In Wellington on Wednesday, New Zealand Foreign Minister Winston Peters attacked Taiwan for its "checkbook diplomacy," claiming there was "irrefutable" evidence for Taiwanese skulduggery in the Solomon Islands, though of course he provided none.
But put aside Peters' refusal to directly criticize China for its own activities in the South Pacific, let alone Africa. He is a maverick minister who, despite his office, is not part of that government's Cabinet. And he has turned fear of potential immigrants -- Muslims and Asians in particular -- into a very useful electoral weapon. He also has a history of playing one side against the other for tremendous political gain. His opinions can be safely ignored.
Of more interest is the report that Nauru and Palau are wavering as allies. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has denied this, but that means little. The sense of insecurity and cynicism remains, as happens every time these reports emerge.
Elsewhere, enough time has passed to conclude that Washington and other powers have no interest in turning China's involvement in Sudanese and Chadian military affairs into a debating point -- which is why Taiwan's loss of Chad as an ally on Aug. 5 has barely rated a mention outside this country.
At some point, as China turns the screws on the dwindling number of countries that recognize Taipei, the foreign ministry will need to take a new approach. Given that Washington seems unconcerned by the destabilizing effect of ally-poaching, especially to the cross-strait "status quo," perhaps the ministry might consider a more radical course of action to make Taiwan's international position clear.
Do we need an ally if it is incapable of genuine commitment? If the ministry were to announce that bipartisan political support would be necessary for the ally to receive aid, and that cash aid were to cease -- replaced by boosted development programs and closely audited transfer of material aid -- then what would be the result?
Most of the allies would jump ship. This would serve several purposes: a lot of money would be saved; long-term ties with remaining allies could be consolidated (including more generous and tailor-made programs looking well beyond whatever electoral cycles apply); there would be a decrease in the morale-sapping unilateral severing of ties; and the "status quo" would be disrupted so dramatically that even Washington would take notice.
This action is also radical in that it would require the ministry to deepen relations with remaining allies in a manner far more substantial than the pat declarations and symbolism that Taiwanese are used to.
When Chad broke off ties with Taipei, the ministry distinguished between the actions of the government and the fortunes of more than a dozen Chadian students here, allowing them to continue their studies and taking with them a better understanding of what Taiwan is and what it offers. This is a reversal of a policy that applied most recently to Senegalese students, and suggests the ministry is looking for more sophisticated ways to counter Chinese propaganda.
No diplomat would be so naive as to think that morality determines the fortunes of nations. As a senior US official in Taiwan was recently overheard saying: the mighty prevail and the weak submit. Very true, but there is more to it than this, because decision-making processes in mature democracies are informed by more than immediate military and economic imperatives. Somewhere in the mix there remains a little room for things like patriotism and honor. Their role is not to be laughed at.
Taiwan can afford to restrict itself to allies who want more from a relationship than handouts. The rest are welcome to deal with China on whatever reduced terms Beijing allows.
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