The BRICS summit was hosted by China in Xiamen with leaders from Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa meeting from Sept. 3 to Sept. 5, and the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) 19th National Congress begins on Oct. 18. For Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) CCP, making China a “big brother” of the world’s developing countries, promoting good neighborliness and challenging capitalist superpower the US are not only important world events, but also crucial political tasks.
To prompt Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi to attend the Xiamen summit, Xi made concessions to India to resolve a dispute over a Himalayan border area that had been going on between the two countries since the middle of June.
The dispute started when a road construction project carried out by the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) on the disputed Doklam Plateau, on the border between China and Bhutan, was blocked by Indian troops. The confrontation was so intense that fighting could have erupted.
The Global Times, a mouthpiece for Chinese hawks, repeatedly called for military action, claiming that China “may clear up the whole situation in two weeks.”
However, the Chinese Ministry of National Defense denied the view offered by the Indian media that war might break out and said that the Global Times’ viewpoint did not represent the position of the ministry. Yet China continued to take a hard line, asking that India withdraw its troops as a condition for holding talks.
On Aug. 28, Chinese and Indian officials announced that the two countries had reached an agreement and that the “expeditious disengagement of border personnel at the face-off site at Doklam has been agreed to and is ongoing.”
The Chinese officials did not say whether the road construction project would be continued, only that India had decided to withdraw its troops; meanwhile, India stated that the PLA had withdrawn bulldozers and other road construction equipment so that the dispute had been resolved and that the Indian side had prevailed.
Many Chinese netizens question the Aug. 28 agreement; some wonder why India did not apologize if it was to blame. It is rumored online that China gave India a US$20 billion loan in exchange for reconciliation and Modi’s attendance at the summit.
However, a Chinese spokesman and the People’s Daily, the CCP’s official newspaper, have denied any rumors that China offered money to appease India.
Who then had the audacious idea of provoking a dispute over construction in Doklam, thus pushing India toward the US and Japan and causing trouble for Xi?
Hong Kong Chinese media have reported that Central Military Commission member and Joint Chief of Staff Fang Fenghui (房峰輝) was dismissed from his post at the end of last month on suspicion of “serious discipline violations” and is under investigation by the Commission for Discipline Inspection in China.
Fang is suspected of having created the Sino-Indian border incident with other Chinese generals with the intention to stir things up ahead of the party’s congress.
Those causing trouble for Xi include both incumbent and retired PLA hawks. Some of them are making loud calls for “unification by force” — using military force to achieve the unification of China — while some planned and initiated the Chinese air force’s flights around Taiwan to intimidate Taiwanese, which drew criticism from the US, Japan and other members of the international community.
Xi’s “Chinese Dream” emphasizes a revival of Chinese culture and harmony with “the compatriots of Taiwan.”
Any hostility toward Taiwanese or an attempt to “steep Taiwan in blood” would only create friction between Taiwanese and China, which runs counter to Xi’s stance and should be investigated by the Commission for Discipline Inspection.
North Korea conducting its sixth nuclear test on the morning of Sept. 3 — a hydrogen bomb eight times more powerful than the atomic bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima on Aug. 6, 1945 — stole headlines from the Xiamen summit.
This burst the illusion that Xi is capable of restricting North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, which once again shows that the US’ and China’s policies of denuclearizing North Korea are having the opposite effect.
What Beijing worries about is not North Korea having nuclear weapons. For decades, the Chinese military and business community have secretly helped North Korea to gather the technology and materials needed to develop nuclear weapons and missiles.
Some PLA strategists believe that North Korea’s considerable military power, including the possession of nuclear weapons and medium and long-range missiles, is an important counterbalance to the US, Japan and South Korea — making Pyongyang’s weapons also Chinese assets.
What Beijing does not want to see is US military action against North Korea or attempts to overthrow the Kim dynasty and establish a pro-US regime, as this would threaten China’s national security. Neither does Beijing favor excessive economic sanctions against North Korea, which might lead to the collapse of North Korea’s economy, causing hundreds of thousands of refugees to flee to northeast China.
Therefore, Xi’s responses to US President Donald Trump’s demands for stronger pressure and sanctions against North Korea remain perfunctory, lacking seriousness.
The Trump administration has seen behind China’s responses and implemented a strategy to punish Chinese banks, businesses and businesspeople that have dealings with North Korea. If the US takes military action or boosts its economic sanctions on North Korea, US-China relations might deteriorate.
Parris Chang is president of the Taiwan Institute for Political, Economic, Strategic Studies, a former deputy secretary-general of the National Security Council and professor emeritus of political science at Pennsylvania State University.
Translated by Lin Lee-Kai
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS