In an interview with the BBC earlier this month, US Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Mark Milley said: “In terms of capability I think China clearly is developing a capability ... the capability to attack Taiwan at some point in time. And whether they would or not, it’s a political choice, it’s a policy choice, that will be based off of how the Chinese view the cost risk benefit at the time.”
“There’s no indications or warnings of anything imminent at this time. But again, we watch it very, very closely,” Milley added.
Former US national security adviser John Bolton — who urged the US to grant full diplomatic recognition to Taiwan — has called Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine “very disturbing,” as NATO has not been able to drive Russian forces out of the country, and the effects of economic sanctions imposed by Western countries are limited.
However, Bolton also thinks that China does not wish to go to war with Taiwan, but to create a crisis by claiming to lock Taiwan out.
Chinese Minister of National Defense General Wei Fenghe’s (魏鳳和) overbearing words that “we will fight at all costs and we will fight to the very end” might well be a bluff, but no one should underestimate Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) “wolf warrior” nature when he has his back against the wall.
Beijing has of late been using jurisprudence to claim sovereignty over Taiwan, with the most current example being its assertion that the Taiwan Strait does not qualify as international waters.
A while ago, Beijing reiterated its stance: “On October 1, 1949, the Central People’s Government of the People’s Republic of China [PRC] was proclaimed, replacing the government of the Republic of China [ROC] to become the only legal government of the whole of China and its sole legal representative in the international arena... This is a replacement of the old regime by a new one in a situation where the main bodies of the same international laws have not changed and China’s sovereignty and inherent territory have not changed therefrom, and so the government of the PRC naturally should fully enjoy and exercise China’s sovereignty, including its sovereignty over Taiwan.”
The first half of the statement — that both the PRC and the ROC are governments, not nations — is not false; however, claiming “sovereignty over Taiwan” is China’s arbitrary, unilateral interpretation. Under the Treaty of San Francisco, which came into force in 1952, Japan renounced its rights to Taiwan and Penghu, leaving the areas’ legal status undetermined.
The Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) rebuttal has only rationalized China’s claim over Taiwan. The KMT’s stance is the ROC government began exercising jurisdiction — legally and factually — over Taiwan in 1945 after Japan surrendered at the end of World War II, while the PRC has never exercised any jurisdiction over Taiwan.
The KMT’s restoration of jurisdiction and the PRC’s succession of government are both fantasies. No matter how many countries endorse Beijing’s stance in the global community, nothing is as harmful as having a political party in Taiwan — especially if it is the ruling party — acknowledge this “one China” ideology.
Both the PRC and the ROC are vying to be the legal representative of China. However, as Taiwan’s sovereignty does not belong to either one of them, the issue naturally does not involve restoration or succession, which is the biggest trap for maintaining the “status quo.”
In 1949, Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) retreated to Taiwan after losing the Chinese Civil War. To counter communism during the Korean War and the Cold War, US-led Western forces tacitly acquiesced to the ROC’s retreat to Taiwan and recognized Chiang as the representative of China. In this regard, the acknowledgement still did not concern Taiwan’s sovereignty or legal status.
UN Resolution 2758, which was adopted by the UN General Assembly on Oct. 25, 1971, recognized the PRC as the sole legal government of China, replacing the ROC. “[The UN decides] to expel forthwith the representatives of Chiang Kai-shek from the place which they unlawfully occupy at the UN and in all the organizations related to it,” it says, which again shows that the resolution does not concern Taiwan.
Washington’s “one China policy” and Beijing’s “one China principle” have one thing in common: Both acknowledge China’s position that there is only one Chinese government. However, the Taiwan Relations Act shows that the US acknowledges, but does not endorse China’s claim over Taiwan.
On the issue regarding Taiwan’s sovereignty, the global community only recognizes that the Japanese government renounced its rights to Taiwan in the Treaty of San Francisco. Another “status quo” is that Taiwan has always been a self-governing democratic society yhat it fulfills all the requirements of a sovereign state. The only catch is Beijing still claiming this country, which has never been under its rule, as its own.
International law works against China’s “wolf warrior” nature of flouting rules. For example, in the case of the Sino-British Joint Declaration, after China got its hands on Hong Kong, it dealt Hong Kong a hard blow by proclaiming that the declaration was just “a historical document” and that it “no longer has any practical significance, and does not have any binding effect on the Chinese central government’s management of Hong Kong.” Using a similar approach, China is also staking a claim over Taiwan’s sovereignty with the Three Joint Communiques by making false promises of peace.
It is pointless to argue with a government that has such an intolerable attitude and mindset, which wishfully claims land that does not belong to it, or declares treaties as void when they work against its favor. All democratic countries, such as Taiwan, the US and Japan, need to understand one thing: China acts as if it exists in a parallel universe.
The adage “The pen is mightier than the sword” only works when addressing civilized countries — not on countries that are focused on which country has the bigger gun.
To oppose China, democratic nations’ policies should focus on countering China’s insistence on its “one China” principle.
During the NATO summit in Madrid late last month, the alliance identified China as a “systemic challenge,” and said that “when it comes to acts that undermine China’s interests, we will make firm and strong responses.” Beijing issued a strong rebuke, calling out the alliance for what it said was its “Cold War thinking and ideological bias.”
Despite the Tiananmen Square Massacre, Western nations took Beijing at its word instead of scrutinizing its actions. As a result, China was able to latch on to Western powers like the proverbial wolf in sheep’s clothing. In return, Beijing has turned around, challenging the international order and universal values. Russian President Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine has only added fuel to China’s radical playbook.
However, Western and Asian democracies have finally been jolted awake, as they pay more attention to China’s growing threat in the western pacific region. Undaunted, Xi is relentless in his ambition, pushing on with his wolf warrior diplomacy and military expansionism.
US President Joe Biden is reportedly considered dropping some tariffs on Chinese imports, but this would cause a serious backlash if it does succeed in bringing down inflation. As US Trade Representative Katherine Tai (戴琪) has said, tariffs on Chinese goods are “a significant piece of leverage” in the US-China trade relationship.
While there has been no change on the Chinese side, Washington’s unilateral removal of tariffs would only mislead Xi into thinking that the US is becoming vulnerable. With the false notion of China’s growing strength and the decline of its rival, Beijing’s looming threat over the Taiwan Strait, the Indo-Pacific region and the world would only increase over time.
Translated by Rita Wang
US president-elect Donald Trump on Tuesday named US Representative Mike Waltz, a vocal supporter of arms sales to Taiwan who has called China an “existential threat,” as his national security advisor, and on Thursday named US Senator Marco Rubio, founding member of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China — a global, cross-party alliance to address the challenges that China poses to the rules-based order — as his secretary of state. Trump’s appointments, including US Representative Elise Stefanik as US ambassador to the UN, who has been a strong supporter of Taiwan in the US Congress, and Robert Lighthizer as US trade
A nation has several pillars of national defense, among them are military strength, energy and food security, and national unity. Military strength is very much on the forefront of the debate, while several recent editorials have dealt with energy security. National unity and a sense of shared purpose — especially while a powerful, hostile state is becoming increasingly menacing — are problematic, and would continue to be until the nation’s schizophrenia is properly managed. The controversy over the past few days over former navy lieutenant commander Lu Li-shih’s (呂禮詩) usage of the term “our China” during an interview about his attendance
Following the BRICS summit held in Kazan, Russia, last month, media outlets circulated familiar narratives about Russia and China’s plans to dethrone the US dollar and build a BRICS-led global order. Each summit brings renewed buzz about a BRICS cross-border payment system designed to replace the SWIFT payment system, allowing members to trade without using US dollars. Articles often highlight the appeal of this concept to BRICS members — bypassing sanctions, reducing US dollar dependence and escaping US influence. They say that, if widely adopted, the US dollar could lose its global currency status. However, none of these articles provide
Bo Guagua (薄瓜瓜), the son of former Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Central Committee Politburo member and former Chongqing Municipal Communist Party secretary Bo Xilai (薄熙來), used his British passport to make a low-key entry into Taiwan on a flight originating in Canada. He is set to marry the granddaughter of former political heavyweight Hsu Wen-cheng (許文政), the founder of Luodong Poh-Ai Hospital in Yilan County’s Luodong Township (羅東). Bo Xilai is a former high-ranking CCP official who was once a challenger to Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) for the chairmanship of the CCP. That makes Bo Guagua a bona fide “third-generation red”
RSS