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.
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
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
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
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS