Readers might find former US secretary of state Henry Kissinger's op-ed piece in the Washington Post of interest ("China: Containment Won't Work," June 13).
I will leave it to others to comment on Kissinger's prescriptions for US policy on China, which aim to "witness a new world order compatible with universal aspirations for peace and progress."
And as for his statement that, "The Chinese state in its present dimensions has existed substantially for 2,000 years," we might want to ask the Tibetans and Uighurs about that -- to mention only two peoples within China's present territory.
But I am more concerned with Kissinger's statement that, "Despite substantial US arms sales to Taiwan, Sino-American relations have steadily improved based on three principles: American recognition of the one-China principle and opposition to an independent Taiwan; China's understanding that the United States requires the solution to be peaceful and is prepared to vindicate that principle; restraint by all parties in not exacerbating tensions in the Taiwan Strait."
Surely you jest, Mr. Kissinger.
You were there at its creation, so you know full well that the Shanghai Communique never said that the US "recognizes" Beijing's claim that Taiwan is part of China. "Acknowledges" is the word that was used, and with clear intent to show that the US knew this was Beijing's position but that the US did not ratify this position. Testimony in hearings before Congress by numerous State Department officials over the years have underscored this point.
I believe that anyone reading the Kissinger article would come away with the clear idea that the US recognizes Beijing's claim to Taiwan as part of China. But this is simply not so.
Kissinger also claims that Sino-American relations have steadily improved based on three principles, one of which is US recognition of the "one China" principle.
Maybe Kissinger & Associates deals with its China business interests based on this principle. But the US government does not.
In hearings before Congress, the Bush administration has been clear about the fact that the US has a "one China" policy and that this is distinct from China's "one China" principle. The US "one China" policy recognizes the People's Republic of China as the sole legal government of China and states that any resolution of the Taiwan question must be resolved peacefully, by mutual agreement and, because Taiwan is a democracy, with the consent of the people of Taiwan.
The US is agnostic on the sovereignty question, deeming it to be unresolved. The "one China" principle is China's formulation and reflects the earlier statement by Kissinger of "recognition" of the Chinese claim that Taiwan is part of China.
US President George W. Bush may have said in private conversations with Chinese officials that he opposes Taiwan's independence. The Chinese press has certainly reported this as if it were fact. But the State Department has adamantly said that the US position on this issue has not changed, namely that the US does not support Taiwan's independence.
Read the Kissinger transcripts of his conversations with former Chinese premier Zhou Enlai (周恩來) and Mao Zedong (毛澤東) in 1971 and you will see that Kissinger dearly wanted to close a deal, and was willing to give private assurances to the Chinese leaders about Taiwan that went far beyond the text of the communique.
But private assurances are not policy, and Kissinger's attempt to rewrite US policy in his opinion piece does nothing to enhance the peaceful resolution of cross-strait tension.
Michael Fonte
Democratic Progressive Party liaison in Washington
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
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS