EDITORIAL: Taiwan: Remaining Silent in the Face of China’s Incremental Encroachment Is a Mistake

Exercises That Are No Longer Just Theoretical

On July 3, Reuters reported on Taiwanese exercises simulating a blockade, an earthquake, sabotage, and an invasion. A country does not plan for such a scenario simply to reassure itself; it does so because the perceived probability has changed. On July 7, a senior Taiwanese official told Reuters that the island’s defensive preparations are not a provocation, but a response to preparations aimed at military aggression and external expansion, according to his reported remarks.

The July 8 Warning

Kuan Bi-ling of Taiwan’s Maritime Affairs Council issued the warning that gives this editorial its title on July 8: China’s repeated actions risk creating a new status quo, according to Reuters. A status quo is never decreed; it is built one ordinary day at a time. On the same day, China expanded its coast guard patrols east of Taiwan, despite the criticism already voiced by the West—a sign that such criticism has had no observable deterrent effect.

Voices Growing Louder, Behavior Unchanged

France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States criticized China’s patrols in June and July 2026. It is equally well documented that China continued and expanded its operations in the months that followed. This disconnect between diplomatic rhetoric and observed behavior lies at the heart of the argument made here: verbal condemnation, repeated without consequence, eventually becomes part of the status quo it purports to denounce.

Why Fatigue Is Becoming a Risk

No public opinion data on potential international fatigue has been found; this thesis remains an editorial judgment. But the absence of polls does not make the hypothesis any less plausible. It is this refusal to reach a climax that makes this pressure difficult to counter with conventional diplomatic tools: an invasion calls for an immediate response, while a daily accumulation of incidents often calls for nothing more than a press release.

Replicas That Can’t Be Improvised

On July 15, 2026, Newsmax and The Maritime Executive revealed the existence of full-scale replicas of Taiwanese and American targets at a Chinese test site in Xinjiang. This type of infrastructure requires sustained investment planned over several years. This revelation reinforces—though does not prove—the hypothesis of long-term preparation rather than a mere show of force; the link to a concrete military intention remains a cautious inference.

How this changes the interpretation of the incursions

When viewed in the context of these training targets, the nature of the daily pressure shifts: it may no longer be merely a political demonstration, but also repeated operational training. One does not build a full-scale replica of a target simply to admire it.

This dual interpretation should carry more weight in Western assessments than simply tallying the day’s sorties.

A Precedent That Goes Beyond Taiwan

The issue at hand here is not limited to Taiwan. If the accumulation of incursions ultimately establishes a new de facto territorial status quo, this precedent will set a standard for other disputes, in which regional powers will observe what the international community is actually willing to tolerate. Every day that passes without a concrete response normalizes the next one a little more—a slow process whose cumulative effect can redraw regional balances without a fight.

The Urgency of a Signal, Not Just Criticism

Western criticism has, so far, produced no observable change. This observation does not call for an abandonment of criticism, but for its transformation: words that come at no real cost to those who ignore them cease to be a credible signal. Identifying a risk without paying the political price is never enough to contain it. Kuan Bi-ling is right to point it out; the most uncomfortable question remains what we do about it.

An erosion that benefits the more patient party

In a power struggle where one side has a longer time horizon, it is the party that can wait that sets the pace. There is no indication that Beijing is seeking an immediate confrontation; everything points to a strategy of attrition that relies on patience. Patience, in this context, is not a neutral virtue; it is a tool that only one side can wield without risk. This temporal asymmetry favors the party that repeats the action rather than the one that must decide whether to react.

What a Credible Response Would Require

Nothing here calls for a military escalation. But a credible response would require publicly documenting the accumulation of these incursions, so that their actual scale is not diluted in press releases that are quickly forgotten. What we refuse to count always ends up seeming less serious than it is. This is the first step in resisting this gradual erosion: naming it, quantifying it, and refusing to accept it tacitly.

Nothing in the reports from Reuters and the Taiwanese Ministry of Defense suggests that an invasion is imminent. The argument of this editorial is more modest and more troubling: the daily repetition of incursions, combined with the revelation of training targets in Xinjiang, points to a trajectory where normalization precedes—though does not guarantee—a more serious confrontation.

Silence is never neutral in the face of methodical encroachment; it is, in its own way, a form of response—the worst kind. Kuan Bi-ling identified the risk of a new status quo on July 8, 2026. To continue allowing it to take hold without a response commensurate with the reality of the situation would be, for Taiwan as for any disputed territory, a mistake whose cost cannot be measured in a single day.

By Maxime Marquette, columnist