Analytics and Reports, China Analytics, Country Analytics, Military Analytics

Why China Hesitates to Invade Taiwan: Historical and Strategic Insights

The persistent autonomy of Taiwan remains the most significant unresolved legacy of the Chinese Civil War and a central tension in the contemporary international order. For over seven decades, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has maintained that the “reunification” of the island is an inevitable historical necessity, yet it has never attempted a full-scale military invasion. This strategic holding back is not the result of a single deterrent but emerges from a complex, evolving matrix of military limitations, geographic barriers, economic interdependencies, and shifting geopolitical alignments. From the perspective of national security, foreign affairs, and intelligence analysts, the absence of a cross-Strait conflict is a testament to an elaborate architecture of deterrence that has successfully balanced China’s ideological ambitions against the catastrophic risks of failure. Understanding why China has never acted—and why it continues to exercise restraint despite rising tensions—requires a granular examination of historical impediments, current operational challenges, and the internal political calculus of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).

The Historical Anomaly: Foundations of Failure and Early Constraints

The question of why China has “never” taken Taiwan back begins with the immediate aftermath of the CCP’s victory on the mainland in 1949. At the conclusion of the Chinese Civil War, the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) was a formidable land force but lacked the rudimentary naval and aerial assets required to project power across the 100-mile-wide Taiwan Strait.1 While the Nationalist Government under Chiang Kai-shek had fled to the island in a state of disarray, the PRC was similarly exhausted and possessed no specialized amphibious landing craft or long-range transport vessels.

The initial failure was largely a matter of timing and global geopolitical shifts. In early 1950, the Truman administration in the United States had signaled a posture of non-intervention, famously excluding Taiwan from the U.S. “defense perimeter” in the Western Pacific.1 However, the outbreak of the Korean War in June 1950 fundamentally altered the strategic landscape. Fearful that the conflict would expand and threaten the security of the Pacific, the United States deployed its Seventh Fleet to the Taiwan Strait to “neutralize” the waterway.1 This intervention effectively froze the conflict, forcing Mao Zedong to divert the massive invasion force gathered in Fujian province to the Korean front, where they would eventually engage U.S. forces in a bloody stalemate.2

The Era of Cold War Stalemate

Throughout the 1950s and 1960s, China’s ability to “take back” Taiwan was constrained by a formal U.S. security umbrella. The 1954 Sino-American Mutual Defense Treaty and the subsequent 1955 Formosa Resolution granted the U.S. President broad authority to use military force to defend the Republic of China (ROC).2 These documents were not mere rhetorical gestures; they were backed by the deployment of nuclear-capable assets and a permanent naval presence that the fledgling PLA Navy could not hope to challenge.1

Historical PeriodPrimary Strategic ConstraintPLA Capability LevelU.S. Policy Posture
1949–1950Lack of naval transport/air coverPrimitive amphibious capacityInitial non-intervention/disengagement 2
1950–1954Korean War/Seventh Fleet deploymentDiverted to land-based theaterStrategic containment 1
1954–1979U.S. Mutual Defense TreatyCoastal artillery/limited patrolFormal alliance with ROC 4
1979–1995Normalization and Economic ReformFocus on internal developmentStrategic Ambiguity (TRA) 6
1995–1996Third Strait Crisis/U.S. Carrier presenceEarly modernization/Missile testsActive deterrence/Carrier deployment 7

The two major crises of this era—the First (1954–1955) and Second (1958) Taiwan Strait Crises—demonstrated the PRC’s limited options. In both instances, the PLA resorted to heavy artillery bombardment of offshore islands like Jinmen (Quemoy) and Mazu but stopped short of an assault on Taiwan itself.2 These operations were intended as political signals and tests of U.S. resolve rather than serious attempts at territorial conquest. The CCP leadership understood that any attempt to cross the Strait would likely result in the total destruction of their nascent navy and possibly a nuclear exchange with the United States.2

The Diplomatic Architecture of Constraint: 1979 to the Present

The nature of the restraint shifted fundamentally in 1979 when the United States normalized relations with the PRC and terminated its formal defense treaty with Taiwan. To maintain regional stability, the U.S. Congress passed the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA), which replaced the formal alliance with a policy of “Strategic Ambiguity”.4 This framework was designed to deter Beijing from using force while simultaneously discouraging Taipei from declaring formal independence.5

The TRA established several critical barriers to invasion that persist to this day. It mandated that the United States provide Taiwan with “arms of a defensive character” and declared that any effort to determine Taiwan’s future by other than peaceful means would be a threat to the peace and security of the Western Pacific and of “grave concern” to the U.S..4 This created a “Goldilocks zone” of stability: China knew that an invasion would likely trigger a U.S. response, but it also knew that as long as Taiwan did not declare independence, it could focus on internal economic development without facing a permanent loss of the island.5

The 1996 Watershed and Modernization

The Third Taiwan Strait Crisis (1995–1996) served as a modern catalyst for China’s ongoing military modernization. Triggered by a visit of Taiwanese President Lee Teng-hui to the United States, the PRC conducted large-scale missile tests in the waters surrounding Taiwan to intimidate the electorate.3 The U.S. response—the deployment of two aircraft carrier strike groups, the USS Nimitz and the USS Independence—was a humiliating reminder of China’s military inferiority.1

Intelligence analysts suggest that this crisis convinced the CCP that it could never truly “resolve” the Taiwan issue until it possessed the capability to deny the U.S. Navy access to the Western Pacific.12 Since then, China has embarked on a decades-long modernization program focused on Anti-Access/Area Denial (A2/AD) systems, including quiet submarines, long-range anti-ship missiles, and advanced cyberwarfare capabilities.8 Yet, despite this massive buildup, the PLA continues to hold back, as the risks of failure remain prohibitively high.

Geographic Determinism: Why Terrain Favors the Defender

One of the most underappreciated reasons why China has never invaded is the sheer physical difficulty of the task. An invasion of Taiwan would likely be the largest and most complex military operation in human history, exceeding the difficulty of the 1944 D-Day landings.9 The geography of the Taiwan Strait and the island itself serves as a natural fortress.

The Taiwan Strait is a perilous environment for amphibious operations. It is roughly 70 to 110 nautical miles wide and subject to extreme weather, including typhoons and high seas, which limit the viable windows for an invasion to just two small periods each year (roughly April and October).1 Crossing this “moat” requires thousands of vessels that would be highly visible to modern satellite and aerial reconnaissance weeks before an attack began, eliminating the possibility of tactical surprise.9

The Barrier of the “Red Beaches” and the Rice Paddy Problem

Taiwan’s 770-mile-long coastline is remarkably unsuited for amphibious landings. Only a small number of “red beaches” are capable of supporting the heavy armor and high volumes of troops required for an invasion.9 These few viable landing sites are heavily fortified and backed by challenging terrain.

The western coast, where the most suitable beaches are located, is dominated by dense urban centers or vast, marshy rice paddies.9 Modern military vehicles, essential for a rapid breakout from a beachhead, cannot operate effectively in these flooded fields; they become mired in the mud (“tanks don’t go where the cattails grow”).9 This forces invading armor onto elevated highways and narrow surface roads, where they become easy targets for roadblocks, ambushes, and precision-guided munitions.9 Furthermore, if the lead vehicle in a column is destroyed, the rest of the unit is effectively trapped with no room to maneuver or bypass the wreckage.9

Terrain FeatureTactical Challenge for PLADefensive Advantage for Taiwan
Taiwan Strait (70–110nm)Perilous weather/High visibilityEarly warning/Missile interdiction 13
770-mile CoastlineLimited “Red Beaches”Concentrated coastal fortifications 9
Western Rice PaddiesMud/Inability to maneuver armorChanneling attackers onto highways 9
Central Mountain RangeHigh-altitude, rugged terrainNatural cover for guerrilla/protracted war 9
Dense Urban AreasHigh-casualty street fighting“Costly endeavor” for occupiers 9

The Amphibious Deficit: Sealift Capacity and Civilian Integration

Intelligence assessments consistently highlight a critical gap in the PLA’s ability to take Taiwan: a massive shortfall in organic sealift capacity. While the PLA Navy (PLAN) has expanded rapidly, its dedicated amphibious fleet is currently estimated to have the capacity to move only about 20,000 to 60,000 troops simultaneously. A successful invasion of a defended island of 23 million people would likely require between 300,000 and over one million troops in multiple waves of landings.

To bridge this “gap,” the PLA has increasingly experimented with the use of civilian vessels. In 2025, exercises featured civilian roll-on/roll-off (RORO) ferries and deck cargo ships unloading military vehicles directly onto beaches using specialized temporary pier systems and extendable bridge barges.16 However, national security analysts point out that these civilian platforms are highly vulnerable “soft targets.” They lack the structural hardening, damage control, and defensive systems of naval vessels, making them easy prey for Taiwan’s increasingly sophisticated arsenal of asymmetric weapons, such as swarming drones and mobile anti-ship missiles.16

The PLA’s reliance on civilian ships also introduces significant organizational friction. Coordinating a joint operation involving thousands of merchant sailors and diverse vessel types under combat conditions is a massive logistical challenge that has never been tested in a real-world conflict. If the initial wave of high-end naval assets were destroyed, the follow-on civilian waves would likely face unsustainable losses before even reaching the shore.16

Economic Interdependence and the “Silicon Shield”

For much of the 1980s through the 2010s, China was restrained by powerful economic incentives. This dynamic is often summarized by the “Silicon Shield”—the idea that Taiwan’s dominant role in the global semiconductor supply chain makes the costs of war prohibitively high for everyone, including Beijing.

Taiwan produces over 60 percent of the world’s semiconductors and over 90 percent of its most advanced logic chips. These components are the “brains” of the modern world, essential for everything from smartphones and automobiles to the most sophisticated artificial intelligence systems and military hardware.20 The Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) is not just a company; it is a strategic asset of global importance.

The Logic of Mutually Assured Economic Destruction (MAED)

The “Silicon Shield” acts as a deterrent because the facilities (fabs) required to produce these chips are incredibly fragile and integrated into a global supply chain that China cannot replicate or seize. In the event of a conflict, these fabs would likely be destroyed or rendered inoperable, either through physical combat, sabotage, or the evacuation of essential personnel to the United States or Europe.

The resulting disruption would trigger a global economic depression. Because China is more integrated into the global economy than any other major power—and is the world’s largest consumer of semiconductors—the impact on its own economy would be catastrophic. An invasion would not just mean a war with Taiwan and the United States; it would mean the total disruption of the global trade system that has fueled China’s “national rejuvenation” for four decades.

Chip Type/MarketTaiwan Market ShareGlobal SignificanceDeterrent Effect
All Semiconductors>60%Foundational to global GDPHigh; economic suicide to destroy 22
Advanced (<10nm)>90%Essential for AI/Defense/CloudAbsolute; no current alternatives 22
China’s Import Dependence~$400B/yearFuel for tech/manufacturing sectorRestrains aggressive decoupling 22

However, analysts warn that this shield is being eroded. As the United States pushes for “chip nationalism” and the onshoring of manufacturing (such as TSMC’s Arizona fabs), and as China pursues its “Digital China” strategy for self-sufficiency, the belief that “everyone loses” may slowly give way to a calculus where China believes it can weather the storm.

Xi Jinping’s Strategic Calculus: Why Hold Back Now?

If the historical and structural reasons for restraint are clear, the question of why China is holding back “now” is more complex. Under President Xi Jinping, China has become significantly more powerful and assertive. Xi has framed unification as a “core interest” that cannot be passed down from generation to generation and has reportedly instructed the PLA to be ready for a successful invasion by 2027.9

Despite this rhetoric, several immediate factors currently restrain Beijing as of January 2026:

1. The Risk of Military Failure and Regime Survival

The most potent restraint is the fear of failure. A failed invasion would be a humiliating and possibly career-ending experience for Xi Jinping and a potential existential threat to the CCP’s grip on power.8 For an army that has not fought a major war since 1979, an operation of this magnitude is a colossal gamble.8 The PLA’s military leadership and readiness have been called into question by a series of high-level purges continuing into late 2025 and January 2026, which saw the removal of senior generals within the Rocket Force and the Central Military Commission.26 These purges signal to the top leadership that internal reporting may be unreliable and that critical systems may be compromised by corruption.28

2. Economic Headwinds and Social Stability

China enters 2026 facing its own internal economic challenges, including a fragile property sector, high youth unemployment, and a declining population. The CCP’s legitimacy rests on its ability to deliver economic growth. A war over Taiwan would almost certainly trigger massive international sanctions, disrupt energy imports, and lead to domestic unrest. In the current environment, the leadership prioritizes regime stability over risky military adventurism.

3. The Failure of the “Hong Kong Model”

For years, Beijing hoped to “lure” Taiwan into unification using the “One Country, Two Systems” model.8 The 2020 clampdown in Hong Kong effectively killed this notion in Taiwan, uniting the Taiwanese public against any form of association with the mainland.8 With peaceful options failing, Beijing is forced to rely on coercion, yet it remains hesitant to pull the trigger because forced unification offers no clear path to a stable post-war Taiwan.26

Lessons from Modern Conflicts: Ukraine and the “Maduro” Factor

The PLA is a “learning military” that closely monitors global conflicts to refine its own doctrine. The ongoing war in Ukraine and the recent U.S. operations in Venezuela have provided critical “lessons learned” influencing China’s 2026 strategy.

The war in Ukraine has underscored the difficulty of a quick victory against a motivated defender supported by Western intelligence. Key takeaways for the PLA include:

  • The Drone Revolution: The effectiveness of cheap drones has led the PLA to accelerate its own drone carrier development, such as the Jiutian, which debuted in late 2025.19
  • Resilient Logistics: The failure of Russian logistics has prompted the PLA to invest in “intelligent” rail systems to protect sustainment lines.
  • C2 and Starlink: The role of Starlink has forced China to prioritize its own low-Earth orbit satellite constellations to prevent communication blackouts.

The Venezuela Lesson: Decapitation Operations

National security analysts have observed that China is taking operational lessons from the January 3, 2026 U.S. capture of former Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro in Operation Absolute Resolve. The PRC has simulated “decapitation” strikes against Taiwan’s political leadership, believing that neutralizing key figures could lead to a collapse of resistance.32 However, the success of the U.S. surgical strike—which involved 150 aircraft and resulted in no U.S. deaths—highlights a technological gap between U.S. and Chinese precision capabilities, particularly against Taiwan’s U.S.-supplied air defenses.

Why They Don’t Give Up: The Ideology of National Rejuvenation

If the costs are so high and the risks so great, why does China not simply give up?

  1. Core National Interest: Taiwan is central to the CCP’s narrative of overturning the “Century of Humiliation”.5
  2. Geopolitical Imperative: Control of Taiwan would allow China to break the “First Island Chain,” giving the PLAN unrestricted access to the deep Pacific.15
  3. Ideological Threat: A successful, democratic Chinese society on Taiwan is a permanent challenge to the CCP’s authoritarian model.14

The Shift to Gray-Zone Coercion: Winning Without Fighting

Because the thresholds for an invasion are currently too high, China has pivoted to a strategy of “Gray-Zone” coercion designed to gradually erode Taiwan’s sovereignty.18

  • ADIZ and Median Line Violations: Frequent military sorties across the Taiwan Strait median line reached a peak during the “Justice Mission 2025” drills (late December 2025), where 130 PLA aircraft were detected in a single 24-hour period, with 90 crossing the median line.
  • Cognitive Warfare: China uses disinformation to polarize Taiwanese politics, exploiting recent constitutional crises and legislative gridlock.32
  • Undersea Cable Sabotage: Taiwan faced repeated incidents where cables were cut by Chinese-linked vessels, a test of the island’s communication redundancy.16
  • Salami-Slicing Sovereignty: The PLA flew a WZ-7 “Soaring Dragon” surveillance drone over Pratas (Dongsha) Island on January 17, 2026, the first such violation of territorial airspace in decades, designed to test Taiwan’s response limits.33
Gray-Zone TacticStrategic GoalImpact on Taiwan (2025–2026)
ADIZ/Median IncursionsForce fatigue/Erase buffers130 aircraft/90 crossings in 24 hrs
Cable CuttingCommunication vulnerabilityPeriodic internet/comms blackouts 16
Decapitation DrillsPsychological intimidation“Justice Mission 2025” exercises 32
Drone OverflightsNormalization of airspace violationWZ-7 flights over Pratas (Jan 2026) 33

Conclusion and Strategic Takeaways

The strategic stalemate in the Taiwan Strait is a result of a robust framework of deterrence. China has not invaded because the costs remain catastrophic. The “operational nightmare” of an amphibious assault, the “Silicon Shield,” and the certainty of international sanctions create a powerful incentive for patience.

Lessons for the Future

The lessons for 2026 are clear:

  1. Deterrence is Dynamic: Capability does not equal confidence. Internal purges in late 2025 highlight unresolved doubts about PLA readiness.28
  2. Geography is an Enduring Asset: Technology has not neutralized the defensive advantages of Taiwan’s terrain.9
  3. The “2027 Milestone” is a Capability Target: READY does not mean GO; the decision remains driven by Xi Jinping’s personal assessment of risk.13
  4. Gray-Zone Tactics are the Real Danger: The most probable scenario is a gradual collapse of political will through sustained gray-zone pressure rather than a “bolt from the blue” invasion.26

If you find this post useful, please share the link on Facebook, with your friends, etc. Your support is much appreciated and if you have any feedback, please email me at in**@*********ps.com. Please note that for links to other websites, we are only paid if there is an affiliate program such as Avantlink, Impact, Amazon and eBay and only if you purchase something. If you’d like to directly contribute towards our continued reporting, please visit our funding page.

Sources Used

  1. Crisis in the Taiwan Strait | Naval History – December 2024, Volume 38, Number 6, accessed January 31, 2026, https://www.usni.org/magazines/naval-history/2024/december/crisis-taiwan-strait
  2. The Taiwan Straits Crises: 1954–55 and 1958 – Office of the Historian, accessed January 31, 2026, https://history.state.gov/milestones/1953-1960/taiwan-strait-crises
  3. Taiwan Strait in the Shifting Geopolitical Landscape: Reviewing the Past, Paving the Path to Determine Better Future, accessed January 31, 2026, https://pacis.unpar.ac.id/can-money-buy-peoples-hearts-and-minds-review-of-cross-strait-economic-and-security-issues/
  4. Taiwan–United States relations – Wikipedia, accessed January 31, 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan%E2%80%93United_States_relations
  5. The Taiwan Strait Conflict – Origins osu.edu, accessed January 31, 2026, https://origins.osu.edu/read/taiwan-strait-conflict
  6. Taiwan: Relations with the United States – UK Parliament, accessed January 31, 2026, https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-9265/CBP-9265.pdf
  7. China’s Use of Force, 1950-96, and Taiwan – ResearchGate, accessed January 31, 2026, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265897108_China’s_Use_of_Force_1950-96_and_Taiwan
  8. The Question Why Would China Not Invade Taiwan Now?, accessed January 31, 2026, https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/Military-Review/English-Edition-Archives/September-October-2020/Wilsey-The-Question/
  9. Rethinking the Threat: Why China is Unlikely to Invade Taiwan …, accessed January 31, 2026, https://www.stimson.org/2025/rethinking-the-threat-why-china-is-unlikely-to-invade-taiwan/
  10. Taiwan Relations Act in a New Era of Security Cooperation, accessed January 31, 2026, https://www.fpri.org/article/2025/08/taiwan-relations-act-in-a-new-era-of-security-cooperation/
  11. Taiwan: Political and Security Issues – Congress.gov, accessed January 31, 2026, https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IF/PDF/IF10275/IF10275.62.pdf
  12. TARGET TAIWAN: CHALLENGES FOR A US INTERVENTION | Defense Priorities, accessed January 31, 2026, https://www.defensepriorities.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/DEFP_Target_Taiwan_Challenges_for_a_US_intervention.pdf
  13. Report to Congress on Taiwan Defense, Military Issues – USNI News, accessed January 31, 2026, https://news.usni.org/2025/07/29/report-to-congress-on-taiwan-defense-military-issues-2
  14. Rethinking the Threat: Why China is Unlikely to Invade Taiwan | Stimson Center, accessed January 31, 2026, https://www.stimson.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/Taiwan-Invasion-Realities_PDF.pdf
  15. The Art of Protracted War: A Taiwanese Insurgency the Maoist Way and the US Department of Defense’s Role – Air University, accessed January 31, 2026, https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/JIPA/Display/Article/4169901/the-art-of-protracted-war-a-taiwanese-insurgency-the-maoist-way-and-the-us-depa/
  16. China & Taiwan Update, November 25, 2025 | ISW, accessed January 31, 2026, https://understandingwar.org/research/china-taiwan/china-taiwan-update-november-25-2025/
  17. China in the Taiwan Strait: January 2025 | Council on Foreign …, accessed January 31, 2026, https://www.cfr.org/articles/china-taiwan-strait-january-2025
  18. Xi’s Taiwan scorecard: why 2026 is not the year | The Strategist, accessed January 31, 2026, https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/xis-taiwan-scorecard-why-2026-is-not-the-year/
  19. China & Taiwan Update, December 19, 2025 | ISW, accessed January 31, 2026, https://understandingwar.org/research/china-taiwan/china-taiwan-update-december-19-2025/
  20. The geopolitics of AI: After Venezuela, if the US attacks Iran, China can politically justify taking Taiwan, and thereby decide who gets TSMC’s chips. : r/agi – Reddit, accessed January 31, 2026, https://www.reddit.com/r/agi/comments/1qlo9ws/the_geopolitics_of_ai_after_venezuela_if_the_us/
  21. Vol. 04 No. 01. July-September 2025 Advance Social Science Archive Journal ADVANCE SOCIAL SCIENCE ARCHIVE JOURNAL Available Onli, accessed January 31, 2026, https://www.assajournal.com/index.php/36/article/download/847/1254
  22. Will Taiwan’s Silicon Shield protect it from China? – GIS Reports, accessed January 31, 2026, https://www.gisreportsonline.com/r/china-taiwan-silicon-shield/
  23. The Dragon and the Clock—2027 as the Turning Point Year Between China and Taiwan, accessed January 31, 2026, https://www.inss.org.il/publication/china-taiwan-2027/
  24. China Accelerates Modernization by Applying Lessons From Russia-Ukraine War, accessed January 31, 2026, https://g2webcontent.z2.web.core.usgovcloudapi.net/OEE/TIP/TiP_China_Accelerates_Modernization_16SEP25_anonymous.pdf
  25. Effective Counters for a Manageable Chinese Threat to U.S. National Security, accessed January 31, 2026, https://www.independent.org/article/2026/01/29/chinese-threat-national-security/
  26. Cross-Strait Tensions in 2025: Why Escalation Remains Unlikely …, accessed January 31, 2026, https://www.egmontinstitute.be/cross-strait-tensions-in-2025-why-escalation-remains-unlikely/
  27. Xi’s Taiwan Scorecard: Why 2026 Is Not the Year | RealClearDefense, accessed January 31, 2026, https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2026/01/15/xis_taiwan_scorecard_why_2026_is_not_the_year_1158860.html
  28. Xi’s military purge probably cuts imminent Taiwan war risk. Probably …, accessed January 31, 2026, https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/xis-military-purge-probably-cuts-imminent-taiwan-war-risk-probably/
  29. Preventing War in the Taiwan Strait | International Crisis Group, accessed January 31, 2026, https://www.crisisgroup.org/rpt/asia/north-east-asia/taiwan-strait-china/333-preventing-war-taiwan-strait
  30. What constrains and restrains China on Taiwan? | Lowy Institute, accessed January 31, 2026, https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/what-constrains-restrains-china-taiwan
  31. Full article: Peaceful Reunification or Else: Untangling the China-Taiwan Gordian Knot, accessed January 31, 2026, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10670564.2025.2564435
  32. China & Taiwan Update, January 9, 2026 | ISW, accessed January 31, 2026, https://understandingwar.org/research/china-taiwan/china-taiwan-update-january-9-2025/
  33. China & Taiwan Update, January 23, 2026 | ISW, accessed January 31, 2026, https://understandingwar.org/research/china-taiwan/china-taiwan-update-january-23-2026/
  34. The United States, China and Taiwan and the Role of Deterrence in Scenarios Short of War, accessed January 31, 2026, https://usa.embassy.gov.au/APCSS24