If China were an elementary-school student, its report card would read: “Does not play well with others; often tries to bully smaller children.”
Beijing does not like to play in a group where it cannot dictate the rules or the results. That seems to be the message from this week’s ASEAN+ meeting in Phnom Penh, Cambodia, where China once again rebuffed calls from the Philippines, Vietnam and others to agree to talks on operating in disputed areas of the South China Sea.
Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Fu Ying (傅瑩) was quoted as saying on Wednesday that Beijing would discuss a code of conduct in the South China Sea — that would be legally binding and comply with the UN’s Law of the Sea treaty — “when conditions are ripe,” which, reading between the lines, means when pigs can fly.
Beijing prefers one-on-one negotiations with its smaller neighbors where it can throw its weight around in the form of trade and political pressure. It does not want to have to face a united front of other countries, including Taiwan, that claim, either wholly or in part, islands, reefs and waters in the South China Sea.
The nationalistic slant is that China was once the victim of unequal treaties with Western powers and Japan and it will not allow itself to be put in that position again.
The problem is that the longer Beijing maintains that position, the less reason there is for the others to agree to wait and not try to work out something for themselves, particularly as China continues to demonstrate its reluctance to be governed by the rule of law when it comes to commercial disputes, whether on the private or national level.
Taiwanese companies and businesspeople have learned this the hard way, with Shin Kong Mitsukoshi Department Store Co the latest to downsize its investment in a joint venture in China in a bid to end years of disputes with its Chinese partner that saw the general manager of its Beijing operations detained by Chinese security a few years ago.
Think of all the stories recorded in recent years by Victims of Investment in China Association president William Kao (高為邦). Shen Po-sheng (沈柏勝), Chang Chiu-lin (張九麟) and countless other businesspeople have fallen foul of the dirty tricks adopted by their Chinese partners or local and municipal governments. Many sought redress in Chinese courts, with little to show for their belief in law. Others received physical threats to desist in their attempts to seek legal redress or even ended up in prison.
There have been calls in Taiwan for the government to speed up the inking of an investment protection pact with China to provide a legal framework to deal with such disputes, but it is not Taipei that has been dragging its feet in such negotiations, it is Beijing. There is also nothing to guarantee that such a framework would be worth the paper it is printed on.
For a framework to work there has to be a level playing field and that is the one thing that Beijing will never allow; in fact, it appears terrified of the idea.
So whether it is a small(ish) investment by an entrepreneur or a corporation or a nation seeking to explore and exploit the oil, gas, mineral or fishing rights in its own exclusive economic zone, the hard truth is that you cannot expect China to play by the rules.
Beijing is simply trying to drag out the matter while the People’s Liberation Army Navy expands, providing it with a bigger stick to try and enforce its point of view.
It is high time Taiwan, the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia and Brunei reached their own accords, whether via ASEAN or some other format, instead of waiting for China to decide to play.
The Comedy Club on Fuxing N Road in Taipei was vandalized with paint bombs mixed with feces on May 29, allegedly because one of its performers had satirized Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平). The incident has triggered concerns about the growing threat from China’s cross-border repression within Taiwan. On the day of the attack, a comedian surnamed Huang (黃), who is known for mocking Xi, was the headline performer. The Comedy Club founder said the assault was obviously politically motivated. China, which Freedom House said “conducts the most sophisticated, extensive and far-reaching campaign of transnational repression in the world,” has
China’s Taiwan Affairs Office spokesperson Zhu Fenglian (朱鳳蓮) at a press conference last week repeated the same, tired line, claiming that Taiwan’s future should be “decided jointly by the more than 1.4 billion Chinese people, including Taiwan compatriots.” The statement is absurd. Virtually every word is incorrect, with some parts mistaken to an astonishing degree. First, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never included Taiwan. When the Republic of China’s (ROC) original five-colored flag was established in 1912, Taiwan was still under Japanese rule. When the PRC was founded in 1949, Taiwan was under the control of president Chiang
Just before dawn on Jan. 17, a Chinese military drone crossed for the first time into Taiwanese airspace above a disputed coral reef in the South China Sea. The reconnaissance aircraft lingered over Pratas Island (Xisha Island, 西沙群島) for a few minutes, while Taipei issued warnings to leave over international radio frequencies. China said the flight was a “normal” training mission. Taiwan called it “provocative and irresponsible.” On the other side of the world, officials in Europe saw the maneuver as part of a long-term Chinese plan to salami-slice away Taiwanese control over its territory and, eventually, force its unification with China. EU officials
Following the outbreak of conflict in Iran, TikTok was flooded with videos targeting Taiwanese users. Many featured artificial intelligence (AI)-generated anchors posing as Taiwanese broadcasters with localized traditional Chinese subtitles. The videos warned of imminent social collapse due to liquefied natural gas shortages, blamed the Democratic Progressive Party and its alleged failed energy policies for a fabricated crisis, and used recycled footage from unrelated events to create the impression Taiwan stood on the edge of systemic breakdown. By saturating the information environment with falsehoods or selectively edited material designed to trigger emotional responses, malign actors can exploit cognitive vulnerabilities and
RSS