Last month, a snap general election in the UK saw the ruling Conservative Party defeated and the Labour Party take power for the first time since 2010. With this change, there is now a fresh opportunity for the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) under new leadership to chart a new course on relations with Taiwan that identifies and responds to the shifting cross-strait dynamics, balance of power and now almost fluid “cross-strait status quo.”
The Taiwan Policy Centre monitors all mentions of Taiwan in the UK parliament on the In Westminster section of our Web site. In November, then-shadow foreign secretary David Lammy asked the government what steps had the government taken to help prevent the possibility of conflict in the Taiwan Strait.
This was the reply: “The UK has a clear interest in peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait. We consider the Taiwan issue one to be settled peacefully by the people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait through constructive dialogue, without the threat or use of force or coercion. China’s continued military flights near Taiwan are part of an ongoing pattern of escalatory activity and are not conducive to peace and stability. We do not support any unilateral attempts to change the status quo, including increased Chinese assertiveness toward Taiwan.”
If the first two sentences of the answer came from an FCDO template used for many decades, the later comments showed some promising signs of recognizing that the People’s Republic of China (PRC), not Taiwan, is the source of provocation and tension across the Strait. Nevertheless, the Taiwan Policy Centre feels this does not go far enough. In our report “Respecting Taiwan,” we argued for the UK government to change its approach, updating a policy that has effectively been covered in diplomatic cobwebs since the UK first recognized the PRC in 1950.
We proposed a new statement to signal a more proactive and assertive UK foreign policy toward Taiwan: “The United Kingdom recognizes that Taiwan has a complex historical relationship with its neighbors, which has left a number of unresolved cultural, legal and constitutional legacies. The United Kingdom respects the right of the Taiwanese people under international law to self-determination and believes that the future of Taiwan is a matter for the Taiwanese people alone to decide without bribe, threat or coercion from any other party. The United Kingdom does not rule out providing assistance to Taiwan in the event that it is subject to an attempted invasion or other serious hostile assault. The nature of this assistance will be proportionate to the severity of the threat, and coordinated in conjunction with allied nations in the region. We expect all parties to uphold international law, abide by UNCLOS [UN Convention on the Law of the Sea] and other relevant treaties, and resolutely reject adventurism or the escalation of tensions.”
We now call upon the new foreign secretary, Lammy, and Prime Minister Keir Starmer to recognize that the so-called “status quo” has already been fundamentally altered by the PRC’s daily threatening incursions in Taiwan’s air defense identification zone and the “circling” of the country with military assets.
The PRC’s demand that officials working in Taiwan Representative Offices in Macau and Hong Kong now sign statements recognizing Taiwan as a part of the PRC are one more part of the PRC’s salami slicing of the status quo. It is time for the UK to evolve its position to match the new reality of Taiwan-China relations, bring it in line with international law, show respect and recognition of Taiwanese democracy, self-determination and sovereignty, and show the PRC that UK foreign policy is made in London, not Beijing.
Ben Goren is director of communications for the Taiwan Policy Centre and a long-term resident of Taiwan.
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