The US-China relationship is entering a dangerous phase. So far, it has been a case of controlled management from both sides with probing signals testing boundaries.
The latest incident was the case of an underwater US drone operated by a US naval vessel carrying out research in international waters in the South China Sea, much of which China claims.
This is where China has claimed almost all of the contested islands and has formed artificial ones equipped with military facilities and structures.
The US is challenging Beijing’s control, with its ships seeking to exercise freedom of navigation through international waters.
Apparently, the drone in question was not on a dangerous mission and was said to be involved in scientific research. China seized the drone and the US demanded its return.
“It [the drone] is ours and it is clearly marked as ours, and we would like it back, and we would like this not to happen again,” a US Pentagon spokesman said.
China agreed to do this, putting its own spin on it.
A statement from the Chinese Ministry of National Defense sought to make the seizure of the drone — a piece of “unidentified equipment,” as it called it — a matter of checking on navigational safety.
“China decided to return it to the US side in an appropriate manner, and China and the US have all along been in communication about it,” the ministry said.
However, it added: “During this process, the US side’s unilateral and open hyping up is inappropriate and is not beneficial to the smooth resolution of the issue.”
There was also the significant rider that China was “resolutely opposed” to the long-standing surveillance “in the presence of” Chinese waters by US ships and aircraft. In other words, the drone was operated in Chinese waters by a US naval vessel and next time China might not be so sanguine.
It was reported in some Western media that although the US drone and surveillance program is unclassified, the US is increasingly relying on the oceanographic data supplied by such machines to help track China’s growing and increasingly sophisticated fleet of submarines. In other words, next time around it might create a more serious incident.
Next time, it will be US president-elect Donald Trump’s administration that deals with the situation. If Trump’s remarks on Twitter about the incident are any guide to his future actions, they will be more colorful than those of the present US administration.
“China steals United States Navy research drone in international waters — rips it out of water and takes it to China in unprecedented act,” Trump said on Twitter.
In addition, Trump did not seem keen on getting it back.
Beijing’s reaction to this has not been spelled out. China is probably waiting for Trump to take over as US president before it comes to any definite conclusion.
However, it did react, initially in a measured and diplomatic way, to the telephone conversation Trump had with President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文), in which she congratulated him on his election victory. This seemed to overturn the “one China” principle that has been the foundation of US-China diplomatic ties since the late 1970s.
The two countries established formal diplomatic relations in 1979.
Beijing lodged “stern representations,” urging the US to adhere to the “one China” principle and “prudently” handle affairs in relation to Taiwan.
Indeed, initially they even tried to blame it on Tsai, with the Chinese minister of foreign affairs suggesting the telephone call was the result of Taiwan’s “petty tricks.”
When Trump was criticized both at home and in China over the telephone conversation, he reacted characteristically sharply, first toward his critics in the US and then toward China.
He said that the initiative for the call came from Tsai and that it was a courtesy call. He also questioned what he described as the double standards of his domestic critics, asking why decades of US military arms sales to Taiwan had not attracted such scrutiny.
As for China’s protests, he responded with more tweets, saying he would not be told by Beijing whom he should and should not talk to.
In any case, China did not ask the US about its policies that impinged on crucial US interests and Trump pointed this out.
“Did China ask us if it was OK to devalue their currency (making it hard for our companies to compete), heavily tax our products going into their country or to build a massive military complex in the middle of the South China Sea? I don’t think so,” Trump wrote on Twitter.
This was followed by an interview on Fox News in which Trump questioned the rationale of the US’ Taiwan policy.
“I don’t know why we have to be bound by a ‘one China’ policy unless we make a deal with China having to do with other things, including trade,” Trump said. “We’re being hurt very badly by China with devaluation; with taxing us heavy at the borders when we don’t tax them; with building a massive fortress in the middle of the South China Sea, which they shouldn’t be doing; and, frankly, with not helping us at all with North Korea.”
This is the Trump who wants to run US-China relations, or any other foreign policy issue, as transactions or deals with give and take to maximize US gains.
As he sees it, in US-China relations the US is giving away almost everything without getting anything in return. Therefore, if he means what he says, the US’ China policy would appear to be in a for a major overhaul, including China’s “core” issue of Taiwan.
By raising these issues, Trump is seeking to create substantial leverage — and Taiwan is that — to refashion relations with China.
Was it an impulsive or irrational response to put the Taiwan issue once again into the limelight by Trump accepting a telephone call from Tsai?
According to some accounts it was calculated and well thought through.
It has caught China off guard. It had thought, according to some accounts emanating from China, that the incoming Trump administration would be too preoccupied with the nation’s parlous domestic situation, hopefully giving China even more political space to strengthen its international stature, particularly in the South China Sea and elsewhere in the Asia-Pacific region.
However, now China might have to go back to the drawing board to figure out the contours of the new US policy. That policy might become more pro-active than reactive, with Trump’s close advisers on foreign and defense affairs sharing his slogan of “Making America Great Again.”
Will China go on the retreat?
Going by the thrust of China’s policy so far — of standing by its “core interests” of Taiwan and the South China Sea — Beijing is unlikely to retreat and there might be some stormy times ahead.
Sushil Seth is a commentator based in Australia.
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US