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.
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) Acting Chairman Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌) has formally announced his intention to stand for permanent party chairman. He has decided that he is the right person to steer the fledgling third force in Taiwan’s politics through the challenges it would certainly face in the post-Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) era, rather than serve in a caretaker role while the party finds a more suitable candidate. Huang is sure to secure the position. He is almost certainly not the right man for the job. Ko not only founded the party, he forged it into a one-man political force, with himself
RSS