Most people would like to see a reduction in tensions across the Taiwan Strait.
The outdated "Taiwan Crisis," as many news wires and think tanks melodramatically call a "dispute" that is usually quite boring, is generally cited as potentially one of the most explosive conflicts in Asia, if not the world.
Dramatizing China-Taiwan relations is all well and good for people trying to sell books championing policy proposals that are so unrealistic as to sound like parody (think Ted Galen Carpenter's America's Coming War with China, which essentially advocates a complete US withdrawal from all of Asia to stop the "coming war").
But when senior diplomats from the countries involved sensationalize the issue, people must first let their shock at the official's irresponsibility and callousness subside, before trying to determine what the motivation was.
Yesterday, China's ambassador to the UN, Sha Zukang (
"The China population is six times or five times that of the United States," Sha said. "Why blame China? [for it's rising defense spending] ... It's better for the US to shut up and keep quiet. It's much, much better."
Later, with regard to what China would do if Taiwan declared independence, he added: "We will do the business at any cost," which one can only assume means going to war.
"It's not a matter of how big Taiwan is, but for China, one inch of the territory is more valuable than the life of our people. We will never concede on that," Sha said.
Now, there isn't much here that hasn't been said before. Chinese military officers and academics often make threats of dire consequences if Taiwan declares independence.
There is little need to address the ambassador's emotionally charged ranting.
Obviously people aren't concerned about the relationship between defense spending and demographics: They're concerned about sudden and substantial increases in military spending by authoritarian states with a history of internal and external violence.
What is most shocking in this case is the fact that this was not a retired colonel writing a paper in an obscure Chinese defense journal; this was Beijing's envoy to the UN being interviewed by one of the most influential news agencies on the planet.
Why would he say such things now? The Taiwanese government hasn't done anything "provocative" lately. US-China relations aren't particularly bad at present, although they have been gradually worsening throughout the Bush administration.
Contrast these comments with recent events in Taiwan. Efforts to liberalize cross-strait trade restrictions are finally gaining momentum. Meanwhile, pro-unification supporters are in ascendancy as the ruling party implodes over a flurry of scandals.
So what do Sha's comments mean?
They mean that the world needs to be very alarmed. No one questions that China is a rising power. But there are a lot of people who are convinced that all China wants is a little respect: If they treat it like a responsible country, it will act like a responsible country. This is a mistake.
Beijing is not responsible. Tired of being the "Sick Man of Asia" that it was for most of the 19th and 20th centuries, China has been self-medicating with the only narcotic it knows: ethnic nationalism.
China isn't the Sick Man of Asia anymore: It's a drug addict.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS