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
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS