I have had time to contemplate the meaning behind Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) recent “peacemaking visit” to his “friend with no limits,” Russian President Vladimir Putin.
The Beijing-facilitated Iran-Saudi Arabia agreement was a major propaganda success for China to project itself as a great power that is not only sincere politically, but skilled diplomatically in mediating international conflicts.
Riding on this narrative, Xi flew to Russia with the apparent prospect of ending a war started by his Russian ally.
Propaganda punchlines and news headlines aside, nothing substantial emerged from Xi’s visit as far as the Ukraine war is concerned. Even before Xi’s Moscow flight, the same narrative buoyancy had begun to deflate because of the strange nature of Beijing’s stance on the Ukraine war from the beginning.
In this age of short memories and shallow sensational media, remember that Russia invaded Ukraine in February last year, in the same month that Xi and Putin declared a “friendship without limits” in Beijing.
Whether China could have prevented Russia’s aggression is debatable, but Beijing’s claims of ignorance about such a development is simply indefensible. An emperor knows when a czar is about to start a war. This means that he had the intelligence and, most probably, the time to move some of his pebbles on the strategic chessboard.
China has over the course of the war aligned more with Moscow. It has not only been unequivocal in criticizing international sanctions against Russia, it has been minimizing the effects of the sanctions, as demonstrated by the increased volume of trade between the countries since the war began, raising as much as 30 percent.
In addition to importing Russian oil and gas, China has also exported dual-use technologies such as semiconductors necessary for the production of weapons. Put bluntly, Chinese money and materials have been crucial in keeping Putin’s war machine running.
A case could be made that China cannot afford to stop trading with Russia, as it has a huge population to look after. That would not preclude it from parroting and amplifying Russia’s war propaganda at home and abroad, even if it does not want to condemn Russia’s aggression.
By doing so, China is, albeit indirectly, complicit in contravening the UN Charter regarding respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity, which also happens to be the very principles Beijing often deploys to shield itself from international criticism of its gross human rights violations, including genocide in Tibet and Xinjiang.
Even Beijing’s 12-point proposal meant to bring peace for Ukraine fails not only to call Russia’s invasion an invasion, it is also skewed in Moscow’s favor. Furthermore, the joint statement signed by Putin and Xi made it clear that the main goal of the Chinese president’s visit was less about ending the Ukraine war and more about preparing for a war over Taiwan.
Xi’s three-day-visit to the Kremlin was meant to show support for an internationally isolated Russia and a criminally charged Putin on the account of Moscow’s aggression and war crimes. At the same time, Beijing has also capitalized on that isolation to access raw materials, including oil, at cheaper prices in the short term, while also courting Moscow’s support in the event China invades Taiwan.
In the joint statement, Russia expressed its opposition to Taiwanese independence, as well as its firm “support for China’s measures to safeguard its sovereignty and territorial integrity.”
“China’s measures” include military aggression on Taiwan as it is evident today by Chinese threats and war games around the democratic nation whenever Beijing finds an excuse.
Stripping away the political illusion of a benevolent China embarking on an international peacemaking mission, reveals the naked reality of realpolitik. The crux of the matter is that in the geopolitics of power games, it is often not easy to gauge where war begins and peace ends and vice versa. Sometimes, peace is made for another war and a war is fought supposedly for another peace. The question is, who starts war or peace and for whom?
Leaving aside the rhetoric of a peacemaking visit, Xi’s trip to Russia has more to do with establishing a war plan over Taiwan than a strategy for peace in Ukraine. In simple language, although China has presented peace as the goal, in reality, it is the pretext, not the purpose.
What is concerning is that Beijing, especially under Xi, appears to be preparing for war over Taiwan in the name of national rejuvenation. The world must do everything to prevent it. It is not only about Taiwanese life and liberty, but given the colossal challenge of climate emergencies, the world cannot afford to be dragged into one fossil-fueled expansionist war after another anymore.
Palden Sonam is a visiting fellow at the Tibet Policy Institute in Dharamsala, India.
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump last week announced plans to impose reciprocal tariffs on eight countries. As Taiwan, a key hub for semiconductor manufacturing, is among them, the policy would significantly affect the country. In response, Minister of Economic Affairs J.W. Kuo (郭智輝) dispatched two officials to the US for negotiations, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s (TSMC) board of directors convened its first-ever meeting in the US. Those developments highlight how the US’ unstable trade policies are posing a growing threat to Taiwan. Can the US truly gain an advantage in chip manufacturing by reversing trade liberalization? Is it realistic to
The US Department of State has removed the phrase “we do not support Taiwan independence” in its updated Taiwan-US relations fact sheet, which instead iterates that “we expect cross-strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means, free from coercion, in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of the Strait.” This shows a tougher stance rejecting China’s false claims of sovereignty over Taiwan. Since switching formal diplomatic recognition from the Republic of China to the People’s Republic of China in 1979, the US government has continually indicated that it “does not support Taiwan independence.” The phrase was removed in 2022
US President Donald Trump, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth have each given their thoughts on Russia’s war with Ukraine. There are a few proponents of US skepticism in Taiwan taking advantage of developments to write articles claiming that the US would arbitrarily abandon Ukraine. The reality is that when one understands Trump’s negotiating habits, one sees that he brings up all variables of a situation prior to discussion, using broad negotiations to take charge. As for his ultimate goals and the aces up his sleeve, he wants to keep things vague for
RSS