Over the weekend, a war of words broke out between Washington and Beijing at the Shangri-La Dialogue security summit in Singapore, turning the annual powwow into less of a dialogue and more of an exchange of angry monologues.
During an address to delegates at the summit on Sunday, Chinese Minister of National Defense General Wei Fenghe (魏鳳和) did not mince his words: “Let me make this clear: If anyone dares to secede Taiwan from China, we will not hesitate to fight. We will fight at all costs and we will fight to the very end. This is the only choice for China.”
The day before, US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin had used his address to warn that China had unilaterally changed the “status quo” in the Taiwan Strait.
“Our policy hasn’t changed. But unfortunately, that doesn’t seem to be true for the PRC,” Austin said, referring to the People’s Republic of China.
Rather than a riposte to Austin’s address, Wei’s aggressive rhetoric was more likely aimed at US President Joe Biden’s remark, made during a visit to Tokyo at the end of last month, that the US would intervene militarily were China to attack Taiwan — the third time Biden has done so since taking office.
Wei’s choice of words was revealing. Rather than make the standard threat against a move toward Taiwanese independence initiated by Taipei, in a thinly veiled reference to the US, Wei introduced a third party into the equation, cautioning against “anyone” who might dare to “secede Taiwan from China.”
Beijing might be concerned that in moving from a policy of “strategic ambiguity” to “strategic clarity” over Taiwan, Washington might also be considering reinstating formal diplomatic recognition of Taiwan, or by some other means providing Taiwan with a greater presence on the international stage.
In a further upping of the rhetoric on Monday, Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman Wang Wenbin (汪文彬) stated that China exercises “sovereignty” over the Taiwan Strait and that “there is no such thing as international waters in international maritime law.”
“Relevant countries claim that the Taiwan Strait is in international waters with the aim to manipulate the Taiwan question and threaten China’s sovereignty,” Wang said.
Wang’s assertion that international waters are a fictional construct is deeply concerning. It is a direct challenge to the settled, rules-based global order that guarantees innocent passage on the high seas, and a free and open maritime commons. If the concept of international waters is allowed to become eroded, free trade between nations and the entire system of global trade would be imperiled.
Wang’s remarks provided confirmation of a report published by Bloomberg earlier the same day, which, quoting an unnamed source within the Biden administration, stated that Chinese officials have repeatedly told their US counterparts in private that the Taiwan Strait does not constitute international waters.
The Taiwan Strait at its narrowest is 70 nautical miles (130km) wide, and, at its widest, 220 nautical miles. Since the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea defines territorial waters as extending 12 nautical miles from a nation’s coastline and the additional “contiguous zone” of jurisdiction extends out to only 24 nautical miles, Beijing’s stance is unadulterated poppycock.
China’s vexatious claim is clearly an attempt at what it calls “lawfare” — weaponizing the law as part of its overall strategy to turn the Taiwan Strait, and the South and East China seas, into Chinese inland waterways. Beijing attempted a similar trick last year when it passed a law that for the first time explicitly allowed its coast guard to fire on foreign vessels.
China’s bellicose rhetoric at the Shangri-La Dialogue and its attempt to unilaterally redefine international maritime law is yet more proof that Beijing cannot be an equal competitor since it has tossed the rule book into the fire: The only viable option for Washington is containment.
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
For Taiwan, the ongoing US and Israeli strikes on Iranian targets are a warning signal: When a major power stretches the boundaries of self-defense, smaller states feel the tremors first. Taiwan’s security rests on two pillars: US deterrence and the credibility of international law. The first deters coercion from China. The second legitimizes Taiwan’s place in the international community. One is material. The other is moral. Both are indispensable. Under the UN Charter, force is lawful only in response to an armed attack or with UN Security Council authorization. Even pre-emptive self-defense — long debated — requires a demonstrably imminent
Since being re-elected, US President Donald Trump has consistently taken concrete action to counter China and to safeguard the interests of the US and other democratic nations. The attacks on Iran, the earlier capture of deposed of Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro and efforts to remove Chinese influence from the Panama Canal all demonstrate that, as tensions with Beijing intensify, Washington has adopted a hardline stance aimed at weakening its power. Iran and Venezuela are important allies and major oil suppliers of China, and the US has effectively decapitated both. The US has continuously strengthened its military presence in the Philippines. Japanese Prime
After “Operation Absolute Resolve” to capture former Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro, the US joined Israel on Saturday last week in launching “Operation Epic Fury” to remove Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his theocratic regime leadership team. The two blitzes are widely believed to be a prelude to US President Donald Trump changing the geopolitical landscape in the Indo-Pacific region, targeting China’s rise. In the National Security Strategic report released in December last year, the Trump administration made it clear that the US would focus on “restoring American pre-eminence in the Western hemisphere,” and “competing with China economically and militarily
RSS