About the time of the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) 19th National Congress last year, Beijing was saber-rattling and threatening Taiwan by sending military aircraft and vessels to encircle the nation and intimidate the public. Beijing’s brinksmanship was criticized by the US for “changing the status quo” and “making trouble.”
The US Navy has carried out freedom of navigation (FON) operations in the South China Sea as a countermeasure to China’s land reclamation efforts, which has heightened regional tension. They have also carried out FON operations in the Taiwan Strait in response to Beijing’s attempts to change the “status quo” in the Strait.
These operations, as well as enhanced US ties with Taiwan, have made China change strategy toward Taiwan, focusing on isolating the nation internationally instead of posing military threats.
Pressuring international airlines to denigrate Taiwan and directing the revocation of Taichung’s right to host the East Asian Youth Games is tantamount to encircling Taiwan without all the saber-rattling, and we will just have to wait and see what US President Donald Trump’s next move will be.
Given the current political atmosphere in the US, surely Beijing’s intensified efforts to isolate Taiwan will provoke the US to intensify its support of Taiwan. Beijing recently revised its “one China” principle in an attempt to revise and expand the “one China” policy to include the view that Taiwan is part of the People’s Republic of China (PRC).
To counter China’s attempts to erode Taiwan’s sovereignty, the US is taking a succession of measures to draw a clear line between Taiwan and Beijing’s “one China” principle. As a consequence, it is clearer than ever that Taiwan’s sovereignty does not belong to the PRC.
The signing into law of the US’ National Defense Authorization Act and the Taiwan Travel Act, a string of US Department of State deputy assistant secretaries visiting Taiwan, Mainland Affairs Council Minister Chen Ming-tong (陳明通) visiting Washington, and US Navy warships sailing through the Strait and making a turn to meet an aircraft carrier in the waters east of Taiwan — these actions target China far more effectively than crossing verbal swords.
The US-China competition over Taiwan seems to be an extension of their trade war.
However, while the Chinese government and its state-owned media seem to have toned down their previous tirades over the trade war, Beijing has opened a new front over Taiwan.
Yet it must understand that its opponent is no longer former US president Barack Obama — whose proposal for a “return to Asia” ended up being an empty promise — but Trump, who promotes an “Indo-Pacific” strategy and enhances US-Taiwan relations. Although Trump does not follow diplomatic protocol, which means that Taiwan should be cautious, the US’ present strategic adjustment in general is relatively favorable to the nation.
For instance, when China exerted pressure on international airlines, the State Department expressed its strong opposition, showing the arrogance and recklessness of Beijing’s actions, and while these actions certainly are detrimental to Taiwan in the short run, they might be favorable in the long run.
Still, Taiwan must not sit idly by and wait to see if the outcome is favorable or harmful to the nation, without taking concrete action to create opportunities for itself, either through practical means or behind the scenes.
In response to China’s aggression, protesting against injustices is both justified and reasonable, and filing formal complaints is necessary, but the government must come up with concrete measures to transform this crisis into an opportunity for substantial cooperation with the US, Japan and Indo-Pacific nations, to fight together against China’s threats.
Taiwan must maintain the “independence status quo” through a new geopolitics that contains China.
Special attention should be paid to the fact that international airlines are being forced to meet Beijing’s demand precisely because they know that Taiwan is independent from China.
“Taiwan, China” or “Chinese Taipei” are pure fabrications. The question is if Taiwan’s government, in addition to protesting strongly against Beijing and expressing strong discontent with airlines, will be able to create a strategy for breaking through the containment so that the world will learn the truth and thus salvage the situation and turn it into a good thing.
Beijing is trying to use Chinese standards to revise international standards. In the beginning, they focused on economic interests, implementing its “Chinese standards” in international organizations and global businesses, gradually including the government of every nation.
Eventually, Beijing’s “one China” principle will become the international standard, eliminating the ambiguity provided by the US’ “one China” policy, not to mention democracy, freedom and human rights.
If Beijing has its way, it will exert even more powerful coercion on Taiwan to be included in the “one China” framework, and in the end, the international atmosphere would perhaps even encourage Beijing to stake it all on using military force against Taiwan.
Therefore, Taiwan also urgently needs to take strategic action to maintain independence.
Just as Trump advisor Michael Pillsbury has described the US’ Indo-Pacific strategy as being “a very new idea that contains neither details nor entry conditions so far,” Taiwan should take the lead and propose rigorous, concrete and creative ideas, and explain what kind of partner it will be.
The government must steer away from self-conceit, but it needs to make Taiwan’s stance heard, loud and clear.
Translated by Chang Ho-ming
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing