July 27 was the 50th anniversary of the signing of the armistice that ended the Korean War. In that three-year war, which became primarily a war between the US and China in its later stages, the US side suffered over 100,000 casualties.
Because World War II was still a recent memory at the time of the Korean War and anti-war sentiment was quite strong, the US government treated the war in a relatively low-key manner. There was unwillingness to discuss the war in its aftermath, and thus it became known as "the forgotten war." China's volunteer army assembled to "oppose the US and assist Korea" suffered losses many times greater than those of the US side, but life is cheap in China. Moreover much of the "cannon fodder" consisted of KMT soldiers taken prisoner by the communist troops in China's own civil war. Naturally Beijing cared even less about their loss. Thus, for decades China has boasted of how it defeated "the paper tiger of US imperialism." However, for Taiwan and South Korea as well as for the US and the rest of the world, this is a war that should not be forgotten.
This war blocked the communist camp's further expansion -- a fact of extraordinary importance. Otherwise, most places on earth would have fallen under the red flag, a disaster for humanity. On this point, we should thank the US and the then still vigorous UN. Without them, Taiwan and South Korea would have been lost. They would have experienced the famines that hit China and North Korea in the late 1950s and early 1960s. There wouldn't be four "little dragons" in Asia, nor would we see democratic societies choosing their own presidents by popular election in these countries. But some people in Taiwan castigate their government for "kissing up to" the US, and in Korea there are also people with virulently anti-US sentiments. US citizens sacrificed their lives for these people. What did they get in return? Is business not for the benefit of all parties involved? Would Taiwan and South Korea now be "dragons" if the US hadn't opened up more markets? Unfortunately, some of these ingrates have simply gone all the way and identified themselves with the enemy.
Nor should the US forget this war. It was a war between freedom and dictatorship, democracy and authoritarianism. The ultimate objective of the expansion of communism was the leader of the Western nations, the US itself. Today, the Soviet Union has disintegrated, and the former Soviet republics are gradually evolving into democratic nations. But China is not and does not intend to change its authoritarian system. They aren't even willing to change the name "Communist Party." Thus, as the US allies itself with Beijing in the fight against terrorism, it must never forget Beijing's basic nature. The differences between China and North Korea are merely conflicts of interest between communist countries. For the sake of its own interests, Beijing will sacrifice some of North Korea's interests when necessary, but a corresponding price must be paid. When China was opposing the US and assisting Korea, it lost the opportunity to "liberate" Taiwan. Today, they are planning to feign the sacrifice of North Korea in exchange for the US abandonment of Taiwan. Politicians in the US must be wary of this and avoid letting the US be labelled a "fair-weather friend" because Taiwan is a democratic nation and not a dictatorship along the lines of Vietnam or Indonesia in years past.
Recently, North Korea agreed to multilateral talks with the US, China, Japan and South Korea on the problem of its nuclear weapons, but this should not be seen as a result of pressure being applied by China. In reality, North Korea has drawn in Russia and Japan in order to bargain with China. In the past, North Korea often walked a path between China and Russia, trying to win benefits from both sides. Now they are up to their old tricks once again. It's just that they have expanded their playing field.
Moreover, the fact that China is not terribly sincere about helping the US resolve the North Korean problem can also be seen from the following facts. We know the US has wanted all along to discuss the North Korean problem in the UN where greater pressure could be applied and where such discussion could be seen as a continuation of the UN's deployment of troops to the Korean Peninsula and the subsequent armistice. This is the most "legal" approach. If North Korea were to break its promises in the future, it would also be more convenient for the UN to step forward and impose sanctions. But as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, China has consistently opposed this approach for its own private reasons. On July 29 of this year, however, when the UN Security Council committee responsible for sanctions against the Taliban and al-Qaeda was holding an open meeting, China's deputy permanent representative to the UN, Zhang Yishan (
Paul Lin is a political commentator based in New York.
Translated by Ethan Harkness
The conflict in the Middle East has been disrupting financial markets, raising concerns about rising inflationary pressures and global economic growth. One market that some investors are particularly worried about has not been heavily covered in the news: the private credit market. Even before the joint US-Israeli attacks on Iran on Feb. 28, global capital markets had faced growing structural pressure — the deteriorating funding conditions in the private credit market. The private credit market is where companies borrow funds directly from nonbank financial institutions such as asset management companies, insurance companies and private lending platforms. Its popularity has risen since
The Donald Trump administration’s approach to China broadly, and to cross-Strait relations in particular, remains a conundrum. The 2025 US National Security Strategy prioritized the defense of Taiwan in a way that surprised some observers of the Trump administration: “Deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving military overmatch, is a priority.” Two months later, Taiwan went entirely unmentioned in the US National Defense Strategy, as did military overmatch vis-a-vis China, giving renewed cause for concern. How to interpret these varying statements remains an open question. In both documents, the Indo-Pacific is listed as a second priority behind homeland defense and
Every analyst watching Iran’s succession crisis is asking who would replace supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Yet, the real question is whether China has learned enough from the Persian Gulf to survive a war over Taiwan. Beijing purchases roughly 90 percent of Iran’s exported crude — some 1.61 million barrels per day last year — and holds a US$400 billion, 25-year cooperation agreement binding it to Tehran’s stability. However, this is not simply the story of a patron protecting an investment. China has spent years engineering a sanctions-evasion architecture that was never really about Iran — it was about Taiwan. The
In an op-ed published in Foreign Affairs on Tuesday, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) said that Taiwan should not have to choose between aligning with Beijing or Washington, and advocated for cooperation with Beijing under the so-called “1992 consensus” as a form of “strategic ambiguity.” However, Cheng has either misunderstood the geopolitical reality and chosen appeasement, or is trying to fool an international audience with her doublespeak; nonetheless, it risks sending the wrong message to Taiwan’s democratic allies and partners. Cheng stressed that “Taiwan does not have to choose,” as while Beijing and Washington compete, Taiwan is strongest when
RSS