US National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan on Monday met with high-level Chinese Communist Party member Yang Jiechi (楊潔篪) in Luxembourg, where the two discussed regional and global security issues, including tensions in the Taiwan Strait.
Yang told Sullivan that Beijing was open to more dialogue with the US, but that it was also concerned that the “US side has been insisting on further containing and suppressing China in an all-round way,” Bloomberg reported on Tuesday.
The meeting came on the same day Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman Wang Wenbin (汪文斌) told the US that the Taiwan Strait was “not international waters.”
It might be important for the US and China to keep “open lines of communication to manage competition between our two countries,” as the White House said in a statement following the Luxembourg meeting, but the US should have no illusions about what can be achieved through talks with Beijing.
With its saber-rattling in the Taiwan Strait, the Sea of Japan and the South China Sea, China has shown no interest in being a productive member of the international community. Its aim is to change the norms of the existing global order to match its own ambitions. China has already tested global resolve toward action on its military buildup in the South China Sea, its increasing encroachment around Japanese and Australian territorial waters, its intrusion on Indian territory in Sikkim and Ladakh, and its buzzing of Australian and Canadian surveillance aircraft over international waters, among other acts of aggression.
It has also never stopped preparing its military to invade Taiwan, nor has it ever renounced plans to attempt such an assault. In its talks with the US, China is not coming to the table with a willingness to compromise or negotiate — it is coming to such talks to lay out its inflexible position, and to voice warnings to the US and Washington’s allies.
It is imperative that the US demonstrate its own inflexible resolve to protect its own interests and those of like-minded democracies — most importantly, Taiwan. It is acknowledged in Washington that the fall of Taiwan would be disastrous to US interests in the region. It would destroy confidence among regional allies such as Japan, South Korea and Australia; it would endanger US bases in the region; and it would disrupt global shipping, as most goods shipped across the Pacific traverse the region, and it would shift the regional balance of power.
Washington flip-flopped on a statement regarding Taiwanese independence that was published on the US Department of State Web site. It has also reiterated on multiple occasions that Washington adheres to a “one China” policy.
Rather than hold onto an ambiguous policy that facilitates pronouncements that must be later retracted or “clarified,” the US should say that it supports whatever Taiwanese decide for themselves — whether that be independence, unification or the “status quo.” The US should no longer allow itself to be bound by any policy regarding Taiwan that is unilaterally devised by Beijing.
President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) could assertively encourage the US to move toward this stance.
It could be the thinking of some politicians that a soft approach to Beijing would avoid conflict, but the opposite seems to be true — Beijing’s “wolf warrior” diplomacy demonstrates that it will prey on weakness. The Tsai administration should approach Washington about including Taiwan in a regional security pact, similar to that among the US, the UK and Australia.
What is needed in the South China Sea, the East China Sea and the Sea of Japan is an increase of patrols and joint operations between local allies to send a clear message to Beijing that its aggressive posturing has its limits.
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