The rationale behind this strategy is multifaceted and deeply calculated. A blockade, though aggressive, offers a slew of advantages that make it a more appealing option for Beijing compared to the risks of a full-scale invasion.

First and foremost, the lower risk profile of a blockade is paramount. Engaging in a direct invasion of Taiwan would undoubtedly result in significant military and civilian casualties, a scenario that Beijing is keen to avoid. Taiwan’s growing defense capabilities, bolstered by support from the United States, mean that any invasion would be met with fierce resistance. This resistance would likely escalate into a prolonged and bloody conflict, jeopardizing regional stability and international economic interests.

In contrast, a blockade can be executed with precision and less immediate loss of life. By positioning naval and air assets strategically around Taiwan, the PLA can effectively cut off essential supply lines and cripple Taiwan’s economy without engaging in direct combat. This form of economic strangulation puts immense pressure on Taipei while avoiding the international backlash that would accompany an outright invasion.

The element of surprise and the short duration of exercises like Joint Sword-2024A also play to Beijing’s advantage. Rapid, low-intensity actions leave little room for Washington or Tokyo to respond effectively. The swift nature of these operations makes it difficult for international forces to mobilize and intervene, thus limiting their capacity to thwart Beijing’s maneuvers.

Moreover, the psychological impact of a blockade should not be underestimated. By demonstrating its capability to isolate Taiwan, Beijing sends a powerful message not just to Taipei but to the world. It showcases China’s resolve and military prowess without the devastation of war. This form of coercion is designed to instill fear and uncertainty within Taiwan’s populace and leadership, potentially driving them towards concessions or a reevaluation of their stance on independence.

From an economic standpoint, a blockade disrupts but does not obliterate. While it poses significant risks to cross-strait intermediary trade, it allows Beijing to maintain a semblance of normalcy in its broader international economic engagements. The global community, though likely to impose sanctions, would be less inclined to respond with the same severity as they would to an invasion, preserving some economic stability for China.

The political calculus is also crucial. A blockade skirts the line of aggression without crossing into the territory of war, which could force the United States into a direct military response under the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979. This strategic ambiguity works in Beijing’s favor, creating a scenario that complicates decision-making for Washington and its allies. By keeping the conflict at a simmer rather than a boil, Beijing can manage the international fallout more effectively.

Another significant factor is the internal dynamic within Taiwan. The PLA’s blockade drills, while showcasing military might, also aim to fracture the resolve of Taiwan’s government and its citizens. The constant threat of economic isolation and military encirclement can lead to internal dissent, weakening the island’s political cohesion and making it more susceptible to Beijing’s demands.

Furthermore, this strategy aligns with Beijing’s broader geopolitical objectives. Normalizing blockade maneuvers, as seen in recent years, allows China to establish a new status quo. These repeated exercises condition the international community to view such actions as routine, reducing the likelihood of a strong retaliatory response when an exercise transitions to an actual blockade.

The backdrop to this strategy is Beijing’s unwavering stance on Taiwan. Despite global diplomatic nuances, China remains resolute that Taiwan is an inalienable part of its territory, to be reunited by force if necessary. The drills and blockades serve as a constant reminder of this claim, reinforcing Beijing’s position both domestically and internationally.

As William Lai took office, advocating for the status quo yet pledging to enhance ties with the mainland, Beijing’s response was swift and unequivocal. The Joint Sword-2024A exercises are a testament to China’s readiness to exert its influence and maintain pressure on Taiwan, leveraging military might without crossing the threshold into war.

In the end, the preference for a blockade over armed conflict is a masterstroke of strategic restraint. It leverages the might of the PLA to exert maximum pressure with minimal cost, keeping Beijing firmly in control of the situation. This calculated approach underscores the complexities of cross-strait relations and the delicate balance of power in the region. As the world watches, the lessons from Joint Sword-2024A are clear: in the chess game of geopolitics, sometimes the most potent moves are those that avoid direct confrontation, ensuring victory through strategic superiority rather than brute force.