The late George Shultz, US secretary of the treasury under former US president Richard Nixon and secretary of state under former US president Ronald Reagan, was one of the finest public servants in recent US history. When I was the last British governor of Hong Kong, he once offered me wise advice about dealing with the People’s Republic of China (PRC).
Shultz told me that, in his long experience in business and government, Chinese communists always tried to define other countries’ relationship with them entirely on their own terms. They wanted the rest of us to regard our ties with China as the political equivalent of a beautiful and priceless Chinese vase. They would allow us to look at or even touch it, provided we did not risk dropping it by saying or doing anything that they believed should disqualify us from the honor of the Middle Kingdom’s favor.
In my experience, that is a pretty fair summary of Chinese attitudes, but it is not how sovereign states usually conduct their relations with each other.
Illustration: Kevin Sheu
Bilateral relationships are normally aggregates of the decisions that countries separately and jointly make to protect and advance their own interests. That includes the occasions when it suits each to accommodate the other side’s interests. There is sometimes a bit — or with friends, sometimes a lot — of give and take.
Moreover, a mature sovereign state does not automatically cast others into outer darkness if they disagree with its narrative about its place in the world, vote in a different way at the UN, or criticize its domestic policies when they contravene international rules and standards. It does not threaten to stop trading with them, or instruct its ambassadors to spit insults. Nor does it say that it will stop tourists from visiting the other country or students from attending universities there. Such behavior demonstrates no comprehension of the essential quality of esteem that civilized, collaborative nation-states must display toward one another.
Consider just a few examples of what China’s communist regime does if one dares to cross it. In 2010, the Chinese writer and human-rights activist Liu Xiaobo (劉曉波) was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. He was the first Chinese citizen to receive the honor and the third person to be awarded the prize while in prison or detention. The German journalist Carl von Ossietzky, the 1935 laureate, was being held in a Nazi concentration camp at the time, and the Burmese political leader Aung San Suu Kyi was awarded the prize in 1991 after the country’s military junta placed her under house arrest.
So, with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in shameful company, it denounced the Norwegian Nobel Committee, censored news of the award and banned large-scale commercial trade between Norway and China. (Of course, even though China put Norway in its diplomatic doghouse, many Norwegian products still reached the country. For instance, salmon sales to neighboring Vietnam spiked, and — lo and behold — exports of Norwegian salmon from Vietnam to China increased by the same amount.)
The CCP takes particular exception to any foreign leader or official representative who meets the Dalai Lama. When then-British prime minister David Cameron met him in 2012, China froze relations with Britain until Cameron demeaned himself and his country by apologizing for his grave error.
Worst of all is any question of friendship with Taiwan, which the PRC has never ruled, although the CCP continues to claim that it is part of “one China.” In fact, after one of the Chinese Emperor Kangxi’s armies invaded Taiwan proper in the 17th century, he tried to sell it to the Dutch, because he did not consider it part of the Qing empire. Perhaps the UK should renew its claim to sovereignty over the US because King George III once ruled there.
China’s claim to sovereignty over Taiwan should be challenged on the basis of history and the welfare of the democratic nation’s 24 million citizens, less than 3 percent of whom describe themselves as Chinese. Surveys show that the overwhelming majority regard themselves as either Taiwanese or Chinese Taiwanese, but this does not stop China from issuing increasingly antagonistic military threats against them.
Now consider the case of Australia. Assured by Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs Wang Yi (王毅) at the end of January last year that the illness detected in Wuhan was “preventable, controllable and curable,” Australian authorities later discovered that China was stealthily buying medical supplies hand over fist from Australia and the UK. The Australian government then issued a perfectly reasonable call for a full and open inquiry into the causes of the COVID-19 pandemic, which triggered a series of coercive Chinese economic and trade attacks against Australia.
Unsurprisingly, New Zealand, normally a country with strong human rights and democratic credentials, has reacted cautiously to China’s policies of brutal repression in Xinjiang and Hong Kong. About 30 percent of the country’s exports go to China, and a loss of market access would be a heavy blow. Tellingly, New Zealand Minister of Foreign Affairs Nanaia Mahuta last month suggested that exporters should try to diversify their markets.
Faced with all this, free and open societies should work together to make clear to China that a good relationship requires respecting and defending the rules-based international order. Moreover, sovereign states should demand reciprocity in dealing with China, in trade as well as politics. If the Chinese government uses trade as a weapon when it does not like a country’s political stance, liberal democracies should pursue this breach of international rules through the WTO’s arbitration mechanism, as well as bilaterally if necessary. They should also argue for Taiwan’s membership, at least as an observer, in international bodies such as the WHO.
A good relationship between free societies and China is not something that the CPC bestows. It is something that China must earn by respecting the rules and norms of international behavior, and recognizing other countries’ sovereignty instead of just asserting its own.
Chris Patten, the last British governor of Hong Kong and a former EU commissioner for external affairs, is chancellor of the University of Oxford.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US