Xinhua news agency on Tuesday published a summary of the key positions of US President Joe Biden and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) from their meeting on the sidelines of the G20 summit in Indonesia.
Unsurprisingly, the article identified the issue of Taiwan as the first “red line that cannot be crossed” in US-Sino relations.
It quoted Xi as saying that Biden has repeatedly said he does not support Taiwanese independence, and that he has no intention of using Taiwan to seek a competitive advantage over China or to contain Beijing.
The article concludes by expressing the hope that Xi “will implement his promises” to put Biden in his place.
However, most interesting about this representation is how it shines a light on the differences between how the US and China view “Taiwanese independence.”
On Nov. 3, during a trip to Palau, Vice President William Lai (賴清德) said that China equates not supporting unification with supporting independence, whereas the US interprets Taiwanese independence as participating in processes legally inferring independence.
When Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) participated in a videoconference, in her capacity as president of the Republic of China, at the George W. Bush Presidential Center on Wednesday, would this be considered as inferring independence? Was allowing Tsai to attend the conference stepping over the “red line that cannot be crossed”? Herein lies the confusion between the two interpretations.
In his poem Written on the Wall of West Forest Temple (題西林壁), Song Dynasty official Su Shi (蘇軾) wrote: “When you look across, it is a mountain range, when you look up, it is a peak, always changing, depending on where you stand, near or far.”
After a century of struggle, the world is paying attention to the Taiwanese independence movement. Now, caught in the political struggle between two major global powers, one has to ask what independence looks like for this small nation?
Perhaps the time has finally come when Taiwanese should give this question serious consideration. It is a matter of crucial importance to peace in East Asia.
Shih Ya-hsuan is an associate professor in National Kaohsiung Normal University’s Department of Geography.
Translated by Paul Cooper
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS