The Marshall Islands and Tuvalu have reaffirmed their ties with Taiwan, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs said on Monday, dispelling a rumor that Tuvalu might switch official diplomatic ties to Beijing.
The rumor, which came from an Australian publication’s interview with Tuvaluan Ambassador to Taiwan Bikenibeu Paeniu, suggested that Tuvalu would follow Nauru’s switching of ties from Taipei to Beijing. Nauru severed ties with Taipei on Sunday last week after the election of president-elect William Lai (賴清德), in an act widely seen as coercion by Beijing against Taiwan’s ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP).
It is good that the Marshall Islands and Tuvalu would choose to remain Taiwan’s allies, but not for the recognition of Taiwan’s sovereignty that this relationship affords. China has used its poaching of Taiwan’s allies to pressure the DPP, and the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is highly critical of the DPP whenever an ally severs ties. In particular, KMT officials have used the severances as a basis for criticism of the administration of President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文), who has refused to accept China’s so-called “1992 consensus” — a tacit agreement between the KMT and Beijing that there is only “one China.”
Arguably, the KMT’s criticisms of Tsai in these instances amounts to collusion with the Chinese Communist Party, as could be said of some KMT candidates’ comments while campaigning in this year’s general elections, when they said that a vote for the DPP would be a vote for war with China.
If a friend is easily bought off by one’s enemy, then they were never a friend to begin with. Many of the former allies that severed ties with Taiwan over Tsai’s eight years in office were countries that could not offer good economic or military partnerships. They might have spoken up for Taiwan’s inclusion in UN organizations, but they often demanded hefty financial sums in return. There was little substance to these largely symbolic relationships, and they cost Taiwan’s taxpayers.
Taiwan must focus on fostering mutually beneficial relationships, regardless of their official nature. Taiwan has increased trade with Japan, Southeast Asian countries, the US and the EU. It has also ramped up academic and other exchanges, and opened Mandarin language schools in the US, the UK, France, Germany and elsewhere.
Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation and George H.W. Bush Foundation for US-China Relations research fellow Sana Hashmi in a Taipei Times op-ed article published on Dec. 29 last year underscored the importance of Taiwan continuing to seek closer ties with India and other countries concerned over Chinese aggression. India began rethinking its relationship with China following border skirmishes and is more receptive to Taiwan due to measures such as the New Southbound Policy, she wrote.
“Taiwan’s proactive approach became especially significant amid the concurrent decline in relations with China, which created a strategic window for Taiwan when China was constraining its international presence,” she wrote.
Japanese leaders have also increasingly expressed interest in closer ties with Taiwan due to perceived threats from China, and EU leaders have increasingly re-evaluated ties with China over trade imbalances and questions over its support for Russia’s war in Ukraine.
“It would be paramount for [Taiwan’s] incoming president to maintain the momentum achieved on the foreign policy front, especially considering the cautious approach adopted by countries toward Taiwan in the past,” Hashmi wrote.
Countries interested in ties with Taiwan still have disproportionate trade ties favoring China. Many countries seek to “de-risk” these ties, and Taiwan could play a key role, but it must proactively encourage countries to take risks involved with establishing closer ties. The more countries that distance themselves from China, the less threatening it becomes, and Taiwan should actively encourage that trend.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS