There is a narrative going around that the war in the Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman – Israel/USA versus Iran – is a training exercise for the big one, a war between the United States and China centred on the Taiwan Strait.

In Hormuz Today, Taiwan Tomorrow (Project Syndicate, 20 April 2026), Todd G Buchholz argues “By closing the Strait of Hormuz, Iran has handed the Trump administration a practice test. To pass – and preserve deterrence against a Chinese invasion or blockade of Taiwan – the United States must reopen the Strait decisively and visibly with escorts, minesweepers, and strikes on launch sites.”

Also, from Project Syndicate (27 April 2026), we have The Hidden Chokepoints Threatening the Global Economy, by Diane Coyle. She says: “Most notably, Taiwan dominates advanced semiconductor production through TSMC, which accounts for more than 90% of the global supply.” Should military means be used to protect the Taiwanese monopoly of a strategic commodity? That’s not how capitalism is supposed to work.

What would be a geopolitical solution to the presumed – albeit poorly researched – allegation that China plans to exploit the Taiwan Strait chokepoint to bring down The West?

The Asian political territory called China – a mix of continent and islands – is claimed by two rival regimes; one in Beijing, one in Taipei. There is an obvious solution; that the territory presently controlled by Beijing becomes the Sovereign State of China and the territory presently controlled by Taipei becomes the Sovereign State of Taiwan.

Obvious to most people, because most people believe that the boundary between the two territories is the Taiwan Strait. A big miscomprehension, which the geopolitical agitators seem very keen to never discuss; because those agitators – for their own reasons – want to present the Taiwan Strait as the world’s most consequential and unresolved geopolitical boundary.

The principal boundary between the two territories is Xiamen Harbour. There is a second boundary off the coast of Fuzhou. Xiamen is a Chinese city of just over five million people, the population of New Zealand. Fuzhou is a Chinese city of over eight million people, the population of London. Both cities are in the Chinese province of Fujian. The Taiwanese counties of Kinmen and Lienchiang sit on the western (Chinese) side of the Taiwan Strait. Taiwan proper sits on the eastern side of the Taiwan Strait.

Solution

Taiwan could cede the two counties of Kinmen and Lienchiang to China; not necessarily as counties of China’s Fujian province, but as economic zones comparable to Macau and Hong Kong.

In return, China could drop its claim to Taiwan proper. China would drop its claim to the vast majority of Taiwan, which is on the eastern side of the Taiwan Strait.

The result would be two clearly distinct countries – China and Taiwan – internationally recognisable as such, separated by the wide-enough Taiwan Strait; much wider than the Strait of Hormuz.

Yes, both China and Taiwan would be making concessions. But each would be making gains in excess of those concessions; a win-win solution based on reciprocity. China already has substantial pragmatic trade relations with Taiwan; there need be no barriers to the continuance of those relations. Indeed, Taiwan’s relations with all nations could improve, with international recognition of Taiwan as a sovereign nation state.

The world could then heave a sigh of relief; the normalisation of a piece of geography deeply politicised by three small but powerful groups of people – cliques in Washington DC, Beijing, Taipei – cliques with narrow and potentially destructive nationalist and mercantilist agendas.

The people – and other species – of this world should never be held hostage to egos; to bigheads, some of whose natural inclinations are to resort to massive externalised violence if they cannot prevail upon their rivals by ‘peaceful’ means.

————-

Keith Rankin (keith at rankin dot nz), trained as an economic historian, is a retired lecturer in Economics and Statistics. He lives in Auckland, New Zealand.

COMMENTARY: By Eugene Doyle

The Western media went into overdrive this week to work the laconic Kiwis into a mild frenzy over three Chinese naval vessels conducting exercises in the Tasman Sea a few thousand kilometres off our shores.

What was really behind this orchestrated campaign?

The New Zealand government led the rhetorical charge over the Hengyang, the Zunyi and the Weishanhu in mare nostrum (“Our Sea”, as the Romans liked to call the Mediterranean).

 “We cannot hide at this end of the world anymore,” Defence Minister Judith Collins said in light of three Chinese boats in the Tasman.

Warrior academics were next . “We need to go to the cutting edge, and we need to do that really, really fast,” the ever-reliable China hawk Anne-Marie Brady of Canterbury University said, telling 1 News the message of the live-firing exercises was that China wants to rule the waves.

The British Financial Times chimed in with a warning that “A confronting strategic future is arriving fast”.

Could this have anything to do with the fact we are fast approaching the New Zealand government’s 2025 budget and that they — and their Australian, US and UK allies — are intent on a major increase in Kiwi defence funding, moving from around 1.2 percent of GDP to possibly two percent? A long-anticipated Defence Capability Review is also around the corner and is likely to come with quite a shopping list of expensive gear.

What’s good for the goose . . .
It is worth pointing out that New Zealand and Australian warships sailed through the contested Taiwan Strait and elsewhere in the South China Sea as recently as September 2024. What’s good for the goose is good for the Panda.

And, of course, at any one time about 20 US nuclear submarines are prowling in the deep waters of the Pacific Ocean and South China Sea. Each can carry missiles the equivalent of over 1000 Hiroshima bombs — truly apocalyptic.

Veteran New Zealand peace campaigner Mike Smith (a friend) was not in total disagreement with the hawks when it came to the argy-bargy in the Tasman.

“The emergence apparently from nowhere of a Chinese naval expedition in our waters I think may be intended to demonstrate that they have a large and very capable blue water navy now and won’t be penned in by AUKUS submarines when and if they arrive off their coast.

“I think the main message is to the Australians: if you want to homebase nuclear-capable B-52s we have more than one way to come at you. That was also the message of the ICBM they sent into the Pacific: Australia is no longer an unsinkable aircraft carrier.”

According to the Asia Times, China fired the ICBM — the first such shot into the Pacific by China — just days after HMNZS Aotearoa sailed through the Taiwan Strait with Australian vessel HMAS Sydney.

Smith says our focus should be on building positive relationships in the Pacific on our terms. “Buying expensive popguns will not save us.”

China Scare a page out of Australia’s Red Scare playbook
For people good at pattern recognition this week’s China Scare was obviously a page or two out of the same playbook that duped a majority of Australians into believing China was going to invade Australia. They were lulled into a false sense of insecurity back in 2021 — the mediascape flooded with Red Alert, China panic stories about imminent war with the rising Asian power.

As a sign of how successful the mainstream media can be in generating fear that precedes major policy shifts: research by Australia’s Institute of International & Security Affairs showed that more Australians thought that China would soon attack Australia than Taiwanese believed China would attack Taiwan!

Once the population was conditioned, they woke one morning in September 2021 with the momentous news that Australia had ditched a $90 billion submarine defence deal with France and the country was now part of a new anti-Chinese military alliance called AUKUS. This was the playbook that came to mind last week.

There are strong, rational arguments that could be made to increase our spending at this time. But I loathe and decry this kind of manipulation, this manufacturing of consent.

I also fear what those billions of dollars will be used for. Defending our coastlines is one thing; joining an anti-Chinese military alliance to please the US is quite another.

Prime Minister Luxon has called China — our biggest trading partner — a strategic competitor. He has also suggested, somewhat ludicrously, that our military could be a “force multiplier” for Team AUKUS.

We are hitching ourselves to the US at the very time they have proven they treat allies as vassals, threatened to annex Greenland and the Panama Canal, continue to commit genocide in Gaza, and are now imposing an unequal treaty on Ukraine.

Australia’s ABC News on Foreign Minister Winston Peter’s talks in China. Video: ABC

Whose side – or calmer independence?
Whose side should we be on? Or should we return to a calmer, more independent posture?

And then there’s the question of priorities. The hawks may convince the New Zealand population that the China threat is serious enough that we should forgo spending money on child poverty, fixing our ageing infrastructure, investing in health and education and instead, as per pressure from our AUKUS partners, spend some serious coin — billions of dollars more — on defence.

Climate change is one battle that is being fought and lost. Will climate funding get the bullet so we can spend on military hardware? That would certainly get a frosty reaction from Pacific nations at the front edge of sea rise.

The government in New Zealand is literally taking the food out of children’s mouths to fund weapons systems. The Ka Ora, Ka Ako programme provides nutritious lunches every day to a quarter of a million of New Zealand’s most needy children.

Its funding has recently been slashed by over $100 million by the government despite its own advisors telling it that such programmes have profound long-term wellbeing benefits and contribute significantly to equity. In the next breath we are told we need to boost funding for our military.

The US appears determined to set itself on a collision course with China but we don’t have to be crash test dummies sitting alongside them. Prudence, preparedness, vigilance and risk-management are all to be devoutly wished for; hitching our fate to a hostile US containment strategy is bad policy both in economic and defence terms.

In the absence of a functioning media — one that showcases diverse perspectives and challenges power rather than works hand-in-glove with it — populations have been enlisted in the most abhorrent and idiotic campaigns: the Red Peril, the Jewish Peril and the Black Peril (in South Africa and the southern states of the USA), to name three.

Our media-political-military complex is at it again with this one — a kind of Yellow Peril Redux.

New Zealand trails behind both Australia and China in development assistance to the Pacific. If we wish to “counter” China, supporting our neighbours would be a better investment than encouraging an unwinnable arms race.

In tandem, I would advocate for a far deeper diplomatic and cultural push to understand and engage with China; that would do more to keep the region peaceful and may arrest the slow move in China towards seeking other markets for the high-quality primary produce that an increasingly bellicose New Zealand still wishes to sell them.

Let’s be friends to all, enemies of none. Keep the Pacific peaceful, neutral and nuclear-free.

Eugene Doyle is a community organiser and activist in Wellington, New Zealand. He received an Absolutely Positively Wellingtonian award in 2023 for community service. His first demonstration was at the age of 12 against the Vietnam War. This article was first published at his public policy website Solidarity and he is a regular contributor to Asia Pacific Report and Café Pacific.

This article was first published on Café Pacific.