There is no way of knowing whether Russian President Vladimir Putin has spent the past decade preparing for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, but it is known that US President Joe Biden warned that the Ukrainian crisis was around the corner and that he was ready for a meeting with Putin in what would have been a last-ditch effort at diplomacy over the Ukraine tensions.
Biden issued a stark warning, vowing that it would be “a disaster for Russia” if it invaded Ukraine. However, when Washington started sounding the alarm about Russia’s impending attack, Europeans were in no mood to listen, with one EU diplomat even describing Biden’s warning as “warmongering.”
The US got the intelligence right, and Biden was certainly not making a false claim. As early as December last year, the Biden administration authorized a US$200 million military assistance package for Ukraine.
In the months before the invasion, White House officials began working on a strategy to counter Putin. They made multiple trips to meet their European counterparts, while Biden made regular telephone calls to European leaders, sharing confidential information.
By engaging in negotiations and mediations, the US has formed a democratic defense alliance with its European partners. While Ukrainians’ fierce resistance has played a significant role in derailing the Kremlin’s invasion, the US’ crucial role in diplomacy cannot be ignored.
The US-led alliance has dealt a significant blow to Russia, making Putin admit that inflation and unemployment would rise in his country.
However, the fly in the ointment is China.
The New York Times reported that prior to the Beijing Winter Olympics in early February, Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) met with Putin and asked him to delay the invasion until after the Games had finished.
Despite China’s vehement denial, there is sufficient evidence of China’s alignment with Russia.
On the opening day of the Olympics, the two powerful autocrats issued a joint statement, saying that “friendship between the two states has no limits, no forbidden areas of cooperation.”
They promised to stand with each other, to endorse each other’s respective territorial ambitions in Taiwan and Ukraine, and to collaborate against the West.
Another example came on the day before the invasion, when a Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson told a news conference that the US is responsible for the Ukraine tensions.
When the invasion had begun and the UN voted on a resolution to condemn Russia’s actions, China unsurprisingly abstained.
These events and their inherent logic shed light on the March 18 talks between Biden and Xi, regardless of the their interpretation by Chinese state media and pro-China media in Taiwan.
After the two-hour talks, which were initiated by Washington, the US and China released their respective statements.
The White House issued a terse readout saying that Russia would pay a steep price for its unprovoked invasion of Ukraine and reinforced Biden’s warning of serious consequences if China provided material aid to Putin’s war effort.
It ended with: “The President reiterated that US policy on Taiwan has not changed, and emphasized that the United States continues to oppose any unilateral changes to the status quo.”
The Chinese readout selectively quoted Biden’s remarks, not mentioning one word of his warning, and accentuated that Biden “does not support ‘Taiwan independence.’”
The talks were not primarily about Taiwan, and it is obvious that Xi was using the opportunity to put words in Biden’s mouth to facilitate a bid for the extension to his own rule.
After the talks, international media unanimously pointed out that the US and China were “singing different tunes” and “coming up with their own interpretations.”
The odd thing was that a certain pro-China outlet in Taiwan used the readout issued by China’s Xinhua news agency and published a front page article under the headline: “Biden-Xi engaged in feverish talks of Taiwan, Biden: US does not support Taiwan independence.”
No fervent discussion happened in the first place, and the fact that the Taiwanese outlet used an even more tawdry title than Xinhua was contemptible.
Would Biden really say “no” to Taiwan independence?
On March 11, one week before the talks with Xi, Biden signed the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, which includes a ban on the use of any maps by the US Department of State and its foreign operations that “inaccurately” depict Taiwan as part of China.
The act stipulates that “none of the funds made available by this act should be used to create, procure, or display any map that inaccurately depicts the territory and social and economic system of Taiwan and the islands or island groups administered by Taiwan authorities.”
Consequently, any US map published by a state department-affiliated agency must mark Taiwan in a different color than China.
Asked about the US’ stance on Taiwan’s status in November last year following a telephone call with Xi, Biden said: “They have to decide — Taiwan, not us. We are not encouraging independence.”
In light of these events, is Biden really “against” Taiwan independence?
It is no surprise that Xinhua barks for the Chinese Communist Party, but it is a shame that pro-China media in Taiwan are doing the same.
Chin Heng-wei is a political commentator.
Translated by Rita Wang
From the Iran war and nuclear weapons to tariffs and artificial intelligence, the agenda for this week’s Beijing summit between US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) is packed. Xi would almost certainly bring up Taiwan, if only to demonstrate his inflexibility on the matter. However, no one needs to meet with Xi face-to-face to understand his stance. A visit to the National Museum of China in Beijing — in particular, the “Road to Rejuvenation” exhibition, which chronicles the rise and rule of the Chinese Communist Party — might be even more revealing. Xi took the members
After Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) met Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing, most headlines referred to her as the leader of the opposition in Taiwan. Is she really, though? Being the chairwoman of the KMT does not automatically translate into being the leader of the opposition in the sense that most foreign readers would understand it. “Leader of the opposition” is a very British term. It applies to the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy, and to some extent, to other democracies. If you look at the UK right now, Conservative Party head Kemi Badenoch is
A Pale View of Hills, a movie released last year, follows the story of a Japanese woman from Nagasaki who moved to Britain in the 1950s with her British husband and daughter from a previous marriage. The daughter was born at a time when memories of the US atomic bombing of Nagasaki during World War II and anxiety over the effects of nuclear radiation still haunted the community. It is a reflection on the legacy of the local and national trauma of the bombing that ended the period of Japanese militarism. A central theme of the movie is the need, at
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) on Friday used their legislative majority to push their version of a special defense budget bill to fund the purchase of US military equipment, with the combined spending capped at NT$780 billion (US$24.78 billion). The bill, which fell short of the Executive Yuan’s NT$1.25 trillion request, was passed by a 59-0 margin with 48 abstentions in the 113-seat legislature. KMT Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文), who reportedly met with TPP Chairman Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌) for a private meeting before holding a joint post-vote news conference, was said to have mobilized her
RSS