In 1972, before then-US president Richard Nixon’s visit to China, US national security adviser Henry Kissinger was expounding his “balance of power” theory. This saw the US working with China to keep the Soviet Union in check over the next 15 years. Another 20 years on, the US president has changed tack, teaming up with Russia against China.
This rotation of the triangle of relations between the three powers took place almost 20 years later than Kissinger had predicted, but now we have US President Barack Obama’s administration concentrating once more on US-Russia relations: They recently signed the first nuclear weapons pact between the two countries in two decades. The US has clearly decided its best bet is to lean toward Russia to keep China under control.
The past few years had seen the US neglect its relations with Russia in favor of strengthening trade ties and following excessively China-leaning policies. As China has gone from strength to strength, however, Beijing has invested heavily in building up its military capability while ignoring international law and grabbing resources and markets using unfair and dishonest practices. This has aroused suspicion from other countries, and it is against this backdrop that Obama has seen fit to repair ties with Russia as a way to prevent China from getting too big for its boots.
China’s unfair competition, and the worsening conditions it is offering foreign investors operating there, has soured US companies’ marriage of convenience with China. Beijing’s arrogant nationalism has put other countries on their guard, too. The change in US-Russia relations over the course of the previous year has only emphasized China’s isolation on many major international issues. This shift in the balance has forced Beijing to rethink its attitude, and to gradually take a more cooperative stance on things such as the nuclear questions in Iran and North Korea, as well as the revaluation of the yuan. Nor did Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) dare stay away from the Nuclear Security Summit earlier this week in Washington.
The first shift in the balance of power between the three put paid to the myth long harbored by Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) of a unified China under his auspices as Taiwan’s interests were sold down the river to secure a united front between China and the US against Russia. This did not have Chiang or his successor, Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國), rushing back into the arms of China, however: They favored a pragmatic reliance on the US while remaining independent by following the “innovation to protect Taiwan” policy.
The shift we are seeing now is happening in a context in which Taiwan has already been democratized and has remained politically distinct from China. President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) has chosen to risk Taiwan’s stability, its most precious asset — democracy notwithstanding — by blindly seeking out and accepting so-called “eventual unification,” which will see Taiwan swallowed up by China.
As we have seen, Chiang Kai-shek and his son refused to be sold out by the US and placed their eggs in the “innovation to protect Taiwan” basket. Although the “innovation” side of things was somewhat wanting, the idea of “protecting Taiwan” was warmly received by the public. We have seen a reversal of the situation this time around: Now, it is not the US who is selling Taiwan out, it is Ma himself, openly turning his back on the fundamental consensus surrounding the idea of “protecting Taiwan.” He has submitted to the conditions placed on him by Beijing and tied Taiwan to China. Whatever you might have thought of Chiang Kai-shek and his son, I’m afraid we are now saddled with Ma and his circus.
James Wang is a journalist based in Washington.
TRANSLATED BY PAUL COOPER
In the closing weeks of 2000, an army of Singaporean government officials descended on Washington to make good on a handshake between then-US President Bill Clinton and Singaporean Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong (吳作棟). They had agreed to strike an FTA after a round of golf in Brunei that past November. Running a small city-state, Singapore’s leaders and their diplomats live with their ear to the ground, attuned to the slightest geopolitical movements. They were motivated then by a big-picture strategic concern — keeping the US embedded in their region. An FTA they thought would help do that. It worked. Clinton’s successor,
On Oct. 7, the Chinese embassy in New Delhi sent letters to the Indian media asking them to refrain from calling Taiwan a country while reporting on its 109th National Day, which fell on Saturday last week. This move backfired and, on the contrary, contributed to the immense popularity of Taiwan among Indians, leading to an outpouring of congratulations for it on Twitter. Asked about the letter, the Indian Ministry of External Affairs said: “There is a free media that reports on issues as it sees fit.” Bharatiya Janata Party spokesman Tajinder Singh Bagga put up several banners outside the
On Oct. 6, the UN Committee on Human Rights released a statement on the concentration camps in China’s Xinjiang region in which at least 1 million Uighurs and other ethnic minorities are incarcerated. On the same day, Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) was telling delegates at a Chinese Communist Party (CCP) meeting that “happiness among the people in Xinjiang is on the rise.” It was a stark reminder of the CCP’s longstanding practice of trampling on human rights and deceiving the world. In October last year, the Taiwan East Turkestan Association and the Taiwan Friends of Tibet held an event titled
In a Facebook post on Wednesday last week, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Taipei City Councilor Hsu Chiao-hsin (徐巧芯) wrote: “The KMT must fall for Taiwan to improve.’ Allow me to ask the question again: Is this really true?” It matters not how many times Hsu asks the question, my answer will always be the same: “Yes, the KMT must be toppled for Taiwan to improve.” In the lengthy Facebook post, titled “What were those born in the 1980s guilty of?” Hsu harked back to the idealistic aspirations of the 2014 Sunflower movement before heaping opprobrium on the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP)