When airspace becomes the new front in China-Taiwan rivalry

The ancient Chinese philosopher Mencius once suggested that a just cause naturally attracts abundant support, while an unjust one barely gets any support. However, in international politics, “just” is rarely neutral and it is often shaped by power.

The contest between China and Taiwan for global recognition reflects this reality. For decades, Beijing has steadily worked to restrict Taiwan’s international space, using a mix of diplomatic, economic, and political tools. The recent case involving Eswatini, Taiwan’s last remaining diplomatic partner in Africa, suggest that these tactics are not just continuing, but evolving.

Currently, Taiwan maintains formal diplomatic relations with only a handful of small or developing nations from Latin America, the Caribbean, and the Pacific. In Africa, Eswatini is the only country that recognises Taipei over Beijing. This makes the relationship disproportionately important for Taiwan, both symbolically and strategically. However, as China continues to tighten the noose using economic coercion, it is getting increasingly difficult for Taiwan to maintain even its existing alliances.

That pressure became visible in April, when Taiwanese President Lai Ching-te was forced to cancel a planned visit to Eswatini. Mr. Lai intended to attend celebrations marking the 40th anniversary of King Mswati III’s accession to the throne, alongside his 58th birthday. The visit would have reinforced long-standing ties in Africa. However, the trip had to be abruptly cancelled after the Seychelles, Mauritius, and Madagascar unilaterally denied airspace access to the Taiwanese presidential aircraft.

Dangerous precedent

This development marks a dangerous precedent. While Taiwan has long faced diplomatic obstacles, this is the first time a sitting President was forced to cancel an entire overseas trip due to airspace restrictions. The decision by these African island nations is unlikely to be made in isolation. As per Taiwanese government suspicion, China exerted pressure, potentially including threats related to economic cooperation and debt relief. Expectedly, Beijing praised the three countries for adhering to the “One China” principle, reinforcing the idea that recognition of Taiwan carries tangible consequences.

What stands out in this episode is not just the outcome, but the method. China has long relied on economic incentives or political pressure to persuade countries to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Now, it appears that China is ready to extend its influence into more operational areas such as controlling the transit routes. By weaponising the airspace, Beijing can disrupt Taiwan’s external engagement even when formal diplomatic relations remain intact.

This raises broader concerns about the weaponisation of global goods meant to remain neutral. Airspace sovereignty is typically managed with safety and coordination in mind, and not politics. When geopolitical considerations begin to shape such decisions, it introduces uncertainty and undermine trust in international norms. Critics, including some U.S. lawmakers, have warned against the use of the aviation frameworks as instruments of political coercion.

For Taiwan, the Eswatini case underscores the fragility of its international presence. Despite its economic strength and democratic governance, Taiwan lacks widespread formal recognition. Even routine diplomatic engagements can become complicated, requiring careful navigation of geopolitical sensitivities. This vulnerability is compounded by China’s growing global reach, particularly in Africa, where its economic presence is extensive and growing.

Eswatini holds a very special place in Taiwan’s foreign policy. The country has long benefited from development aid, healthcare assistance, and infrastructure projects. Taiwan’s support has included medical aid during the COVID-19 pandemic and ongoing investments in innovation and energy initiatives. Mr. Lai’s planned visit was expected to further deepen this cooperation through agreements on customs assistance and development projects.

Despite the cancelled visit, Eswatini has reiterated its commitment to an independent foreign policy and its relationship with Taiwan. However, the pressure it faces is undeniable. China has expanded its economic engagement across Africa, including tariff exemptions for imports from many African countries. Eswatini was excluded from the group of countries set to benefit from China’s tariff exemption. While the immediate economic impact on Eswatini may be limited, the broader message is clear: alignment with Taiwan comes at a cost.

Complicating strategy

At the same time, global dynamics are shifting, complicating Taiwan’s strategy. Western engagement in Africa, including development assistance programmes, has seen some reduction. As these traditional support structures continue to weaken, Taiwan’s ability to maintain influence becomes further limited.

So far, Taiwan has sought to respond to Chinese coercion in Africa by leveraging its strengths in innovation, governance, and development cooperation. Its development partnership model emphasises capacity-building, technology transfer, and mutually beneficial partnerships in contrast to large-scale financial incentives provided by China. This approach has yielded limited success, particularly in smaller nations. However, the question remains whether it can hold up amid sustained Chinese pressure.

The Eswatini case also highlights a broader strategic dilemma. Taiwan must balance the costs of maintaining diplomatic allies with the benefits of international visibility. Its approach has often involved significant financial and technical assistance to partner countries, raising questions about sustainability. As China continues to expand its influence, Taiwan may need to prioritise long-term institutional partnerships over short-term diplomatic wins.

External actors also play a role in shaping this landscape. The United States and the European Union have expressed support for Taiwan’s participation in international affairs, even if formal diplomatic recognition remains limited. Their willingness to support Taiwan in practical terms through trade, development cooperation, and institutional inclusion could influence the balance. However, such support often stops short of directly challenging the One China policy framework.

Ultimately, China’s efforts to restrict Taiwan’s global engagement reflect a broader carefully calibrated strategy. By combining economic incentives, political pressure, and now logistical constraints, Beijing is steadily narrowing Taiwan’s room for manoeuvre. Further, the Eswatini episode demonstrates that this strategy is not static. Beijing adopts to new opportunities under changing circumstances.

For Taiwan, the challenge now is to adapt without overextending itself. Its resilience lies in its economic capabilities, democratic institutions, and ability to forge meaningful partnerships. Yet, as the space for formal diplomacy shrinks, maintaining a global presence will require creativity, persistence, and support from like-minded partners.

Perhaps the situation echoes a much older observation about power and principle in international affairs. Ideals like fairness and sovereignty are often invoked, but outcomes are frequently shaped by influence and leverage. Taiwan’s experience is a reminder of that reality.

As for now, Taiwan has no other option but to agree with Plato, who said, “Do not expect justice where might is right.”

Samir Bhattacharya is an Associate Fellow at the Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi. Views expressed are personal