Those who watched the Chinese Ambassador, Xiao Qian deliver his speech to the National Press Club a week ago would have done so with mixed feelings. As a diplomat, he displayed all the characteristics of a very experienced spokesperson, quick to acknowledge that:
“… the relationship between the two countries has been ‘difficult’ in recent times, but adds a change of government has provided an ‘opportunity to reset’ relations.”
However, the day was not lacking in tension:
The Press Club address
He was, at times, chillingly authoritarian at others, a pleasurable conversationalist. He delivered his speech in excellent English from notes that said, if you want to rescue trade with us, then don’t fuck around with all this undiplomatic talk.
Use your words carefully to convey your thoughts honestly while simultaneously recognising our point of view. Don’t just be puppets of the United States.
Remember that China has always viewed Taiwan as a Province of China and is part of the one nation as acknowledged by the U.S. in the Shanghai Communiqué of 1972, which remains U.S. (and Australian) policy:
These are the words that make it so:
“The United States acknowledges that Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China. The United States does not challenge that position.”
And further:
“On August 17, 1982, U.S.-China Communique, the United States went one step further, stating that it had no intention of pursuing a policy of “two Chinas” or “one China, one Taiwan.”
The press
Prefaced questions from some of our better-known journalists contained so much opinion that the Ambassador often had to pause and work out (or even ask) the question from the cascade of thought that seemed to me at least to lack any historical familiarity.
About trade
The Ambassador made it patently clear that, in his view, the problems started when Australia banned Huawei and ZTC from our electronics and communications networks. They took retaliatory action, which is now before the WTO.
Who can lay claim to the Island of Taiwan?
Journalists devoted much time during the Q&A session to the question of Taiwan’s independence, so whilst other factors are equally important, I will generally stick with this subject.
Looking for a simple explanation as to who could claim historical rights to the Island, I came across a BBC article by David Brown.
The Island is placed 100 miles from the coast of South East China. It is the first in a chain of territories that are friendly and crucial to U.S. foreign policy:
“Historical sources suggest that the Island first came under full Chinese control in the 17th Century when the Qing dynasty began administering it. Then, in 1895, they gave up the Island to Japan after losing the first Sino-Japanese war.
China retook the Island in 1945 after Japan lost World War Two.
But a civil war erupted in mainland China between nationalist government forces led by Chiang Kai-shek and Mao Zedong’s Communist Party.
The communists won in 1949 and took control of Beijing.
Chiang Kai-shek and what was left of the nationalist party – known as the Kuomintang – fled to Taiwan, where they ruled for the next several decades.
China points to this history to say that Taiwan was originally a Chinese province. But the Taiwanese point to the same history to argue that they were never part of the modern Chinese state that was first formed after the revolution in 1911 – or the People’s Republic of China that was established under Mao in 1949.”
Whilst I’m not an international jurist, I think both sides have a claim to the Island, with China having the more acceptable argument. Particularly as the Shanghai Communiqué of 1972 has (to my knowledge) never been rescinded.
Re-education of the Taiwan population
The other contentious part of his speech to which our journalists took exception was the re-education of Taiwan’s population. Most of it came from Murdoch papers, which spend most of their time trying to educate us about their way of thinking.
Nancy Pelosi
While the Democrat leader was delivering her speech to the Taiwan Parliament – which was condemned by the Ambassador – Chinese warships were moving into position to commence the most extensive war exercise Beijing has ever undertaken. It went on for several days, trespassing into Taiwan’s territorial waters.
Pelosi, who should, as Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, be able to travel freely, would be well advised to take some sage advice before she does so next time.
Her visit prompted an unprecedented navel exercise of the coast of Taiwan involving jets and warships firing missiles over and near Taiwan. Beijing has now eased off the large-scale military exercises.
On the one hand, China is flexing its muscle by communicating to the world how far it has progressed in the last 30 years and wants to be recognised as a nation of significance.
On the other hand, America cannot afford another trillion-dollar war (Iraq), which would guarantee a loss to either party in the subsequent U.S. Presidential election.
One advantage for China if it did take Taiwan suggests it could be freer to project power in the western Pacific region and possibly even threaten U.S. military bases as far away as Guam and Hawaii.
However, at the same time, China threatens and badgers its opponents and always insists that its intentions are purely peaceful. Pursuing a diplomatic course of action would demonstrate its maturity if that is the case. Conversely, Joe Biden should refrain from his aggressive tone and also follow a prudent path.
When all the tension subsides and shifts to the diplomatic arena, some sanity may prevail.
Writing for Nikkei Asia, Ryo Nakamura suggested that:
“The greatest danger to the future of the United States continues to be an erosion of conventional deterrence,” the document said. “y to resolve the issue might be Without a valid and convincing conventional deterrent, China is emboldened to take action in the region and globally to supplant U.S. interests. As the Indo-Pacific’s military balance becomes more unfavourable, the U.S. accumulates additional risk that may embolden adversaries to unilaterally attempt to change the status quo.”
Should America oppose reunification…
Taiwan’s independence – of course – is the best outcome. However, China seems intent on reunification sooner rather than later. The status quo would probably suit the US.
It would be in its best interests to attempt to bring about “reunification” by diplomatic non-military means, such as propping up economic ties between both countries.
Should America decide to defend Taiwan against China, it must consider the financial cost, its forlorn entry into past conflicts and its own research, which tells them they would cop a thumping.
Favouring Taiwan to claim independence is one thing. Declaring or even pursuing it with hundreds of Chinese missiles pointed at you is entirely different.
[textblock style=”4″]
My thought for the day
Those agitating for major conflict should understand that they would be fighting two enemies at once, and only one will win; a changing climate.
One way to avoid conflict may be for all the leaders to stop and think of what a conflict would cost the environment, their economies and above all, their people.
[/textblock]
[textblock style=”7″]
Like what we do at The AIMN?
You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.
Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!
Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
[/textblock]
