From the US’ statement following the talks between US President Donald Trump and Chinese President XI Jinping (習近平), it seems that Taiwan was not brought up and Trump said nothing damaging to the nation’s interests.
This was a weight off the minds of many in Taiwan who were concerned about Trump’s cross-strait policy.
However, that was just the first hurdle and things could change. There will be more such tests.
At the meeting in Florida, Trump, a political neophyte, and Xi, who has more than four years of experience as China’s leader under his belt, were essentially taking the measure of each other.
Trump’s team was insufficiently prepared and was keen to avoid any major decisions being made. There were no major substantive results from the meeting; the only real agreement was the establishment of a new high-level dialogue mechanism to replace the US-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue.
The mechanism enabled high-level representatives to meet annually to discuss important global strategic and economic issues, with the location alternating between Washington and Beijing. The new format is to consist of four consultation mechanisms concerning security and diplomacy; economics and trade; law enforcement and cybersecurity; and societal and people-to-people exchanges.
The meeting was about both sides aiming to come out looking good for their domestic audiences. It was an orchestrated performance.
In terms of establishing a relationship, the two men can be said to have been successful. Xi, not long after Trump took office and a few months before a key Chinese Communist Party congress, visited the US, was entertained at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort and got his host to pull back on some of the negative comments and attitudes he had displayed toward China prior to taking office. That saved a lot of face for Xi, who found himself with a sure footing.
Trump, despite not getting immediate concessions from China on trade, North Korea or the South China Sea, did score points by ordering a missile attack on Syria during a banquet. He informed Xi of the situation and in a post-meeting joint statement made it appear as if the action was endorsed by the Chinese side, putting Xi in an uncomfortable position.
However, Chinese media outlets were quick to criticize the US bombing of Syria, demonstrating that Beijing was extremely displeased.
The US statement might not have mentioned Taiwan, but Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs Wang Yi (王毅) did broach the subject of Taiwan and Tibet at a news conference, as the Chinese always do.
Perhaps the different approaches can be accounted for by the fact that side party mentioned Taiwan, or perhaps the Chinese raised it, but Washington did not budge, or did not care much and stayed silent.
It is extremely likely that Washington and Beijing had already addressed the issue on Feb. 9, when Trump spoke to Xi by telephone.
Regardless, Beijing was content to have brought Trump back to the position of the US’ “one China” policy, and Trump was happy to allow Xi to think that he had returned to that stance without having to concede anything, in the process perhaps hanging on to a number of bargaining chips.
So, who emerged the winner and who was the loser? It is too early to say.
Taiwan could take a passive approach and hope that its own interests are not compromised every time there is a high-level meeting between US and Chinese officials, but this would be a case of not seeing the forest for the trees.
Taipei must be more proactive in assessing how the overall picture in US-China relations is emerging and the government must maneuver the nation into an advantageous position and not just react to this particular meeting.
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
Ursula K. le Guin in The Ones Who Walked Away from Omelas proposed a thought experiment of a utopian city whose existence depended on one child held captive in a dungeon. When taken to extremes, Le Guin suggests, utilitarian logic violates some of our deepest moral intuitions. Even the greatest social goods — peace, harmony and prosperity — are not worth the sacrifice of an innocent person. Former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), since leaving office, has lived an odyssey that has brought him to lows like Le Guin’s dungeon. From late 2008 to 2015 he was imprisoned, much of this
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and