In an interview with the BBC earlier this month, US Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Mark Milley said: “In terms of capability I think China clearly is developing a capability ... the capability to attack Taiwan at some point in time. And whether they would or not, it’s a political choice, it’s a policy choice, that will be based off of how the Chinese view the cost risk benefit at the time.”
“There’s no indications or warnings of anything imminent at this time. But again, we watch it very, very closely,” Milley added.
Former US national security adviser John Bolton — who urged the US to grant full diplomatic recognition to Taiwan — has called Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine “very disturbing,” as NATO has not been able to drive Russian forces out of the country, and the effects of economic sanctions imposed by Western countries are limited.
However, Bolton also thinks that China does not wish to go to war with Taiwan, but to create a crisis by claiming to lock Taiwan out.
Chinese Minister of National Defense General Wei Fenghe’s (魏鳳和) overbearing words that “we will fight at all costs and we will fight to the very end” might well be a bluff, but no one should underestimate Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) “wolf warrior” nature when he has his back against the wall.
Beijing has of late been using jurisprudence to claim sovereignty over Taiwan, with the most current example being its assertion that the Taiwan Strait does not qualify as international waters.
A while ago, Beijing reiterated its stance: “On October 1, 1949, the Central People’s Government of the People’s Republic of China [PRC] was proclaimed, replacing the government of the Republic of China [ROC] to become the only legal government of the whole of China and its sole legal representative in the international arena... This is a replacement of the old regime by a new one in a situation where the main bodies of the same international laws have not changed and China’s sovereignty and inherent territory have not changed therefrom, and so the government of the PRC naturally should fully enjoy and exercise China’s sovereignty, including its sovereignty over Taiwan.”
The first half of the statement — that both the PRC and the ROC are governments, not nations — is not false; however, claiming “sovereignty over Taiwan” is China’s arbitrary, unilateral interpretation. Under the Treaty of San Francisco, which came into force in 1952, Japan renounced its rights to Taiwan and Penghu, leaving the areas’ legal status undetermined.
The Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) rebuttal has only rationalized China’s claim over Taiwan. The KMT’s stance is the ROC government began exercising jurisdiction — legally and factually — over Taiwan in 1945 after Japan surrendered at the end of World War II, while the PRC has never exercised any jurisdiction over Taiwan.
The KMT’s restoration of jurisdiction and the PRC’s succession of government are both fantasies. No matter how many countries endorse Beijing’s stance in the global community, nothing is as harmful as having a political party in Taiwan — especially if it is the ruling party — acknowledge this “one China” ideology.
Both the PRC and the ROC are vying to be the legal representative of China. However, as Taiwan’s sovereignty does not belong to either one of them, the issue naturally does not involve restoration or succession, which is the biggest trap for maintaining the “status quo.”
In 1949, Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) retreated to Taiwan after losing the Chinese Civil War. To counter communism during the Korean War and the Cold War, US-led Western forces tacitly acquiesced to the ROC’s retreat to Taiwan and recognized Chiang as the representative of China. In this regard, the acknowledgement still did not concern Taiwan’s sovereignty or legal status.
UN Resolution 2758, which was adopted by the UN General Assembly on Oct. 25, 1971, recognized the PRC as the sole legal government of China, replacing the ROC. “[The UN decides] to expel forthwith the representatives of Chiang Kai-shek from the place which they unlawfully occupy at the UN and in all the organizations related to it,” it says, which again shows that the resolution does not concern Taiwan.
Washington’s “one China policy” and Beijing’s “one China principle” have one thing in common: Both acknowledge China’s position that there is only one Chinese government. However, the Taiwan Relations Act shows that the US acknowledges, but does not endorse China’s claim over Taiwan.
On the issue regarding Taiwan’s sovereignty, the global community only recognizes that the Japanese government renounced its rights to Taiwan in the Treaty of San Francisco. Another “status quo” is that Taiwan has always been a self-governing democratic society yhat it fulfills all the requirements of a sovereign state. The only catch is Beijing still claiming this country, which has never been under its rule, as its own.
International law works against China’s “wolf warrior” nature of flouting rules. For example, in the case of the Sino-British Joint Declaration, after China got its hands on Hong Kong, it dealt Hong Kong a hard blow by proclaiming that the declaration was just “a historical document” and that it “no longer has any practical significance, and does not have any binding effect on the Chinese central government’s management of Hong Kong.” Using a similar approach, China is also staking a claim over Taiwan’s sovereignty with the Three Joint Communiques by making false promises of peace.
It is pointless to argue with a government that has such an intolerable attitude and mindset, which wishfully claims land that does not belong to it, or declares treaties as void when they work against its favor. All democratic countries, such as Taiwan, the US and Japan, need to understand one thing: China acts as if it exists in a parallel universe.
The adage “The pen is mightier than the sword” only works when addressing civilized countries — not on countries that are focused on which country has the bigger gun.
To oppose China, democratic nations’ policies should focus on countering China’s insistence on its “one China” principle.
During the NATO summit in Madrid late last month, the alliance identified China as a “systemic challenge,” and said that “when it comes to acts that undermine China’s interests, we will make firm and strong responses.” Beijing issued a strong rebuke, calling out the alliance for what it said was its “Cold War thinking and ideological bias.”
Despite the Tiananmen Square Massacre, Western nations took Beijing at its word instead of scrutinizing its actions. As a result, China was able to latch on to Western powers like the proverbial wolf in sheep’s clothing. In return, Beijing has turned around, challenging the international order and universal values. Russian President Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine has only added fuel to China’s radical playbook.
However, Western and Asian democracies have finally been jolted awake, as they pay more attention to China’s growing threat in the western pacific region. Undaunted, Xi is relentless in his ambition, pushing on with his wolf warrior diplomacy and military expansionism.
US President Joe Biden is reportedly considered dropping some tariffs on Chinese imports, but this would cause a serious backlash if it does succeed in bringing down inflation. As US Trade Representative Katherine Tai (戴琪) has said, tariffs on Chinese goods are “a significant piece of leverage” in the US-China trade relationship.
While there has been no change on the Chinese side, Washington’s unilateral removal of tariffs would only mislead Xi into thinking that the US is becoming vulnerable. With the false notion of China’s growing strength and the decline of its rival, Beijing’s looming threat over the Taiwan Strait, the Indo-Pacific region and the world would only increase over time.
Translated by Rita Wang
On May 7, 1971, Henry Kissinger planned his first, ultra-secret mission to China and pondered whether it would be better to meet his Chinese interlocutors “in Pakistan where the Pakistanis would tape the meeting — or in China where the Chinese would do the taping.” After a flicker of thought, he decided to have the Chinese do all the tape recording, translating and transcribing. Fortuitously, historians have several thousand pages of verbatim texts of Dr. Kissinger’s negotiations with his Chinese counterparts. Paradoxically, behind the scenes, Chinese stenographers prepared verbatim English language typescripts faster than they could translate and type them
More than 30 years ago when I immigrated to the US, applied for citizenship and took the 100-question civics test, the one part of the naturalization process that left the deepest impression on me was one question on the N-400 form, which asked: “Have you ever been a member of, involved in or in any way associated with any communist or totalitarian party anywhere in the world?” Answering “yes” could lead to the rejection of your application. Some people might try their luck and lie, but if exposed, the consequences could be much worse — a person could be fined,
Taiwan aims to elevate its strategic position in supply chains by becoming an artificial intelligence (AI) hub for Nvidia Corp, providing everything from advanced chips and components to servers, in an attempt to edge out its closest rival in the region, South Korea. Taiwan’s importance in the AI ecosystem was clearly reflected in three major announcements Nvidia made during this year’s Computex trade show in Taipei. First, the US company’s number of partners in Taiwan would surge to 122 this year, from 34 last year, according to a slide shown during CEO Jensen Huang’s (黃仁勳) keynote speech on Monday last week.
When China passed its “Anti-Secession” Law in 2005, much of the democratic world saw it as yet another sign of Beijing’s authoritarianism, its contempt for international law and its aggressive posture toward Taiwan. Rightly so — on the surface. However, this move, often dismissed as a uniquely Chinese form of legal intimidation, echoes a legal and historical precedent rooted not in authoritarian tradition, but in US constitutional history. The Chinese “Anti-Secession” Law, a domestic statute threatening the use of force should Taiwan formally declare independence, is widely interpreted as an emblem of the Chinese Communist Party’s disregard for international norms. Critics
RSS