Former British prime minister Liz Truss on Wednesday called on EU countries and other like-minded nations to form an “economic NATO” as a countermeasure to Chinese economic coercion. Truss also called on the UK and other states to have a clear stance toward China, and not to let the economic benefits it offers cloud the threats it presents to freedom and democracy.
These are two separate issues that Truss has raised — creating economic resilience by reducing reliance on China, and having a clear stance on relations with Taiwan and China — but they are highly connected.
China is well aware that an attempted invasion of Taiwan would most likely draw the US into a larger conflict, which would have fatal consequences for Beijing. Last month, the US was granted access to four more bases in the Philippines: three that are close to Taiwan and one facing the South China Sea. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin on Tuesday said that Washington would send Taiwan military equipment from its stockpile “in the near term” and Japan is installing new missile defense systems in Okinawa Prefecture. Beijing is not likely to risk a war when the odds are stacked so greatly against it. That is why it has been ramping up its cognitive warfare against Taiwan.
Beijing in January lifted a ban on imports of 63 products from Taiwanese food and beverage producers following a visit to China by Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) officials. It was seen as a political move aimed at weakening public trust in the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) government ahead of next year’s presidential election.
On Sunday, Here I Stand Project deputy secretary-general Cynthia Yang (楊欣慈) told a news conference that after she bought a book critical of the Chinese Communist Party, she received a telephone call telling her that Taiwan would never win a war with China.
These two incidents might seem unrelated, but they are both part of larger efforts by Beijing to manipulate Taiwanese voters, lower public confidence in Taiwan’s military and democratic institutions, and foster ill sentiment toward the US, Japan and other countries friendly toward Taiwan, while bolstering sentiment toward China.
These efforts can be seen online, where China uses fake accounts to post anti-US and anti-DPP diatribes in the comments sections of news stories on social media and on YouTube. This is why it is crucial for countries to have a clear, unambiguous stance on their relationships with Taiwan and China, and their planned courses of action in the event of a Chinese attack. Beijing called Truss’ visit to Taiwan a “dangerous political stunt,” but she was not deterred and said that allowing a totalitarian regime to dictate who goes where “is a very dangerous idea.”
Then-US House of Representatives speaker Nancy Pelosi set a precedent when she visited Taiwan in August last year despite Chinese threats, proving that Beijing was powerless to stop her.
The only real course of action Beijing could take against countries that refuse to succumb to its manipulation is to impose trade barriers and other restrictions on companies that do business in China, which is why, as Truss has clearly articulated, economic resilience is critical. As Beijing employs a divide-and-conquer approach, priming powerful business lobbyists and paying politicians, there must be concerted efforts by governments to assist companies to reduce their operations in China, and clear laws that prohibit trade of some technologies with Beijing.
An alliance of like-minded countries that are clear in their intentions to assist Taiwan will help deter China in its military ambitions, and that clarity of intentions can only be achieved by reducing their economic reliance on China.
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
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
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