In the past few days, two high-ranking individuals — Tajinder Pal Singh Bagga, spokesman for India’s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party’s New Delhi branch, and SpaceX and Tesla CEO Elon Musk — have expressed very different attitudes toward Taiwan and China, and the relationship between them.
Bagga hung a banner celebrating Taiwan’s Double Ten National Day outside the Chinese embassy in the Indian capital on Monday, while in an interview with the Financial Times on Friday, Musk said that cross-strait tensions could be resolved by making Taiwan a “special administrative zone” of China.
It is not the first time Bagga has shown support for Taiwan. In 2020, he placed 100 signs bearing its national flag and the words: “Taiwan Happy National Day October 10” around the Chinese embassy. His actions were no prank; there was a serious intent and message behind them. Nor was he alone among his fellow Indians in holding this sentiment. Indian Internet users posted messages saying: “Happy Taiwan National Day” and “India stands together with Taiwan.”
The Indian news media, too, is aware of the distinction between Taiwan and China. Media executives were enraged when the Chinese embassy in New Delhi in 2020 issued what was essentially a diktat telling the media to observe and respect India’s official “one China” principle. The embassy’s audacity and presumptuousness had the opposite of its intended effect, as India’s media are free and independent.
Nor does Bagga stand alone among his political peers in his wariness of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).
Jawaharlal Nehru, Indian prime minister from 1950 to 1964, wanted to show good faith to the CCP when he advocated for the People’s Republic of China to replace Chiang Kai-shek’s (蔣介石) regime as China’s sole representative at the UN, but his enthusiasm was not shared by Indian lawmakers, and his dictum that “India and China are brothers” was shown for what it was by the 1962 Sino-Indian war. More recent events, such as the 2017 Doklam crisis, tensions along the Line of Actual Control in India’s eastern Ladakh and the CCP’s attempts to conceal the beginnings of the COVID-19 pandemic, have only hardened Indian politicians’ negative attitudes toward the CCP.
Like his peers and compatriots, Bagga knows the CCP and is aware of the menace it represents.
Musk has his sights set elsewhere. He is smart, resourceful and capable, and yet what he said about Taiwan makes him come across as, if not unthinking, then remarkably callous.
It is arguable that his suggestion makes rational sense — in the coldest way conceivable — but at the same time it is out of touch with the boundaries in which it must be made — geopolitical, moral, legal, humane, realistic, compassionate — that one has to wonder where the idea originated, because it was not solely born of a reasonable attempt at finding a solution, and it is utterly devoid of regard for the future of the international world order.
It only makes sense if you believe that Musk is firmly in Beijing’s pocket. Musk’s Tesla operations produce high volumes of its electric vehicles in its Shanghai Gigafactory, and China represents a major market for the company. Meanwhile, the CCP’s modus operandi is luring in foreign investment and then turning the screws to extract favors.
Predictably well received by Chinese Ambassador to the US Qin Gang (秦剛) and roundly rejected by politicians in Taiwan, Musk’s suggestion certainly resonates with the CCP’s narrative. It remains to be seen which other ways the CCP might ask Musk to bend to keep his operations in China running smoothly. He might even find keeping Twitter, should he finally close the acquisition deal, a free and open platform for the exchange of ideas an impossible endeavor. The CCP has strong feelings against unfettered freedom of expression.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath