Washington’s official position on US House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan is that nothing has changed: The US government says it is maintaining its “one China” policy, that Pelosi is free to arrange international trips with congressional delegations independent of the government and that she is not the first US official to visit Taiwan even this year.
Yet there is no denying that the fact and the optics of the second-in-line to the US presidency speaking with lawmakers at the Legislative Yuan about inter-parliamentary discussions and learning from each other as equals are hugely significant, as were the reality and the sight of Pelosi standing next to President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) at the Presidential Office. The trip would have been significant even if Beijing had not raised such strong objections or increased an already fraught situation by announcing live-fire military drills off Taiwan proper, economic pain for Taiwanese exporters and “a price” to pay by the US for allowing the visit to go ahead.
However, it is undeniable that Beijing’s response has focused international attention on the trip in a way that might not have happened had it kept quiet. Beijing has made several unforced errors, which could be summarized as focus, optics, defiance, evidence, moral high ground and reinforcement.
The US Congress has been increasingly supportive of Taiwan since the administration of former US president Donald Trump abandoned the idea of trying to bring China into the international fold through engagement. Taiwanese media have reported on bills supportive of the nation passed into US law, developments that would have gone largely unnoticed elsewhere.
Pelosi’s meeting at the Legislative Yuan yesterday allowed Deputy Legislative Speaker Tsai Chi-chang (蔡其昌), under the laser-focused gaze of the world’s media, to list the supportive bills, outline Taiwan’s journey to democracy and thank Pelosi for her rock solid support of Taiwan. She accepted the gratitude, but said it belonged to the US Congress as a whole.
The optics of that meeting and of Tsai awarding Pelosi the Order of Propitious Clouds with Special Grand Cordon are invaluable to Taiwan and its message that it is an independent, sovereign state.
Pelosi’s presence in Taiwan, despite Beijing’s protestations, was a show of defiance. She was careful not to allow the conversation or questions stray too much to the subject of China, preferring to concentrate on Taiwan and its strengths, even though she did say it was clear that China has stood in the way of Taiwan engaging in international forums, but “they should know that they cannot stand in the way of people coming to Taiwan.”
The facts that Beijing was unable to prevent the trip from happening, that the US congressional delegation met lawmakers and that the president awarded Pelosi with the order are all proof that Beijing has no authority in Taiwan.
The world knew it before, and the international focus on the optics that Beijing has manufactured meant that the world has seen irrefutable evidence of it. Pelosi’s focus on global security, economics, good governance, democracy and peace, in stark contrast to Beijing’s focus on threats and intimidation, places Taiwan and the US on the moral high ground, with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) languishing very far below.
Finally, there is the reinforcement of the situation’s urgency, and that the CCP would not compromise, that it would always resort to threats of violence and that it would just keep on pushing for the annexation of a nation it has no claim to.
It could be argued that Pelosi’s trip heightened tensions across the Taiwan Strait, but it should be clear that the danger would not go away until the CCP renounces the use of force and backs away from its ahistorical claim to Taiwan.
In the US’ National Security Strategy (NSS) report released last month, US President Donald Trump offered his interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine. The “Trump Corollary,” presented on page 15, is a distinctly aggressive rebranding of the more than 200-year-old foreign policy position. Beyond reasserting the sovereignty of the western hemisphere against foreign intervention, the document centers on energy and strategic assets, and attempts to redraw the map of the geopolitical landscape more broadly. It is clear that Trump no longer sees the western hemisphere as a peaceful backyard, but rather as the frontier of a new Cold War. In particular,
As the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) races toward its 2027 modernization goals, most analysts fixate on ship counts, missile ranges and artificial intelligence. Those metrics matter — but they obscure a deeper vulnerability. The true future of the PLA, and by extension Taiwan’s security, might hinge less on hardware than on whether the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) can preserve ideological loyalty inside its own armed forces. Iran’s 1979 revolution demonstrated how even a technologically advanced military can collapse when the social environment surrounding it shifts. That lesson has renewed relevance as fresh unrest shakes Iran today — and it should
The last foreign delegation Nicolas Maduro met before he went to bed Friday night (January 2) was led by China’s top Latin America diplomat. “I had a pleasant meeting with Qiu Xiaoqi (邱小琪), Special Envoy of President Xi Jinping (習近平),” Venezuela’s soon-to-be ex-president tweeted on Telegram, “and we reaffirmed our commitment to the strategic relationship that is progressing and strengthening in various areas for building a multipolar world of development and peace.” Judging by how minutely the Central Intelligence Agency was monitoring Maduro’s every move on Friday, President Trump himself was certainly aware of Maduro’s felicitations to his Chinese guest. Just
On today’s page, Masahiro Matsumura, a professor of international politics and national security at St Andrew’s University in Osaka, questions the viability and advisability of the government’s proposed “T-Dome” missile defense system. Matsumura writes that Taiwan’s military budget would be better allocated elsewhere, and cautions against the temptation to allow politics to trump strategic sense. What he does not do is question whether Taiwan needs to increase its defense capabilities. “Given the accelerating pace of Beijing’s military buildup and political coercion ... [Taiwan] cannot afford inaction,” he writes. A rational, robust debate over the specifics, not the scale or the necessity,
RSS