There are many nuggets of information about the UK’s position on Taiwan and China in the British House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee report titled Tilting Horizons: The Integrated Review and the Indo-Pacific, which was published on Wednesday last week while British Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs James Cleverly was in Beijing.
The quote from the report pounced upon by Taiwanese media, highlighting the report saying that Taiwan “is already independent under the name the Republic of China [ROC],” is certainly important and warranted an immediate response from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The report does not represent London’s official policy, but the committee is still an influential body that maintains oversight and shapes official policy.
Regardless of whether recognition of the ROC’s independent status is part of the UK’s official policy, it is now in print in an official British Foreign Affairs Committee report. This has a ratcheting effect. That is, the situation has been moved to a position from which it can no longer retreat — it is “locked in” as part of the debate.
This is the kind of thing the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) fears most.
The report says very little that would surprise anyone familiar with Taiwan’s predicament vis-a-vis the CCP’s aggression. It is refreshing to read the sections describing a narrative that contradicts the one the CCP has been trying to persuade the international community of concerning its claim that Taiwan is a part of China.
The report says that “the People’s Republic of China has never controlled Taiwan, and indeed historically the CCP has rejected the idea of ownership,” and that “although Chinese officials claim that Taiwan has been part of China for 1,800 years, it was only when the Manchu Empire took control of China and Taiwan that China ruled there ... just as the British Empire took control of India and Sri Lanka at the same time, it did not make Sri Lanka part of India.”
And so the ratchet turns and locks into place as the report clarifies the basis on which to reject the CCP’s narrative.
Section 151 is also interesting because it opens the door for more freedom for high-level talks. It says it was agreed “25 years earlier that there is no reason why a Cabinet member could not visit Taiwan,” and yet the British government has still avoided sending high-level officials to Taiwan. It asks why this has been the case.
This is evidence of the ratcheting effect that visits to Taiwan by US and Japanese officials have had. The visits tested and lessened fears of the CCP’s reaction.
When the British government notices this and wonders why it has not followed suit, it could embolden other governments to challenge Beijing.
In Section 153, the report says that President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) is to launch a bilateral trade deal with the UK, but that Beijing objects to such arrangements unless China is consulted and agrees.
To circumvent this, the report said that nations should sign bilateral agreements with Taiwan en masse to dissipate the focus of Beijing’s ire.
The ratchet turns again.
Section 155 says that the UK should leverage its influence as a member of the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership to support Taiwan’s membership, removing more barriers to signing deals with Taiwan.
These examples show how the Tsai administration’s policy to challenge Beijing’s narrative and promote engagement with the international community incrementally, to positions that cannot be reversed, is the correct way forward.
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’s second administration has gotten off to a fast start with a blizzard of initiatives focused on domestic commitments made during his campaign. His tariff-based approach to re-ordering global trade in a manner more favorable to the United States appears to be in its infancy, but the significant scale and scope are undeniable. That said, while China looms largest on the list of national security challenges, to date we have heard little from the administration, bar the 10 percent tariffs directed at China, on specific priorities vis-a-vis China. The Congressional hearings for President Trump’s cabinet have, so far,
US political scientist Francis Fukuyama, during an interview with the UK’s Times Radio, reacted to US President Donald Trump’s overturning of decades of US foreign policy by saying that “the chance for serious instability is very great.” That is something of an understatement. Fukuyama said that Trump’s apparent moves to expand US territory and that he “seems to be actively siding with” authoritarian states is concerning, not just for Europe, but also for Taiwan. He said that “if I were China I would see this as a golden opportunity” to annex Taiwan, and that every European country needs to think
For years, the use of insecure smart home appliances and other Internet-connected devices has resulted in personal data leaks. Many smart devices require users’ location, contact details or access to cameras and microphones to set up, which expose people’s personal information, but are unnecessary to use the product. As a result, data breaches and security incidents continue to emerge worldwide through smartphone apps, smart speakers, TVs, air fryers and robot vacuums. Last week, another major data breach was added to the list: Mars Hydro, a Chinese company that makes Internet of Things (IoT) devices such as LED grow lights and the
RSS