Connect with us

East Asia

The Taiwan Saga



Authors: Amit Kumar & Dr. Katja Banik

The storm that has been gathering over the South China Sea in recent years has now reached Taiwan’s shores. The question is whether Taiwan, alone or with the backing of other democracies, will be able to withstand China’s strong will for reunification. The relations between China, Taiwan and the United States is at its lowest point in the region’s history. For China’s president, Xi Jinping, Taiwan is now the last bastion of resistance in his quest for national rejuvenation. Is the reunification of Taiwan with China – like German reunification – the key question for the Chinese people?

Endangered peace

With unprecedented numbers of planes breaching its air defense identification zone (ADIZ), Taiwan expressed alarm over China’s rising military intimidation as an act undermining regional peace. The ADIZ overlaps with China’s air defense identification region. The US opposes China’s “provocative” behavior and is committed to protecting Taiwan, which China claims as its own territory, and helping it defend itself against China. The US-China relationship is severely strained, and neither country can mediate on the Taiwan issue since, for China, the Taiwan question is a purely national matter According to Chinese observers, the dialogue between Xi and Biden is limited due to the differences between the countries over Taiwan, which makes Taiwan one of the key deciding factors for world leaders seeking to establish their hegemony and credibility (value of their words).

Biden’s pledge to defend Taiwan if the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) attacks the island state demonstrates the US commitment to and the strategic importance of Taiwan. Meanwhile, Beijing has warned that the US’s intervention in Taiwan poses “game-changing and significant threats.” While some experts foresee rising tensions between China and Taiwan in the coming years, the main conflict could be between the US and China, with Taiwan serving as a litmus test for a restructuring of the global order.

While the US supports Taiwan’s pro-independence administration, China’s expanding influence is endangering the country’s sovereignty. In 2018, Xi stated that “Taiwan would face the wrath of history” if it chose to secede. In this perilous circumstance, and with Xi under pressure to deliver on his promise, China could have no choice but to annex Taiwan – even if it provokes a major conflict with the US.  In response to China’s aggression, Japan’s defense minister cited Russia’s annexation of Crimea as an example of how quickly China may move in. Former Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott has also warned that a full-scale invasion by China is highly likely.

While the rest of the world is observing the situation in the South China Sea and waiting to see what happens to Taiwan, the ramifications are far-reaching, since Taiwan has emerged as one of the geopolitical theatres which is masking a significant worldwide transformation towards a new global governance with more authoritarian structures.

Afghanistan today – Taiwan tomorrow?

The United States’ disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan has created a power vacuum in the region, allowing China to extend its agenda and grand strategy. Critics argue that withdrawal from Afghanistan has dealt American credibility a staggering blow. Since isolating its friends in Afghanistan, the United States’ commitment has been called into doubt, as has its ability to demonstrate its trustworthiness. Without wasting time, Beijing lashed out against Taiwan, claiming that the US will desert it in a crisis due to its shattered credibility: Afghanistan today, Taiwan tomorrow! Globally, both national players along with globally active companies and non-governmental players like lobbyists are all putting pressure on today’s liberal international world order.

The increase in Islamic extremism, authoritarian governments and military coups has posed a challenge to democratic principles and ideals, underlining the United States’ retreat from liberal international standards. The reputation, strength and influence that the United States possessed across the whole spectrum of international affairs – bilateral, multilateral and international institutions such as the United Nations, World Trade Organization and World Health Organization – are on the decline. The old-world order is at an end – the future is still in the stars.

In terms of politics and diplomacy, the United States’ once-vast sphere of influence is rapidly dwindling. Due to strong economic relations, Latin America, Africa and the Middle East are closer to China than the United States. The EU and its member states as well as many Asian nations that were formerly considered US allies are now preferring to remain neutral in the US-China confrontation. Over the previous two decades, the United States’ engagement with Middle Eastern countries has earned it a negative reputation. Many post-Cold War conflicts initiated by the United States have been blamed on democracy.

Both the United States and democracy appear to be dwindling in relevance today. Should the United States fail to protect Taiwan if it is invaded by China, the United States will lose its status as the defender of the democratic world, and democracy will be perceived as incapable of self-defense. All other developing and developed nations will look to China for moral and material assistance, as well as the prospect of a restructured world order led by the Communist Party of China. This will set in motion a chain reaction that will lead to the establishment of authoritarian rule over democracy.

The US is fully cognizant that the stakes in terms of risk and reward are at an all-time high.

For China, what is at stake is its newly conceived ambition. For Xi, his tenure as “lifetime” president is at stake. To considerable surprise, the 6th Plenum of the 19th CCP Congress did not endorse Xi Jinping’s life tenure, referring to him instead as the “Core of the Leadership.” China has had a meteoric ascent in global politics and is tempted to establish itself as a Middle Kingdom. China’s emergence as a competitor to the United States has undermined the latter’s position, as the countries’ codependency has decreased, and the world now views China as a genuine rival to the US. China’s governance model is also under rigorous study, as its miraculous rise, poverty upliftment and standard of living have astounded the world. The COVID pandemic, however, has tarnished China’s international reputation, but the country has quickly made up for it through vaccine diplomacy. While democracy is fading, Chinese authoritarianism is gaining popularity beyond the country’s borders.

On the economic front, China is outpacing US investments in numerous locations throughout the world, most crucially, the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). China’s investments are free of any strings and entail no direct engagement in domestic politics. With growing financial clout, Beijing has been able to expand its influence by strategically placing its key officials in influential agencies and international organizations, such as UNCTAD, WTO and WHO. China has also replaced the US as the top trading partner of its key allies. A hidden truth is global capitalism is not China’s enemy but its ally. Without the prosperity and stability delivered by global trade and investments, Beijing would not be in the position to modernize its military or use its investment and foreign aid to expand its influence overseas. Beijing’s geographical assets are at an all-time high. From defense to technology, it is a frontrunner in critical technical components and is making progress in other essential civilian and military technology. Further, with its dual-circulation strategy, China is reducing its dependency to a strict minimum. Thus, there is no sphere in which the United States is unchallenged.

China understands that Taiwan is a zero-sum game. If China succeeds in gaining control of Taiwan, its influence and might would grow exponentially, while the United States’ sphere and strength will shrink proportionally. China will be viewed as a more credible and capable global actor which delivers on its promises. This will pave the way for China to rewire the international system to reflect Chinese characteristics and values. China is aware that the United States stands between it and the Middle Kingdom’s splendor. Hence, Taiwan is a key that will open the door for China to the Pacific trade route, realizing the Middle Kingdom’s vision and paving the way for Xi’s “lifetime” presidency.

Modus operandi

To demonstrate its credibility and sustain the status quo in the region, the United States’ role in safeguarding Taiwan is becoming increasingly vital.

As a result, the US is prepared to counter China’s aggressiveness on all fronts. Apart from the trilateral military alliance AUKUS, it staged one of the largest military drills since the Cold War with Japan, Australia and the United Kingdom. Taiwan has confirmed the training of American soldiers alongside Taiwanese forces on its soil, reiterating the US commitment to Taiwan. Along with increasing Taiwan’s modern combat capabilities, the US is also upgrading the military forces of its allies, such as Japan and Australia, who would be called upon to defend Taiwan in a conflict. Finally, a bill has also been introduced in the US Congress to provide $2 billion in military funding until 2032.

The United States seems to be lobbying for Taiwan to be admitted to the United Nations through its broad network of allies. Washington is forming an alliance with democratic nations to condemn Chinese aggression, generate global support and boost their relationship with Taiwan. This prompted the European Union’s first official visit to Taiwan, where a delegation communicated the message “You’re not alone” and offered to integrate Taiwan into the global system, which would ease tensions rather than fuel them. Furthermore, Taiwan was invited to join more than 100 other countries in the Biden administration’s “Summit for Democracy” (December 9-10, 2021). The invitation was a significant victory for Taipei at a time when Beijing is intensifying its drive to keep Taiwan out of international organizations. To keep up with Washington’s lead, New Delhi is strengthening its relations with Taipei by negotiating agreements to create semiconductor manufacturing plants in South Asia.

China sees US meddling as an attempt to westernize the region and destabilize the communist regime. Beijing is utilizing every tool at its disposal to subdue Taiwan, from military threats and intelligence theft to economic pressure and disinformation warfare. Experts argue that Taipei’s recent ADIZ invasion constituted electronic warfare. According to Taiwan’s National Defense Report 2021, China’s grey-zone threats include cyberwarfare and cognitive warfare in an attempt to conquer Taiwan without actual combat. China is trying to prevent any foreign military action within the first island chain. It is increasing military activity on Taiwan’s Pacific coast to sever links between the United States and Japan. If Taiwan loses its ties to the United States, it will collapse. As a result, even if the United States has a more capable military than China, we should not dismiss China’s strategies to seize Taiwan.

Xi Jinping has repeatedly warned the United States against ganging up on China, and military maneuvers, claiming that they would jeopardize the peace and stability of the Taiwan Straits. Beijing has also cautioned the United States to keep away from Taiwan, which it regards as part of mainland China. Beijing’s diplomatic dexterity is strengthening its strategic ties with Russia, Pakistan and Iran, which will advocate and stand up for China’s agenda. Without a doubt, Beijing will modify its tactics every day to invade Taiwan without having to go to war.


Taiwan is still an integral part of the United States’ commitment to safeguarding democracy and sovereignty. But for how long and at what price?

Taiwan is also seen as an inalienable part of the People’s Republic of China (PRC), which dislikes Taiwan’s democratic nature. However, Taiwan’s president seized on the country’s impassioned feelings and said she would do everything in her power to protect the country’s freedom and democratic way of life. Bearing that in mind, Taiwan is unquestionably on the verge of a formal declaration of independence. Taiwan’s independence might have a major influence on Chinese stability, particularly in Hong Kong, Tibet and Xinjiang. The South China Sea crisis has now boiled down to the question of Taiwan’s status in the world: Is it an independent country or an extension of mainland China? The progression of events in determining this question would eventually unleash one of the profoundest global transformations the world has ever seen.

The Taiwan saga could have three potential outcomes: First, China and the US go to war, which is very improbable since China understands it cannot squarely confront the US because defeat is certain. In this event, the United States will re-establish its hegemony and credibility. The world will once again look to the United States and its liberal institutional ideals, and China will suffer a significant setback as a rising force.

Second, China delves deep into Sun Tzu’s wisdom to devise strategies, ploys and shrewd maneuvers to divert the attention of the United States and its allies – in order to take over Taiwan right under their noses, which will be tough but not impossible. If China is successful in doing so, it will deal a significant blow to the US’s reputation and credibility. It will also establish itself as a more credible partner than the US, eventually causing the world to shift East rather than West – until the next superpower competition.

Third, China, the United States and Taiwan reach an amicable agreement on Taiwan’s position. The solution would ideally safeguard the US’s reputation, retain Taiwan’s independence and democratic way of life, and fulfil Chinese authorities’ demands that Taiwan not declare itself fully independent of China. If such a solution were found, it would be a win-win situation for all three parties. However, even in this instance, China would declare victory by leveraging its propaganda apparatus to best effect.

Regardless of the outcome of the Taiwan question, the world is clearly in a process of deep transformation. It is not up to the world’s leaders, not up to China, the US, Taiwan, or the EU to decide about a new world order.

It is up to us – to the peoples of the earth, to every single person – to take responsibility, to accept the preciousness of our own cultural heritage and thus make the world a better and more human place, one in which everyone can live in the spirit of peace and sovereignty.

Continue Reading

East Asia

What China Does Not Know about India



Indian authorities said on April 30 that they discovered Chinese smartphone maker Xiaomi Group had made illegal remittances to foreign entities by passing them off as royalty payments. As a result, they seized USD 725 million from Xiaomi’s local bank account in India. I deemed that the Chinese smartphone company has a misunderstanding of India and how the Indians do business.

China still does not comprehend India. While the Chinese often consider their own country as an ancient and great civilization, Indians consider India as an even more ancient and greater civilization.

India established diplomatic relations with China in the second year of the establishment of the People’s Republic of China. Following this, New Delhi issued a statement supporting China’s entry as a permanent member of the United Nations’ Security Council. Many Chinese, therefore, often perceive that China-India relations were rather good at that time. If not completely incorrect, this is at least a subjective misunderstanding of India on China’s part.

In reality, India prided itself as a great country in the world, vis-à-vis with Soviet Union and the United States during the Cold War. By recognizing China, India showed the two great powers that it has the authority to self-determination.

For a long time, China has created an impression within the country that it is the founder of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM). Back in 1955, Indian leader Jawaharlal Nehru had already issued a call for the creation of the movement to the world, which gained support from many developing countries, including China. The rest of the world, including India, sees China as merely a responder to NAM. The world, not least India, perceive China to be a mere member of the NAM, not a founder. As the initiator of NAM, Prime Minister Nehru naturally became its spokesperson and leader of the organization. He was especially responsible for delivering speeches in many developing countries on international affairs.

From the points of India’s view, the well-known Bandung Conference held in Indonesia in 1955 has its origin as India’s idea as early as 1947. It was only because of India’s help that China was allowed to attend the NAM conference, which introduced the People’s Republic to the world. These perceptions of India are indeed, largely true. The relationship between India and China at that time was far closer than that between Pakistan and China today.

On the international front, India would even be chosen as a mediator in the disputes between the United States and the Soviet Union. President Dwight Eisenhower also complimented India at the Indian Parliament, saying, “India speaks to the other nations of the world with the greatness of conviction and is heard with greatness of respect”. It is rare for any U.S. President to heap this kind of praise on a country. Much later, President Donald Trump also inherited this momentum and arranged for Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi to jointly hold a session in the United States, where they were well-received by both Indians and Americans alike. This certainly added to India’s national pride.

The Soviet Union at that time also recognized India’s status in the world, and it actively wooed India. Being able to make friends with India was synonymous with having several NAM countries as partners, which was anything but trivial. Indeed, from the past to the present, from India-Soviet friendship to today’s India-Russia relations, the two countries’ friendly relationship has a history of more than 70 years, and it has not changed despite numerous trials. The Chinese would make a blunder if they believe that such relationships could be challenged solely through the use of money.

“India was, I guess, the most positive example of USSR’s connections with non-socialist states,” states Sergei Lounev, professor of Oriental Studies at the Moscow State Institute of International Relations. The professor was certainly not exaggerating. As early as 1971, the Soviet Union and India signed a Friendship Treaty, pledging to act against any military alliance or aggression directed against either of the two nations. For the Soviet Union, it was the first such treaty signed with a country that did not formally embrace socialism.

All of this is history. However, the Chinese appear to understand India poorly, and the same is true in India’s understanding of China, resulting in frequent misperceptions. With its strong nationalist sentiment, India believes it is stronger, wiser, and better than China, and its actions would naturally reflect this belief.

Continue Reading

East Asia

Holding on to Uncle Sam: US-Taiwan Relations



The bilateral ties between the United States of America and Taiwan or the Republic of China (ROC) have developed through a peculiar and complex course. The relationship, however ambiguous, continues to form a crucial aspect of security relations in East Asia.

Recognition, De-recognition

When the Communist forces led by Mao Zedong expelled Chiang Kai shek’s Nationalist regime, who fled to the isle of Taiwan in 1949,  US President Harry Truman decided to accept the inevitability of the Communist victory in China and even planned to work out a bilateral relationship with the newly established People’s Republic of China without heeding much to the plight of his former ally Chiang. It was the eruption of the Korean War (1950-1953), which displayed the strength and danger of a Communist alliance between the Soviet Union, China and North Korea, that made President Truman realise the importance of supporting the staunchly anti-Communist regime of Chiang’s Kuomintang (KMT)  as a bulwark against what became apparently the rising tide of Communism in the third world nations of Asia. The raison d’être of Chiang’s regime was to overthrow the Communist Party rule in Beijing and “reunify” Taiwan and Mainland China, an act that both the KMT and CCP believed would restore China’s historical rights over the island snatched away by the Japanese  and would redeem the historical injustices it faced at the hands of the colonial powers. Chiang constantly insisted for the United States to help him in waging a war against Mao to achieve this objective. However, Washington was not ready to support another war in the region.

Chiang finally succeeded in framing Mao’s maritime offensive acts during the early 1950s as a growing threat and pursued the Eisenhower administration to sign with him the 1954 Mutual Defense Treaty which promised military protection for his regime. The United States abdided by Chiang’s One China policy under which it recognised that Chiang’s Republic of China was the sole legitimate representative government of the one China that exists on the face of the earth.

It was by utilising Washington’s vast diplomatic clout that Chiang did not just earn non-socialist allies but also found place in the United Nations Security Council as a Permanent Member.

However, the golden days couldn’t last long. The growing differences between China and the Soviet Union became more apparent by the 1970s and gave way to clear enmity as border clashes and ideological tensions ensued. The United States saw this development as an opportunity to crack the socialist international alliance and decided to turn the dynamics of the security triangle between itself, Moscow and Beijing in its favour by recognising the People’s Republic of China. US President Richard Nixon’s visit to Beijing in 1972 and the Shanghai Communiqué that followed stated that ‘Chinese on both sides of the border believe that there is but one China’ and that ‘Taiwan is a part of China’. Washington left it to the CCP and KMT to decide which one represented the “One China” and promised not to intervene. In 1979, came a decisive shift as the United States established official ties with the PRC. Following Beijing’s non-negotiable One China Policy, Washington broke away all official ties with the ROC and officially recognised the PRC as the sole legitimate representative of the one China.

This came as a major setback for Chiang not just as a great betrayal but also as following Washington, several non-socialist allies like Canada shifted to recognise Beijing. Chiang refused to budge on his One China policy and broke away all ties with any country who recognised Beijing which costed him much of his diplomatic standing.

A major shock came when the issue of the permanent seat at the UNSC was raised. Washington asked Chiang to accept simultaneous representation of both ROC and PRC but the latter refused it and as UNSC Resolution 2758 was raised at the 26th United Nations General Assembly to oust ROC, Chiang staged a walkout thus leaving the space for the PRC to gain. What followed was a period of diplomatic  isolation as by 1980s, the ROC was ousted from most major international organisations like the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank as space was created for the PRC to be accomodated.

The only positive development for the Republic of China was the enactment of the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979 by the US Congress as a response to the government’s decision to establish official ties with Beijing. Thanks to an active Taiwan lobby, many Senators opposed the government’s decision and claimed that Washington must retain unofficial ties with Taiwan. Under the TRA, Washington not only maintains robust socioeconomic and cultural relations with Taiwan which function through the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) and the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the US which function in more or less the same way as the embassy but also maintains that any resolution to the Taiwan issue in a way other than a peaceful measure would be considered by Washington as a threat on the Western Pacific, implying its security perceptions of an expanse covering the concerns of the United States of America.

Democracy hues: Reunification to  Independence

While the TRA brought some respite, Chiang Kai shek’s son Chiang Ching kuo, who took over the reins of governance after his father,  realised the importance of democratisation in order to not just enhance Taiwan’s soft power among the liberal West but to also make it appeal to the Mainland Chinese who had presented the demand for civil freedom and  democratic rights in the Tiananmen Square Movement of 1984. Hence, in 1987, the martial law was removed. Chiang’s successor, Lee Teng hui declared a unilateral end to the Chinese Civil war in 1991 thus, establishing socioeconomic and cultural ties with the Mainland and breaking away from the old KMT tradition of No Contact, No Negotiation and No Compromise with Communist China.

While the rhetoric of abiding by the  “One China Policy” was maintained, Taiwan inched closer to an independent status, thanks to the democratisation process which made it important for the regime to reflect on the popular opinion which turned heavily anti-unification. With a proliferation of governmental and indigenous  non-governmental organisations such as civil societies and political parties; deregulation of media and educational reforms among other changes led to the emergence of a new islander Taiwanese identity as distinct from Chinese ethnicity. For instance, in the 1994 White Paper Relations Across the Taiwan Strait, Taiwan dissociated Republic of China from One China for the first time while maintaining the rhetoric of abiding by the policy. Such sentiments further developed as the leader of the Democratic People’s Party (DPP) (which calls for Taiwan’s independence from the Mainland), Chen Shui bian, became the first non-KMT President in Taiwanese history. The growing strength of such sentiments is reflected in the eruption of the Sunflower Movement in Taiwan against President Ma Ying-jeou’s “viable diplomacy” with Mainland China which the protestors saw as making Taiwan increasingly economically dependent on Beijing which hampered the prospects for its  independence as well as in the election victory of DPP’s Presidential candidate Tsai Ing wen who remains a major pro-Independence figure.

Thus, during the Cold War itself, Taiwan’s Foreign policy has changed from pressing the United States to recognise it as the One China to the one of being recognised as an independent sovereign nation which historically developed distinctly from that of China. Ever since the fall of the USSR in 1991 and the end of the Cold War which made Washington the undisputed hegemon in the international order, the United States has shifted its focus away from Taiwan to other regions such as Afghanistan where it finds its national interests served best. Taiwanese foreign policy in such a scenario has been to hold onto the United States as much as it can so as to ensure regime survival.

Is Taiwan still important to the United States?

While the dilution of ideological politics and increased communication with China since its Reform and Opening up (改革开放) in 1978 and the fall of the USSR has decreased Taiwan’s relevance for the United States, it still remains important.

First and foremost is the strategic reason as access to Taiwan presents a wide maritime defense depth for launching both offensive and counteroffensive measures.

Second, Taiwan is a region rich in natural resources particularly coal, oil and gas.

Third, as a democracy which has remained favourable to it since the very beginning, the United States does not just feel obligated to protect Taiwan for ideological reasons  but also Taiwan’s presence as a flourishing democracy poses a major domestic political challenge to the CCP led PRC where the regime has taught its people that Western style democracy is unfit to Chinese culture and civilisational history.

Fourth and most importantly, the United States’ hegemony rests on its control of the Asia-Pacific region and though it might seem to be reducing its expanse, leaving China to take over Taiwan and the vast strategic importance it holds would be the last nail in the coffin of the era of US hegemony. The US hence, would fight till the last to maintain its relevance in the region by keeping Taiwan independent.

Is it important enough to go to war?

Though Taiwan is important to Washington, it puzzles many analysts if it would go to war with China in case Beijing tries to take over the island.

While the nuclear nature of both the nations is a huge deterrent which would, if at all, lead to a pyrrhic victory; the vastly enmeshed Sino-American economic relations is also a major reason where any hard blow on the Chinese economy would also hit Washington’s. If the United States loses the war, it would not just be immensely destroyed but would exit the world stage with a bang rather than a whimper making it harder to stand back as a world leader. Moreover, even if the United States wins, there would be no guarantee that China would not recuperate its forces and try another time to occupy the territory leading to more hostility and instability.

At the turn of the century, the United States realised China’s rise as an indisputable fact which meant that whether Washington liked it or not, it would constantly find Beijing on its way at every juncture. While such a development does not always mean confrontation or ensure cooperation, it shows the importance of dialogue and compromise in order to maintain stability which is mutually beneficial. Hence, while the United States would not sit back and watch Beijing take over Taiwan, it is also true that it would not rush to wage a war. Even though Beijing has stepped up its rhetoric of absorbing Taiwan with force if necessary, it realises that such a move would not be a cakewalk and hence is likely to consider other options before using force. The hard part of such developments is that it has reduced the central focus of Taiwan’s Foreign policy to holding onto the United States and by putting all its eggs in the American basket, Taiwan can hardly do anything substantial rather than wait for the two superpowers to decide on its future.

Continue Reading

East Asia

U.S. Violates Its Promises to China; Asserts Authority Over Taiwan



USA China Trade War

As Werner Rügemer headlined on 28 November 2021 and truthfully summarized the relevant history, “Taiwan: US deployment area against mainland China — since 1945”. However, despite that fact, America did officially issue a “Joint Communique” with China recognizing and acknowledging not only that Taiwan is a province of China but that for America or its allies or any other nation to challenge that historical fact would be unethical.

The U.S. regime hides this crucial historical fact, in order to hoodwink its masses of suckers into assuming to the exact contrary — that Taiwan isn’t a Chinese province. Here is how they do this:

The CIA-edited and written Wikipedia, which blacklists (blocks from linking to) sites that aren’t CIA-approved, is the first source for most people who become interested in what is officially known as the Shanghai Communique of 1972, or the 27 February 1972 “JOINT COMMUNIQUE BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND CHINA”. That article, avoids presenting the Communique’s 1,921-word text, but instead provides, in its “Document” section, a mere 428-word very selective, and sometimes misleading, summary of some of the document’s less-important statements, and also fails to provide any link to the document itself, which they are hiding from readers.

The U.S. regime’s Wilson Center does have an article “JOINT COMMUNIQUE BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND CHINA”, at which only the document’s opening 286 words are shown, while the rest is veiled and the reader must then do additional clicks in order to get to it.

The U.S. State Department’s history site, does provide the entire 1,921-word document, but under a different title, one that plays down the document’s actual importance, “Joint Statement Following Discussions With Leaders of the People’s Republic of China”.  (If it’s a “Joint Statement,” then whom are the “Leaders of the People’s Republic of China” “jointly” issuing it with — that title for it is not only false, it is plain stupid, not even referring to the U.S, at all.) Consequently, anyone who seeks to find the document under its official and correct title won’t get to see it at the U.S. State Department’s site.

Here are some of the important statements in this document (as shown below that stupid title for it at the State Department’s site):

With these principles of international relations in mind the two sides stated that:

               —progress toward the normalization of relations between China and the United States is in the interests of all countries;

               —both wish to reduce the danger of international military conflict;

               —neither should seek hegemony in the Asia–Pacific region and each is opposed to efforts by any other country or group of countries to establish such hegemony; and

               —neither is prepared to negotiate on behalf of any third party or to enter into agreements or understandings with the other directed at other states.

Both sides are of the view that it would be against the interests of the peoples of the world for any major country to collude with another against other countries, or for major countries to divide up the world into spheres of interest. …

The U.S. side declared: The United States acknowledges that all 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 Government does not challenge that position. It reaffirms its interest in a peaceful settlement of the Taiwan question by the Chinese themselves. With this prospect in mind, it affirms the ultimate objective of the withdrawal of all U.S. forces and military installations from Taiwan. In the meantime, it will progressively reduce its forces and military installations on Taiwan as the tension in the area diminishes.

The Wikipedia article’s 428-word summary of the “Document” did include parts of the paragraph which started “The U.S. side declared,” but the summary closed by alleging that the document “did not explicitly endorse the People’s Republic of China as the whole of China. Kissinger described the move as ‘constructive ambiguity,’ which would continue to hinder efforts for complete normalization.” How that passage — or especially the entire document — could have been stated with less “ambiguity” regarding “the People’s Republic of China as the whole of China” wasn’t addressed. In fact, the statement that “all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China” includes asserting that the Taiwanese people “maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China.” So: the U.S. did agree with that, even signed to it in 1972. If the U.S. refuses to agree with it now, then what was the U.S. agreeing to in that Communique, and under what circumstances does the Communique become null and void for either of the two agreeing Parties to it? When does it stop being binding? Perhaps the document should have added something like “The U.S. Government will never try to break off pieces of China.” But maybe if that were to have been added to it, then the U.S. regime wouldn’t have signed to anything with China. Is the U.S. regime really that Hitlerian? Is this what is ‘ambiguous’ about the document?

In fact, the affirmation that, “The United States Government does not challenge that position. It reaffirms its interest in a peaceful settlement of the Taiwan question by the Chinese themselves. With this prospect in mind, it affirms the ultimate objective of the withdrawal of all U.S. forces and military installations from Taiwan.” is now routinely being violated by the U.S. regime. Here’s an example:

One of the leading U.S. billionaires-funded think tanks, the Center for a New American Security (CNAS), was co-founded by Kurt Campbell, who is Joe Biden’s “Asia co-ordinator” or “Asia Tsar” with the official title of “National Security Council Coordinator for the Indo-Pacific.” The other co-founder is Michèle Flournoy, who also co-founded with the current Secretary of State Antony Blinken, WestExec Advisors, which firm’s client-list is secret but generally assumed to be top investors in firms such as Lockheed Martin. That advisory firm’s activities are also secret. 

Perhaps nothing is more profitable than trading on inside information regarding corporations whose main, if not only, sales are to the U.S. Government and its allied governments. Trading on inside information needs to be secret in order to be non-prosecutable. The clients of WestExec Advisors might be extraordinarily successful investors, because they’ve hired people who have ‘the right’ contacts in the federal bureaucracy and so know where your ‘national security’ tax-dollars are likeliest to be spent next.

CNAS issued, in October 2021, “The Poison Frog Strategy: Preventing a Chinese Fait Accompli Against Taiwanese Islands”. It was written as-if the Shanghai Communique hadn’t prohibited this. The presumption there was instead that America and Taiwan would have so much raised the heat against China’s not being picked apart, so as for China to have militarily responded in order to hold itself together; and, then, a stage, “MOVE 2,” would be reached, in which:

The Taiwan and U.S. teams engaged in more direct communication, which aided the U.S. team in framing the crisis. By Move 2, the U.S. team had accepted that using military force to retake Dongsha would be too escalatory and might disrupt the formation of any counter-China coalition. Accordingly, the team reframed the takeover of Dongsha as an opportunity to expose Chinese belligerence and to encourage states to join together to balance against China’s aggressive behavior. The U.S. team’s decision to place U.S. military forces on Taiwan during Move 1 became a key driver for the rest of the game.


By Move 3, both the U.S. and Taiwan teams were in difficult positions. The U.S. team did not want to let Chinese aggression go unpunished, both for the sake of Taiwan and within the context of the broader regional competition. At the same time, the U.S. team wanted to show its partners and allies that it was a responsible power capable of negotiating and avoiding all-out war. The Taiwan team was caught in an escalating great-power crisis that threatened to pull Taiwan into a war that it was trying to avoid. The Taiwan team had to balance its relationships and policies with the United States and China while simultaneously spearheading de-escalation. And in the early part of the game, before communication between the United States and Taiwan teams improved, the Taiwan team had, unbeknownst to the U.S. team, set up a back channel with the China team. At the same time the back-channel negotiations were ongoing, the U.S. team was still, in fact, considering additional escalatory action against the China team. …

Toward the end of the game, the U.S. and Taiwan teams’ main strategy was to isolate China diplomatically and economically and garner enough international backing among allies and partners to make that isolation painful. To this end, the Taiwan team focused on pulling in some of its regional partners, such as Japan, while the U.S. team reached out to its NATO allies.9 To avoid unwanted escalation or permanent effects, the U.S. and Taiwan teams limited their offensive military operations to non-kinetic and reversible actions such as cyberattacks and electronic warfare.

Under “Key Takeaways and Policy Recommendations” is:

Given the inherent difficulty of defending small, distant offshore islands like Dongsha, Taiwan and the United States should strive to turn them into what the players called “poison frogs.” This approach would make Chinese attempts to seize these islands so militarily, economically, and politically painful from the outset that the costs of coercion or aggression would be greater than the benefits.

The U.S. regime’s having in 1972 committed itself to there being only “a peaceful settlement of the Taiwan question by the Chinese themselves” has somehow now become a license for the U.S. regime to provoke “Chinese attempts to seize these islands” and yet to cause — by America’s constant further provocations and lying — this to be “so militarily, economically, and politically painful from the outset that the costs of coercion or aggression would be greater than the benefits.”

In other words: the U.S. regime expects to portray China as being the aggressor, and the U.S. regime as being the defender — but, actually, of what? It would be the defender of breaking off a piece of China to add it to the U.S. regime’s allies, against an ‘aggressive’ China that opposes America’s violating its own, and China’s, 1972 Joint Shanghai Communique — which prohibits that.

On May 19th, The Hill, one of the U.S. regime’s many propaganda-mouthpieces, headlined “China warns of dangerous situation developing ahead of Biden Asia trip”, and opened: 

China warned the U.S. that President Biden’s visit to East Asia this week could put their relations in “serious jeopardy” if officials play the “Taiwan card” during the trip.

In a phone call with national security adviser Jake Sullivan, China’s top diplomat Yang Jiechi warned the U.S. against speaking out on the independent sovereignty of Taiwan, a self-ruling democratic island in the Indo-Pacific that China claims is historically part of the mainland and should be under Beijing’s control.

China doesn’t claim that Taiwan “is historically part of the mainland and should be under Beijing’s control,” but that, just like Hawaii is NOT a part of “the mainland” but IS “under U.S. control,” and NOT “a self-ruling” nation, Taiwan is NOT a part of “the mainland” but IS (not ‘should be’, but IS) under China’s control, and NOT “a self-ruling” nation. Just as there is no “independent sovereignty of Hawaii,” there also is no “independent sovereignty of Taiwan.” How many lies were in that opening? (And this doesn’t even bring in the fact that whereas Hawaii is way offshore of America’s mainland, Taiwan is very close to China’s mainland.)

And how long will the U.S. regime’s constant lying continue to be treated as if that’s acceptable to anything other than yet another dangerously tyrannical regime — a U.S. ally, perhaps?

Continue Reading