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.
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
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
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS