Today’s summit between US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Florida was long anticipated. The Taiwan Strait, the North Korean nuclear crisis, the South China Sea sovereignty disputes and the US trade deficit with China will top the agenda.
However, the outcome of this first meeting will be more symbolic than substantial. Both nations have increasingly found each other to be geopolitical competitors at all levels.
Ever since former Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平) launched economic reforms in 1978, the US-China relationship has been stable. Deng adopted a pro-US foreign policy and incentivized multinationals and overseas Chinese investors to establish joint ventures. China was eager to join the IMF, World Bank and WTO to attract more foreign investments.
In the 1980s and 1990s, China benefitted immensely from the US-dominated international order, using it to drive the country’s modernization. For Deng, economic concerns took precedence over ideological and political concerns. His successor, Jiang Zemin (江澤民), continued on the same path of reform and pro-Western foreign policy.
However, that all changed after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on US soil. Under former US presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, US military power around the world was spread thin as Washington fought several regional wars at once. Worse, the US’ failure to stabilize Afghanistan and Iraq, and to denuclearize North Korea and Iran, undermined its image as the hegemonic superpower.
Meanwhile, China quickly repositioned itself to fill the leadership vacuum left by the US. In 2013, Xi launched the “One Belt, One Road” initiative as a new international strategy, building a multilateral world and integrating neighboring states into a China-centric economic system. The “One Belt, One Road” plans have not only energized local Chinese officials and entrepreneurs to explore new commercial opportunities in the developing world, but also strengthened Chinese ties with Central Asia, Southeast Asia, the Middle East and Africa.
Against this backdrop, the North Korean nuclear crisis enabled China to play a larger role in regional politics. China supported North Korea because of the necessity to defend its northeast frontier against US forces in South Korea and Japan.
In response, the US pursued a two-pronged strategy of military containment and diplomatic engagement of China. Seeking to create room for a constructive partnership, Bush and Obama often turned to Beijing for diplomatic assistance in an effort to marginalize Pyongyang. Yet this partnership failed to make North Korea suspend its nuclear weapons program in exchange for aid.
Apparently feeling confident that the US is now better positioned to manage a fractured world, Trump has put the military option back on the table and is testing Chinese tolerance of threats of use of force against North Korean nuclear facilities. If China cannot bring the US and North Korea to the negotiating table, it might have to deal with the negative spillover effects of another Korean war on its northeastern border.
Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, China has been striving to replace the Cold War international order with a new order in Northeast Asia, at the expense of US power. Beijing appears to support US sanctions against North Korea in return for the suspension of US military aid to Taiwan. In this perspective, the Chinese response to the North Korean nuclear crisis has been part of a wider negotiation with the US over Taiwan. The challenge facing Trump is whether the US is willing to let Asia drift toward an emerging Chinese hegemon.
The complexity of the US-China relationship is therefore shaped as much by North Korean issues as by the situation across the Taiwan Strait. Like any other Asian country, Taiwan needs a stable and benign environment for its social and economic growth.
US-Taiwan relations are deep and multifaceted, and it is important for both sides to work on strengthening them. Taiwan ought to prioritize its own agendas in this highly fluid landscape of geopolitics. While the nation prides itself as an irresistible model of democratization for China, Hong Kong and Macau, it has to establish more formal and informal channels of communication with US policymakers, and convey its political and strategic concerns to Washington more effectively.
Joseph Tse-hei Lee is professor of history at Pace University in New York City.
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