portraying Taiwan as a breakaway province destined for reunification. Similar rhetoric appeared in 2021, when a Chinese pilot declared, “Taiwan is all ours,” blending doctrine with bravado. The 2025 exchange followed suit, reflecting loyalty to the CCP orthodoxy. Democracy teaches soldiers to think before they act; authoritarianism teaches them to act before they think.
This obedience is by design. PLA personnel swear allegiance to the CCP, socialism, and the “motherland,” fusing Party stability with national unity. Since the 1989 Tiananmen crackdown, ideological control has only deepened, enshrining obedience as virtue. For the pilot, the threat of annihilation was not mere hostility but a ritual enactment of Party doctrine. His uniform, bearing the red star, left no doubt where loyalty lay.[26]
A Systemic Contrast
These exchanges were not isolated. They were symbolic rehearsals of systemic differences. Taiwanese pilots, bound to a democratic Constitution, speak the language of values. Chinese pilots, disciplined by Party ideology, speak of domination. Each interprets the same sky differently: for Taiwan, a space to protect freedoms; for the PRC, a zone to enforce unity.
History reinforces this divide. Since the 1995–96 Taiwan Strait Crisis,[27] tensions persist, with over 3,100 PLA incursions into Taiwan’s ADIZ in 2024 and 300 monthly through 2025.[28] Taiwan’s responses remain measured and civic in tone, the PRC’s rigid and ideological; each encounter replaying the contrast between democracy’s restraint and authoritarianism’s assertion.
Wearing the Uniform: Oaths, Allegiance, and Ritual
Uniforms are cut from the same cloth, yet stitched with different faiths. Military uniforms and oaths are not procedural details; they are rituals that embody allegiance, shape identity, and heighten meaning in every cross-Strait encounter. Beyond legality, they translate ideology into conduct and turn the ceremony into conviction.
Uniforms are cut from the same cloth, yet stitched with different faiths.
Uniforms: Legal and Cultural Codes
Uniforms are not mere fabric but codes of belonging. Across the Strait, they delineate two moral orders: one democratic and constitutional, the other authoritarian and Party-led.
For Taiwan, the blue uniform of the Republic of China Air Force, marked by the white sun emblem, represents loyalty to a constitutional democracy reborn after 1987. When Taiwanese citizens see their pilots intercept intruders, they see defenders of civic order and law. The emblem’s twelve white rays on a blue field evoke continuity and liberty.
For the PLA, uniforms and insignia tell another story. The red star and hammer-and-sickle proclaim loyalty to the CCP and its revolutionary past. Updated PLA regulations, effective April 2025, codified “conscious discipline,” demanding conformity in dress, behaviour, and political education.[29] Obedience outweighs judgment; the soldier dissolves into the institution. Across a narrow sea, these fabrics express shared ancestry yet irreconcilable faiths: one rooted in citizenship, the other in ideology.
Oaths: Binding Ideological Pledges
If the uniform is belief made visible, the oath is belief made spoken. An oath is repeated until it ceases to be remembered and becomes believed. ROC pilots swear loyalty to the Constitution and the people, reflecting authority as stewardship rather than domination. This civic understanding of duty anchors Taiwan’s post-1987 democratic ethos. PLA pilots, by contrast, pledge allegiance to the CCP, socialism, and the “motherland,” merging Party survival with national identity.
For every ROC pilot who asks what freedom means, there is a PLA pilot who has never been allowed to ask. The cockpit exchange condensed these oaths into dialogue: the Taiwanese pilot’s question echoed constitutional duty, the Chinese pilot’s reply enacted Party orthodoxy. Their words were not merely communication but speech acts that created political reality.
Rituals of Belonging
Oaths and uniforms acquire meaning through ritual, through repetition that turns symbols into identity. In Taiwan, recruits swear allegiance publicly at military academies or the Presidential Office.[30] A hand on the Constitution, a flag raised against the sky, and the anthem broadcast nationwide reinforce the bond between citizen and state.
Oaths and uniforms acquire meaning through ritual, through repetition that turns symbols into identity.
In the PRC, oath-taking is equally elaborate but ideologically constrained. Recruits pledge loyalty under Party banners on enlistment days or PLA Day (August 01, 2025). Ceremonies at Tiananmen Square, overseen by commissars, feature synchronised salutes and anthems, with broadcasts projecting unity through spectacle. These mirrored rituals shape how each side interprets duty, later echoed in the cockpit.
The Psychological Burden
Symbols shape emotion. ROC pilots endure the strain of constant incursions —over 3,100 in 2024 alone —each sortie a test of vigilance and democratic resolve. For them, the oath transforms endurance into citizenship. PLA pilots carry a different weight: political oversight and “conscious discipline” replace uncertainty with scripted aggression. Bound by the same language and heritage, both inhabit mirrored worlds where emotion conforms to doctrine. When Chinese aircraft cross Taiwan’s ADIZ, the event becomes not just a manoeuvre but a ritual reenactment of ideology.
From Ritual to Reflection
What begins as a procedure becomes a moral drama enacted in the sky. Each pilot’s actions mirror the institutions that shaped him: the ROC pilot embodies a democracy that survived exile and reform; the PLA pilot, a revolution that demands obedience. Beneath the helmets stand men formed by the same language and stories, yet sworn to different masters. The Taiwan Strait is therefore a mirror where shared heritage is refracted into opposing convictions. Managing these encounters requires not only deterrence but awareness of the ritual power behind every salute and oath. Recognising how uniforms and oaths construct loyalty can help policymakers respect symbolic boundaries and prevent miscalculation. Dialogue on military, cultural, and human levels can turn rituals of defiance into rituals of restraint.[31]
A Familial Tragedy in the Skies
The Strait is not a border but an argument between brothers carried by the wind. The Taiwan Strait is more than a military frontier; it is the stage for a family quarrel decades in the making. The cockpit exchange captured this tragedy in a few charged seconds. Spoken in Mandarin, their words sounded less like a clash between enemies than an argument between kin, turning shared language and memory into weapons of ideology. The tragedy is not that the two sides fight, but that they fight in a shared tongue.
The Taiwan Strait is more than a military frontier; it is the stage for a family quarrel decades in the making.
This quarrel began in 1949, when China’s civil war split the household in two. Shared heritage survived but fractured in meaning. For Beijing, reunification remains framed as a familial duty. Xi Jinping often invokes “one family” to stress kinship across the Strait.[32] Official narratives portray Taiwan’s autonomy as a temporary estrangement and reunification as a homecoming.[33] Yet this rhetoric cloaks political ambition in the language of affection, turning cultural closeness into a moral claim of control.
In Taiwan, the same heritage has been reimagined as a foundation for autonomy. Through classrooms, films, and festivals, society reshapes shared traditions to express pluralism and freedom. The 2020 film “Your Name Engraved Herein” resonated with youth because it wove love and liberty into a distinct Taiwanese consciousness.[34] The revival of Hokkien, while unintelligible to most mainlanders, asserts cultural distinction even within linguistic continuity.[35] Lunar New Year, music, and school rituals now celebrate democracy rather than imperial inheritance. This is not a rejection of Chinese culture, but a reclamation of it: Taiwan affirms that heritage can be shared without submission.
This intimacy makes division sharper. When adversaries share a mother tongue and ancestry, their words cut deeper. Each side knows how to wound the other precisely because they know each other so well. The Taiwanese pilot’s question challenged the moral legitimacy of Party rule; the PLA pilot’s retort echoed the state’s claim of unity. The conflict, then, is not only geopolitical but profoundly personal, a contest over the meaning of home.
Shared heritage should be a bridge, yet it has become a blade. Beijing invokes kinship to justify control, while Taiwan redefines culture to assert distance. Both sides weaponise identity, deepening estrangement. The task is to turn heritage into dialogue: Taiwan must uphold tradition with confidence, and the PRC must accept that kinship is not control. Cultural and educational exchange can turn shared roots from rivalry into understanding. The cockpit clash revealed how families quarrel hardest because they know each other best, but that same familiarity can still be the basis for peace.
Geopolitical Ripples and Policy Reflections
The cockpit exchange sent ripples beyond the Taiwan Strait, influencing regional alliances and global perceptions of cross-Strait stability. It strengthened U.S. and Japanese support for Taiwan, as seen in joint air defence identification zone (ADIZ) security exercises in September 2025.[36] These drills, incorporating missile defence systems, underscore a collective commitment to counter the PRC’s assertiveness, bolstering Taiwan’s role in the Indo-Pacific.[37] The incident also highlighted the symbolic power of uniforms and oaths, which elevate routine interceptions into ideological confrontations. The next crisis in the Strait may not begin with a missile launch, but with a misunderstood word.
In Taiwan, the exchange fueled pride in democratic identity, reinforcing public support for sovereignty. In the PRC, it amplified Xi Jinping’s unification narrative, framing Taiwan’s defiance as a challenge to national sovereignty.[38] These opposing reactions illustrate how symbols intensify rivalry without physical conflict.[39] Soft power begins where empathy meets principle.
In the PRC, it amplified Xi Jinping’s unification narrative, framing Taiwan’s defiance as a challenge to national sovereignty.
Managing these tensions requires both operational safeguards and symbolic literacy. Policymakers must combine technical measures such as expanded military hotlines and standardised flight protocols with Track-2 dialogues that reinterpret rivalry as shared heritage. Bridging symbolic divides demands more than procedure; it calls for empathy, narrative awareness, and respect for the cultural worlds in which soldiers act.
Lessons and Calls to Action
The cockpit exchange revealed more than sharp words between the two pilots. It showed how uniforms and oaths transform shared heritage into conflict, binding individuals to systems that stand at moral odds. The Taiwanese pilot spoke as a citizen in uniform, pledging loyalty to the people and the Constitution. The Chinese pilot spoke as a servant of the Party, bound by obedience that silences kinship. Their words distilled decades of divergence: democracy’s resilience against authoritarian rigidity. To preserve peace, Taiwan must prove that conviction can coexist with compassion.
From this clash, vital lessons emerge. Symbols matter. Uniforms and oaths are not ceremonial; they anchor political identity. Heritage, once shared, becomes a fault line when weaponised. Yet within this tragedy lies opportunity. Taiwan can turn cockpit defiance into strategic strength, projecting moral clarity abroad while nurturing civic resilience at home.
The path forward must combine deterrence with dignity, and policy with empathy. Taipei should advocate the expansion of air-safety mechanisms, building on U.S.–PRC hotlines, and broaden Track-2 dialogues on identity and symbolism. It should also invest in the well-being of its defenders, such as mental health support for pilots facing relentless sorties to sustain democratic resolve.
In doing so, Taipei can demonstrate that a family quarrel need not end in ruin. It can become a conversation-reclaimed reminder that beneath opposing uniforms and oaths still lies a shared humanity waiting to be heard.
From Symbolism to Tangible Outcomes
Acknowledging the shared humanity beneath opposing uniforms is not sentimentality but a deliberate security strategy with verifiable effects.
For pilots and soldiers, it reduces the dehumanisation that drives escalation. Taiwanese aircrews experience significant psychological strain, including fatigue and diminished threat awareness, when adversaries are viewed solely as ideological threats. Seeing the PLA pilot instead as a fellow Chinese speaker bound by a different oath can ease that psychological burden, encourage disciplined radio restraint, and support long-term resilience.
Even limited PLA exposure to humanistic narratives through joint HADR exercises, including the 2023 ADMM-Plus drills in Indonesia,[40] Aman Youyi 2025 with Malaysia,[41] and ASEAN Regional Forum SAR operations,[42] has fostered mutual understanding and softened rigid habits.
These engagements from 2023 to 2025 improved interoperability and reduced friction in non-combat settings. Although cross-Strait military confidence-building measures mentioned in China’s 2015 Military Strategy remain stalled, wider regional cooperation still offers a practical path toward de-escalation without direct political concessions.[43]
In soft-power terms, Taiwan’s focus on democratic values and resilience has yielded positive global perceptions.[44] Since 2022, initiatives such as the New Southbound Policy have strengthened economic and educational ties, including nearly USD 1 billion in bilateral trade with Nigeria in 2022, and have supported unofficial diplomatic and defence-industrial collaborations.[45]
Taiwan’s focus on democratic values and resilience has yielded positive global perceptions.
Meanwhile, assertive PLA rhetoric has heightened security concerns in democratic societies, reinforcing alliances among the U.S., Japan, the Philippines, and Australia, even as overall global trust in China remains stable or slightly improved in select regions.[46]
Finally, de-escalation protocols such as the Code for Unplanned Encounters at Sea (CUES) in the South China Sea and the post-2020 India–China border buffer zones have improved military interactions and lowered the risk of major clashes.[47] CUES has supported safer U.S.–China naval encounters since 2014, while the buffer zones have prevented deadly confrontations and enabled partial disengagement.
Adapting similar mechanisms to the Taiwan Strait through better hotlines, clearer communication standards, and confidence-building measures could move both sides from open hostility to managed coexistence without weakening core positions.
A Continuous Echo
The exchange over the Taiwan Strait lasted only seconds, yet its echo continues. One pilot asked about freedom; the other spoke of erasure. Between them lay more than contested airspace. A century of divided loyalties, fractured kinship, and competing futures hung in the pause between their words.
Even in confrontation, there was an unintended recognition. Two young men shared a mother tongue and a history that once bound families together. Those same roots now shape rival oaths. The Strait marks a physical boundary, but it also reflects back the moral choices that shaped both sides.
Preventing tragedy begins with looking past helmets, insignia, and ideology. When the humanity behind the uniform is acknowledged as a deliberate security strategy, behaviour changes. The psychological strain on Taiwanese crews eases when they see opponents not as faceless instruments of doctrine but as individuals shaped by different constraints.
Preventing tragedy begins with looking past helmets, insignia, and ideology.
PLA pilots show less scripted aggression when exposed to cooperative missions and humanitarian engagement. Taipei gains moral influence abroad. Beijing’s coercive narrative loses force. Combined with expanded hotlines, dignity-based radio protocols, and sustained cultural exchanges, the frequency and severity of dangerous encounters can decline.
The Taiwan Strait is more than a military frontier. It reveals what happens when loyalty hardens into ideology and when identity becomes a weapon. The task ahead is to loosen ideology’s grip and restore the principle that an oath should ultimately serve humanity rather than power.
If this shift takes root, a family quarrel does not need to end in ruin. It can become a long-delayed conversation that reclaims kinship as the only durable foundation for peace.
[1] “Chinese Military Aircraft Intrudes into Taiwan’s ADIZ Again, Pilot Warns: ‘You’re Entering Our Airspace!’,” TVBS News, August 29, 2025, https://news.tvbs.com.tw/politics/2976733.
[2] Stephen Chen, “Taiwan’s Radio Enthusiasts Tune in as PLA, US Warplanes Crowd Sensitive Airspace,” South China Morning Post, May 24, 2022, https://www.scmp.com/news/china/military/article/3178942/taiwans-radio-enthusiasts-tune-pla-us-warplanes-crowd-sensitive.
[3] Toni Pfanner, “Military Uniforms and the Law of War,” International Review of the Red Cross 86, no. 853 (March 2004): 93–124, https://www.icrc.org/sites/default/files/external/doc/en/assets/files/other/irrc_853_pfanner.pdf.
[4] Nancy B. Tucker, “Show of Force: Chinese Soldiers, Statesmen, and the 1995-1996 Taiwan Strait Crisis,” Political Science Quarterly 117, no. 2 (Summer 2000): 227–246, https://www.jstor.org/stable/2657901.
[5] “Taiwan Strait Crises,” Encyclopædia Britannica, July 31, 2025, https://www.britannica.com/event/Taiwan-Strait-crises.
[6] Mainland Affairs Council, Republic of China (Taiwan), “News Content [on 1999 state-to-state relations],” 2025, https://www.mac.gov.tw/en/News_Content.aspx?n=0D58AA484DB9A9B1&sms=35503662D9CE6DD9&s=7BC1AF71E27BC47C.
[7] Council on Foreign Relations, “Why China-Taiwan Relations Are So Tense,” August 28, 2024, https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/china-taiwan-relations-tension-us-policy-trump.
[8] Lowy Institute, “The End of Martial Law: An Important Anniversary for Taiwan,” July 13, 2017, https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/end-martial-law-important-anniversary-taiwan.
[9] Office of the President, Republic of China (Taiwan), “Constitution of the Republic of China (Taiwan) [Article 20],” 2025, https://english.president.gov.tw/page/94.
[10] Amnesty International, “What Is the Tiananmen Crackdown?,” May 30, 2025, https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2025/05/what-is-the-tiananmen-crackdown/.
[11] Xinhua, “Full Text: China’s National Defense in the New Era,” July 24, 2019, http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2019-07/24/c_138253389.htm.
[12] U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, “Personnel of the People’s Liberation Army,” November 2022, https://www.uscc.gov/sites/default/files/2022-11/Personnel_Peoples_Liberation_Army.pdf.
[13] Peter D. Feaver, “Civil-Military Relations in the United States: What Senior Leaders Need to Know (and Usually Don’t),” Strategic Studies Quarterly 15, no. 2 (Summer 2021): 12–37, https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/Portals/10/SSQ/documents/Volume-15_Issue-2/Feaver.pdf.
[14] Alexander Wendt, Social Theory of International Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), http://www.guillaumenicaise.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Wendt-Social-Theory-of-International-Politics.pdf.
[15] “ROCTaiwanArms.” Hubert-Herald.nl. Accessed October 15, 2025. http://hubert-herald.nl/ROCTaiwan.htm.
[16] Alexander Wendt, “Anarchy Is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics,” International Organization 46, no. 2 (1992): 391–425, http://www.rochelleterman.com/ir/sites/default/files/Wendt%201992.pdf.
[17] “China-Taiwan Weekly Update, October 3, 2025,” Institute for the Study of War, October 03, 2025, https://understandingwar.org/research/china-taiwan/china-taiwan-weekly-update-october-3-2025/
[18] “China’s Multifaceted Approach to the Taiwan Strait: An Analysis of Recent Developments,” Prospect Foundation, February 15, 2024. Available at: https://www.pf.org.tw/en/pfen/33-10557.html
[19] International Crisis Group, “Preventing War in the Taiwan Strait,” Asia Report no. 333 (January 11, 2024): 1–35, https://www.crisisgroup.org/asia/north-east-asia/taiwan-strait/preventing-war-taiwan-strait.
[20] Council on Foreign Relations, “Averting a Cross-Strait Crisis,” 2022, https://www.cfr.org/report/averting-cross-strait-crisis.
[21] National Committee on American Foreign Policy, “Conflict Prevention in the Taiwan Strait: Restraint,” June 2025, https://www.ncafp.org/publications/conflict-prevention-taiwan-strait.
[22] Asiye Öztürk, “A Constructivist Approach to Conflict Transformation: The Case of China-Taiwan,” ResearchGate, August 8, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/373095678_A_Constructivist_Approach_to_Conflict_Transformation_The_Case_of_China-Taiwan.
[23] Democratic Progressive Party, “DPP Party Platform,” 2024, https://www.dpp.org.tw/en/partyplatform.
[24] Foreign Policy Research Institute, “Occupy Central/Sunflower: Popular Resistance in Greater China,” October 28, 2014, https://www.fpri.org/article/2014/10/occupy-centralsunflower-popular-resistance-in-greater-china/.
[25] National Chengchi University Election Study Center, “Taiwanese / Chinese Identity,” July 7, 2025, https://esc.nccu.edu.tw/PageDoc/Detail?fid=7800&id=6963.
[26] Marine Corps Intelligence Activity, “The Culture of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army,” 2010, https://info.publicintelligence.net/MCIA-ChinaPLA.pdf.
[27] Robert S. Ross, “The 1995–1996 Taiwan Strait Confrontation: Coercion, Credibility, and the Use of Force,” International Security 25, no. 2 (Fall 2000): 87–123, https://www.jstor.org/stable/2626754.
[28] 19FortyFive, “3,100 ‘Incidents’: China’s Military Tripled ADIZ Violations Near Taiwan,” February 2025, https://www.19fortyfive.com/2025/02/3100-incidents-chinas-military-tripled-adiz-violations-near-taiwan/.
[29] The Diplomat, “China Revises PLA Regulations to Focus on ‘Conscious Discipline’,” February 12, 2025, https://thediplomat.com/2025/02/china-revises-pla-regulations-to-focus-on-conscious-discipline/.
[30] Murray Scot Tanner, “Why Taiwanese Leaders Put Political Symbolism above Military Power,” Scholars Strategy Network, January 15, 2024, https://scholars-stage.org/why-taiwanese-leaders-put-political-symbolism-above-military-power/.
[31] Taiwan Insight, “Beyond Deterrence: Reclaiming Dialogue in the Taiwan Strait,” June 13, 2025, https://taiwaninsight.org/2025/06/13/beyond-deterrence-reclaiming-dialogue-in-the-taiwan-strait/.
[32] Xinhua, “Highlights of Xi’s Speech at Gathering Marking 40th Anniversary of Message to Compatriots in Taiwan,” January 2, 2019.
[33] China Daily, “Taiwan Celebrities Show Support for Reunification,” May 30, 2024, https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202405/30/WS6657ceb4a31082fc043c9ed0.html.
[34] C. Wu, “Advocating Empathy: Your Name Engraved Herein and the Politics of Queer Representation in Taiwan,” American Journal of Chinese Studies 28, no. 2 (2021): 1–20.
[35] Global Taiwan Institute, “Saving Tâi-gí: Taiwan’s Largest Heritage Language,” October 2025. https://globaltaiwan.org/2025/10/saving-tai-gi/.
[36] CNN, “US and Japan Begin Exercises Including Missiles That China Calls a Threat,” September 11, 2025, https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/11/asia/japan-us-exercises-missiles-china-intl-hnk-ml.
[37] The Asahi Shimbun, “Japan, U.S. Start Largest-Ever Joint Drills Amid Taiwan Tensions,” September 19, 2025, https://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/15012345.
[38] Reuters, “China’s Xi Calls on Nation to Firmly Oppose Taiwan Independence,” September 30, 2025, https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/chinas-xi-calls-nation-firmly-oppose-taiwan-independence-2025-09-30/.
[39] Foreign Affairs, “The Greatest Danger in the Taiwan Strait,” September 12, 2025, https://www.foreignaffairs.com/china/greatest-danger-taiwan-strait.
[40] “China Participates in ADMM-Plus Maritime Security and Counter-Terrorism Exercise,” Ministry of National Defense of the People’s Republic of China, September 2023, http://eng.mod.gov.cn/xb/News_213114/TopStories/16258442.html.
[41] “Malaysia-China Aman Youyi 2025 Joint Military Exercise,” Defence Security Asia, 2025, https://defencesecurityasia.com/en/malaysia-china-aman-youyi-2025-joint-military-exercise/.
[42] Bonny Lin & Joel Wuthnow, “Restarting Search and Rescue Cooperation in the South China Sea,” East Asia Forum, 28 April 2023, https://eastasiaforum.org/2023/04/28/restarting-search-and-rescue-cooperation-in-the-south-china-sea/.
[43] “China’s Military Strategy (2015),” State Council Information Office of the People’s Republic of China, May 2015, https://english.www.gov.cn/archive/white_paper/2015/05/27/content_281475115610833.htm.
[44] Laura Silver et al., “Taiwan Seen More Favorably Than Not Across 24 Countries,” Pew Research Center, 11 August 2023, https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/08/11/taiwan-seen-more-favorably-than-not-across-24-countries/.
[45] “Taiwan’s Soft Power Gamble: Nigeria,” Global Taiwan Institute, August 2025, https://globaltaiwan.org/2025/08/taiwans-soft-power-gamble-nigeria/.
[46] “US Indo-Pacific Allies Are Unhappy about Trump’s Defence Demands — But They Have to Comply,” Chatham House, July 2025, https://www.chathamhouse.org/2025/07/us-indo-pacific-allies-are-unhappy-about-trumps-defence-demands-they-have-comply.
[47] Arzan Tarapore, “Buffer Zones: A Key to Calm in the Western Himalayas,” New Lines Institute, 2023, https://newlinesinstitute.org/strategic-competition/buffer-zones-a-key-to-calm-in-the-western-himalayas/.
