China is angry at the US for selling defensive weapons to Taiwan. The US has also incurred China’s displeasure by continuing to treat the Dalai Lama with consideration and regard, as seen by the recent meeting between the Tibetan leader and US President Barack Obama, which went ahead despite China’s protests.
Let us consider Taiwan first.
China always protests whenever the US sells weapons to Taiwan, but this time there is a difference. Its tone is much harsher, threatening the US with unspecified consequences over its bilateral relationship with Taiwan.
However, the US is only doing what it has done in the past, namely fulfilling its obligation under the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979 to sell weapons to defend Taiwan against any military attack from China.
This is even more relevant today as China continues to increase its deployment of missiles targeting Taiwan. Experts estimate this deployment already exceeds 1,000 missiles, and these cannot possibly be meant to defend China from Taiwan.
Beijing contends that Taiwan belongs to China, and the US is interfering in its internal affairs. In other words, the US should accept its claim to sovereignty over Taiwan.
This is a dangerous way for China to pursue its objective, as the choice it presents to Taiwan is to either accept Chinese sovereignty or face the consequences of a military attack. The Taiwan Relations Act was meant precisely to ward off such an eventuality.
Washington does not have any objection to peaceful unification based on the will of the people of Taiwan. But China is opposed to any exercise of popular mandate in Taiwan, rightly fearing that Taiwanese prefer to remain a sovereign nation while pursuing peaceful relations with China, over the entire range of supposed benefits from reunification.
Beijing has pre-empted this possibility, as far as it is concerned, by unilaterally declaring Taiwan to be part of China and passing domestic legislation to that effect.
In other words, any formal declaration of sovereignty by Taiwan will lead to its forcible annexation by China.
The main obstacle in China’s path is the US and the Taiwan Relations Act, which commits the US to help defend Taiwan against a Chinese invasion.
It is therefore unsurprising that Beijing protests every time Taiwan procures US weapons, but this time China is being more belligerent.
For instance, it has threatened trade sanctions against US companies involved in the sale of weapons to Taiwan.
This can perhaps be explained by a growing belief in China that the US is a declining power and is therefore more easily pushed around.
Snubbing the US is also a convenient way of asserting China’s great power status.
A recent example was seen at the Copenhagen climate change conference when the Chinese premier failed to attend an event hosted by Obama.
Whether or not the US is a declining power is academic because even with its many problems, the US remains the world’s largest economy and its pre-eminent military power. As such, for China to treat the US in such a cavalier fashion could be both dangerous and counterproductive.
In the case of Taiwan, Beijing might conclude that its new international status and military power are deterrent enough for the US to stay out of any cross-strait conflict. But for China to overestimate its power relative to that of the US could turn out to be a costly strategic blunder.
Another issue, which has infuriated China, is the consideration shown to the Dalai Lama, particular his recent meeting with Obama.
As in the case of US arms sales to Taiwan, China has recently stepped up its rhetoric and adopted a more belligerent tone.
For China, the Dalai Lama is a traitor to the motherland and a monk in wolf’s clothing.
By any dispassionate analysis, though, China appears terribly paranoid about the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan issue.
In all the on-off meetings between the Dalai Lama’s representatives and the Chinese side, his delegation has done little more than press for greater autonomy for Tibet.
The extent of that autonomy is likely to be determined by China’s ability to accommodate the Tibetan leader. In other words, there is no disagreement on the core issue of China’s sovereignty, as China will continue to control Tibet’s defense and foreign policies as well as the issuance of Chinese currency.
The crux of the matter is that Beijing doesn’t trust the Dalai Lama.
The Dalai Lama is 74 and the Chinese are wishing him an early ascension to heaven because that will allow them to appoint their own Dalai Lama, which it is hoped will finally resolve the Tibetan problem once and for all.
They consider him the source of all China’s problems on Tibet, an instigator of unrest in the region as well as an important rallying point for world support.
During his recent Australian tour, the Dalai Lama gave some inkling as to the future shape of the Tibetan movement in exile.
In an informal chat with an Australian journalist, Joyce Morgan, he said that, in the short term (while he is still alive) it might be possible to appoint a senior figure as an interim leader just “like a deputy Dalai Lama.”
He maintained, though, that no decision has yet been made.
Regarding the future (his re-incarnation after his death), the Dalai Lama said that since the very purpose of reincarnation is to continue the unfinished work of the previous incarnation, it is only logical that he will be born in exile to continue his unfinished work. In other words, the Dalai Lama is already working to de-legitimize China’s plans to appoint his successor after his death.
Considering his enormous moral authority, China will be forced to wrestle with the Tibetan question for the foreseeable future.
On the other hand, given that the Dalai Lama is so keen to resolve the Tibetan issue on the basis of autonomy — with Tibet remaining part of China — it makes more sense for Beijing to seek a resolution to the issue while he is still alive.
In other words, in the case of both Taiwan and Tibet, China’s problems are self-inflicted, based on chauvinism, paranoia and stubbornness. Blaming the US for its own mistakes only serves to complicate matters even more.
Sushil Seth is a writer based in Australia.
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) challenges and ignores the international rules-based order by violating Taiwanese airspace using a high-flying drone: This incident is a multi-layered challenge, including a lawfare challenge against the First Island Chain, the US, and the world. The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) defines lawfare as “controlling the enemy through the law or using the law to constrain the enemy.” Chen Yu-cheng (陳育正), an associate professor at the Graduate Institute of China Military Affairs Studies, at Taiwan’s Fu Hsing Kang College (National Defense University), argues the PLA uses lawfare to create a precedent and a new de facto legal
Chile has elected a new government that has the opportunity to take a fresh look at some key aspects of foreign economic policy, mainly a greater focus on Asia, including Taiwan. Still, in the great scheme of things, Chile is a small nation in Latin America, compared with giants such as Brazil and Mexico, or other major markets such as Colombia and Argentina. So why should Taiwan pay much attention to the new administration? Because the victory of Chilean president-elect Jose Antonio Kast, a right-of-center politician, can be seen as confirming that the continent is undergoing one of its periodic political shifts,
In the first year of his second term, US President Donald Trump continued to shake the foundations of the liberal international order to realize his “America first” policy. However, amid an atmosphere of uncertainty and unpredictability, the Trump administration brought some clarity to its policy toward Taiwan. As expected, bilateral trade emerged as a major priority for the new Trump administration. To secure a favorable trade deal with Taiwan, it adopted a two-pronged strategy: First, Trump accused Taiwan of “stealing” chip business from the US, indicating that if Taipei did not address Washington’s concerns in this strategic sector, it could revisit its Taiwan
Taiwan’s long-term care system has fallen into a structural paradox. Staffing shortages have led to a situation in which almost 20 percent of the about 110,000 beds in the care system are vacant, but new patient admissions remain closed. Although the government’s “Long-term Care 3.0” program has increased subsidies and sought to integrate medical and elderly care systems, strict staff-to-patient ratios, a narrow labor pipeline and rising inflation-driven costs have left many small to medium-sized care centers struggling. With nearly 20,000 beds forced to remain empty as a consequence, the issue is not isolated management failures, but a far more
RSS