I have had time to contemplate the meaning behind Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) recent “peacemaking visit” to his “friend with no limits,” Russian President Vladimir Putin.
The Beijing-facilitated Iran-Saudi Arabia agreement was a major propaganda success for China to project itself as a great power that is not only sincere politically, but skilled diplomatically in mediating international conflicts.
Riding on this narrative, Xi flew to Russia with the apparent prospect of ending a war started by his Russian ally.
Propaganda punchlines and news headlines aside, nothing substantial emerged from Xi’s visit as far as the Ukraine war is concerned. Even before Xi’s Moscow flight, the same narrative buoyancy had begun to deflate because of the strange nature of Beijing’s stance on the Ukraine war from the beginning.
In this age of short memories and shallow sensational media, remember that Russia invaded Ukraine in February last year, in the same month that Xi and Putin declared a “friendship without limits” in Beijing.
Whether China could have prevented Russia’s aggression is debatable, but Beijing’s claims of ignorance about such a development is simply indefensible. An emperor knows when a czar is about to start a war. This means that he had the intelligence and, most probably, the time to move some of his pebbles on the strategic chessboard.
China has over the course of the war aligned more with Moscow. It has not only been unequivocal in criticizing international sanctions against Russia, it has been minimizing the effects of the sanctions, as demonstrated by the increased volume of trade between the countries since the war began, raising as much as 30 percent.
In addition to importing Russian oil and gas, China has also exported dual-use technologies such as semiconductors necessary for the production of weapons. Put bluntly, Chinese money and materials have been crucial in keeping Putin’s war machine running.
A case could be made that China cannot afford to stop trading with Russia, as it has a huge population to look after. That would not preclude it from parroting and amplifying Russia’s war propaganda at home and abroad, even if it does not want to condemn Russia’s aggression.
By doing so, China is, albeit indirectly, complicit in contravening the UN Charter regarding respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity, which also happens to be the very principles Beijing often deploys to shield itself from international criticism of its gross human rights violations, including genocide in Tibet and Xinjiang.
Even Beijing’s 12-point proposal meant to bring peace for Ukraine fails not only to call Russia’s invasion an invasion, it is also skewed in Moscow’s favor. Furthermore, the joint statement signed by Putin and Xi made it clear that the main goal of the Chinese president’s visit was less about ending the Ukraine war and more about preparing for a war over Taiwan.
Xi’s three-day-visit to the Kremlin was meant to show support for an internationally isolated Russia and a criminally charged Putin on the account of Moscow’s aggression and war crimes. At the same time, Beijing has also capitalized on that isolation to access raw materials, including oil, at cheaper prices in the short term, while also courting Moscow’s support in the event China invades Taiwan.
In the joint statement, Russia expressed its opposition to Taiwanese independence, as well as its firm “support for China’s measures to safeguard its sovereignty and territorial integrity.”
“China’s measures” include military aggression on Taiwan as it is evident today by Chinese threats and war games around the democratic nation whenever Beijing finds an excuse.
Stripping away the political illusion of a benevolent China embarking on an international peacemaking mission, reveals the naked reality of realpolitik. The crux of the matter is that in the geopolitics of power games, it is often not easy to gauge where war begins and peace ends and vice versa. Sometimes, peace is made for another war and a war is fought supposedly for another peace. The question is, who starts war or peace and for whom?
Leaving aside the rhetoric of a peacemaking visit, Xi’s trip to Russia has more to do with establishing a war plan over Taiwan than a strategy for peace in Ukraine. In simple language, although China has presented peace as the goal, in reality, it is the pretext, not the purpose.
What is concerning is that Beijing, especially under Xi, appears to be preparing for war over Taiwan in the name of national rejuvenation. The world must do everything to prevent it. It is not only about Taiwanese life and liberty, but given the colossal challenge of climate emergencies, the world cannot afford to be dragged into one fossil-fueled expansionist war after another anymore.
Palden Sonam is a visiting fellow at the Tibet Policy Institute in Dharamsala, India.
China’s supreme objective in a war across the Taiwan Strait is to incorporate Taiwan as a province of the People’s Republic. It follows, therefore, that international recognition of Taiwan’s de jure independence is a consummation that China’s leaders devoutly wish to avoid. By the same token, an American strategy to deny China that objective would complicate Beijing’s calculus and deter large-scale hostilities. For decades, China has cautioned “independence means war.” The opposite is also true: “war means independence.” A comprehensive strategy of denial would guarantee an outcome of de jure independence for Taiwan in the event of Chinese invasion or
A recent Taipei Times editorial (“A targeted bilingual policy,” March 12, page 8) questioned how the Ministry of Education can justify spending NT$151 million (US$4.74 million) when the spotlighted achievements are English speech competitions and campus tours. It is a fair question, but it focuses on the wrong issue. The problem is not last year’s outcomes failing to meet the bilingual education vision; the issue is that the ministry has abandoned the program that originally justified such a large expenditure. In the early years of Bilingual 2030, the ministry’s K-12 Administration promoted the Bilingual Instruction in Select Domains Program (部分領域課程雙語教學實施計畫).
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) earlier this month said it is necessary for her to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and it would be a “huge boost” to the party’s local election results in November, but many KMT members have expressed different opinions, indicating a struggle between different groups in the party. Since Cheng was elected as party chairwoman in October last year, she has repeatedly expressed support for increased exchanges with China, saying that it would bring peace and prosperity to Taiwan, and that a meeting with Xi in Beijing takes priority over meeting
Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs spokesman for maritime affairs Rogelio Villanueva on Monday said that Manila’s claims in the South China Sea are backed by international law. Villanueva was responding to a social media post by the Chinese embassy alleging that a former Philippine ambassador in 1990 had written a letter to a German radio operator stating that the Scarborough Shoal (Huangyan Island, 黃岩島) did not fall within Manila’s territory. “Sovereignty is not merely claimed, it is exercised,” Villanueva said. The Philippines won a landmark case at the Permanent Court of Arbitration in 2016 that found China’s sweeping claim of sovereignty in
RSS