Connect with us

East Asia

Friendship in a “new situation”

Published

on

The close friendship between China and North Korea is back in the news as Chinese President Xi Jinping called for greater cooperation with Pyongyang in an unspecified “new situation”. Interestingly, the message comes amidst the Russian invasion of Ukraine and closely follows North Korea’s series of missile tests, conducted last month. It is important to reflect on the friendship between Beijing and Pyongyang and what such a “new situation” might entail.

Strengthening Friendship

Xi Jinping, in a message to North Korean Supreme Leader Kim Jong-un, called for enhancing “cooperation and friendship” between the two states in a “new situation”, reported North Korea’s state media, Korean Central News Agency (KCNA). Xi’s message follows Kim’s congratulatory message to China on the  conclusion of the recently held Winter Olympics in Beijing, which he claimed was successfully held against “unprecedentedly severe health crisis and the hostile forces’ manoeuvres” , pointing to the challenges presented by the Coronavirus Pandemic as well as the United States led diplomatic  boycott of the Olympics against China’s poor human rights record. Kim also called for cooperation between China and North Korea in “frustrating the undisguised hostile policy and military threat of the U.S. and its satellite forces”.

Beijing and Pyongyang on Ukraine

The renewed bonhomie comes amidst Russia’s invasion of  Ukraine. China has abstained from voting against Moscow in the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) and mooted the discussion over clearly choosing Putin’s side by diverging from its rhetoric of safeguarding sovereignty and territorial rights of nations. It had blamed the United States and its allies  for creating a conducive situation for the Russian act which the Chinese diplomat at the UNSC referred to as an “invasion” rather than Russia’s official claim of it being a “special military operation” and hence, indicating it to be against the United Nations Charter which China claims to faithfully uphold.

Beijing however, seems to have changed its stance on the issue as the war continues to escalate. In his recent telephonic conversation with Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba, Chinese Foreign Minister and State Councillor Wang Yi referred to the situation as “war” and expressed his concern regarding the safety of Ukrainian civilians and Chinese residents of Ukraine who are said to number 6000 on the eve of the invasion. Wang stated that China does not recognise the expansion of military blocs and ensuring security of one state at the cost of another’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.

North Korea, on the other hand, has been more vocal. Blaming the United States for “ignoring Russia’s reasonable and legitimate demands” for guaranteeing legally backed security assurances, Pyongyang has thrown the complete onus of the invasion on Washington’s and its allies’ “hegemonic policy”, “high-handedness” and “abuse of power” which it claims includes the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation’s (NATO) eastward expansion and deployment of attack weapons systems in Eastern Europe.

Nuclear Dreams

North Korea’s statement comes a day after it fired a missile which follows a record number of launches in January this year.

These developments mark North Korea’s biggest launch since the launch of Hwasong-15 in  2017. The missiles are both highly precise and highly lethal, with the ability to hit low altitude targets at a speed five times that of sound.

Apart from threatening the Northeast Asian region and global security at large, it also poses a direct territorial threat to South Korea and Japan, whom Kim considers Washington’s vassals.

Though Kim Jong-un has not personally attended any of the tests, he visited an unspecified munitions factory earlier last month, which is said to be producing a “major weapon system”.  The KCNA reported that North Korea would restart all of its “temporarily abandoned activities”, indicating nuclear tests which have been under a self-imposed embargo since 2017. Moreover, in a Politburo meeting of the Workers’ Party of Korea, Kim called for “immediate bolstering” of North Korea’s military capabilities.

With its economy, which was already crumbling under the weight of sanctions, being on the verge of collapse due to a strict state imposed lockdown to curb the Coronavirus pandemic, North Korea has found weapons proliferation as a way of provoking the United States and its allies to negotiate with it on Pyongyang’s terms in order to lift the sanctions while maintaining regime legitimacy at home.

Abandoning Ukraine

If there is anything that the Ukraine crisis has brought to the fore, it is the apathy of the United States and its Western allies. Neither the United States, the European countries nor the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation has expressed any intention to send forces to Ukraine.

Though Ukraine is neither a member of NATO nor the European Union, it has a close relationship with both the organisations. While a military response is not desirable, they have also failed to avert the crisis diplomatically.

NATO has done little beyond verbally criticising Russia. The European Union too has extended only “humanitarian, political and financial support” to Ukraine. The European Community apart from other US allies such as Japan, New Zealand, Australia, the United Kingdom among others have decided to oust Russia from SWIFT, a high security network that connects thousands of international financial institutions. They have also decided to freeze Russia’s foreign assets.

The biggest shock however came from the United States, considering the close relationship that the two have shared since 1991 when Ukraine became an independent nation after the disintegration of the USSR.

In his State of the Union address delivered on March 2,2022, US President Joe Biden applauded the undaunting spirit of the Ukrainian people to fight for their country but stated that he did not intend to send his forces to fight the Russians for Ukraine. He would however, do so if “any inch of NATO territory” comes under threat, shattering all hopes of the Ukrainian people and President Volodymyr Zelenskyy who find themselves standing alone.

Biden did enlist all measures taken by the United States in countering Russia. Apart from launching a widespread diplomatic protest, creating a US Department of Justice task force to “go after the crimes of the Russian oligarchs” and closing off American airspace to all Russian flights, Washington aims to hurt Russia economically by enforcing sanctions, cutting off Russia’s largest banks from the international financial system, attacking and seizing private property of Russian oligarchs as well as by preventing Russia’s Central Bank from “defending the ruble”. Biden also promised military  (other than sending  forces) and financial assistance to Ukraine.

The Sports community has also strongly reacted to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. FIFA, in a joint statement with UEFA has announced its decision to expel the Russian team from the 2022 World Cup and all international competitions.  The World Taekwondo Federation has stripped Putin of his honorary black belt which was awarded in November 2013.

Though these sanctions are much harsher than those Russia has been familiar with, they are unlikely to topple Putin’s regime. Experts believe that the economy was already destabilised the day the “military expedition” was launched and the banks have already devised a system of working independently of the SWIFT. While the oligarchs would still remain very rich, the common people would be badly hit. Moreover, Russia might still find a market for its energy resources and defense exports.

The “new situation” thus points to a world order where the United States and its allies would restrict their role in international events and would not act as assertively as they once did.

An Invincible Friendship?

While China and North Korea have claimed their relationship to be “invincible and immortal“, bilateral relations have not always been a smooth sail.

During his struggle against the Japanese colonial regime, Kim Jong-un’s grandfather, Kim il-Sung had served with the Chinese Communist guerrillas. The two nations came together for the first time during the Korean War (1950-1953) when Chinese leader Mao Zedong sent his forces to support Pyongyang. However, the relationship soon turned sour in what came to be known as the August Faction Incident.

In August of 1956, pro-Soviet and China affiliated Yanan factions of the  Workers’ Party of Korea criticised Kim il-Sung for betraying the Leninist idea of collective leadership by building his personality cult and called for his removal from the leadership position. Kim responded by strengthening his own Kapsan faction and purging all dissenting voices. The August Incident made it clear that China did not approve of the coveted position enjoyed by the ‘Great Leader’ and hence, could not be trusted. Later, Pyongyang criticised Mao’s Cultural Revolution (1966-1976) and Beijing responded by dubbing North Korea as “revisionist” and hence, against the true spirit of Marxism-Leninism.

However, the two came back together in 1961 when the May 16 coup d’état of 1961 led by General Park Chung Hee in South Korea, which soon followed a rise in military expenditure, threatened North Korea with the possibility of a Seoul led invasion. Pyongyang went knocking on Beijing’s doors for help and what resulted was the Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Mutual Assistance between the People’s Republic of China and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea,1961 which stands as the only defense treaty either of the states have with any nation.

Article II of the treaty reads:

“The Contracting Parties undertake jointly to adopt all measures to prevent aggression against either of the Contracting Parties by any state. In the event of one of the Contracting Parties being subjected to the armed attack by any state or several states jointly and thus being involved in a state of war, the other Contracting Party shall immediately render military and other assistance by all means at its disposal.”

Both Parties continue to abide by the treaty.

Relations soured again during the late 1980s and early 1990s when North Korea’s nuclear proliferation programme was revealed. The 1990s was a difficult period for Pyongyang as the disintegration of the Soviet Union had not only robbed it of a major developmental trade and aid partner but by then cracks had also begun to appear in its Stalinist economic structure which was badly hit by international sanctions and natural calamities. Moreover, North Korea had learnt the power of possessing nuclear weapons to sustain its regime during the Korean War itself. It realised that the time was ripe to make its own nuclear weapons to secure the survival of the Communist Party regime amidst growing animosity with the West.

Though China has opposed Pyongyang’s nuclear proliferation programme and has recurrently called for denuclearisation of the Korean Peninsula, it continues to support Pyongyang diplomatically at international forums and stabilise its economy as North Korea’s largest trade and aid partner. North Korea represents China’s core interests in Northeast Asia. Pyongyang is not only one of the few surviving anti-America bastions on the face of the earth but a collapse of the Kim regime might entail a refugee crisis on China’s border and threatens to derail Beijing from the path of  economic development. Moreover, China has refused to support Washington’s demand that Pyongyang denuclearises unconditionally before any talks on lifting the sanctions can be initiated. It calls for lifting of sanctions in a phased manner while a commitment of denuclearisation is made by all sides including the United States.

In 2002, US President George Bush dubbed North Korea among the “Axis of Evil” alongside Iran and Iraq. The subsequent US invasion of Iraq threatened a possible attack on Pyongyang. China came to North Korea’s rescue and called for Washington to abandon its hostile attitude.

Sino-North Korean relations received another blow in 2013 when Kim Jong un discovered a plot, hatched by his uncle and a close ally of China, to replace him with his brother. Relations were restored when Kim visited Beijing in 2018 followed by an official visit by Xi to Pyongyang. Kim has continued to support Beijing on allegations of human rights violations in Xinjiang, Tibet and Hong Kong as well as its official stance on Taiwan and the origins of the Coronavirus.

Whither China-North Korea?

While Pyongyang might utilise Beijing’s shadow to continue its missile launches and nuclear proliferation programme to test the bounds of Washington’s and its allies’ patience in the “new situation”, China’s changing stance on Russia wraps its active support for North Korea’s actions with doubt. Though a weakened Russian economy and military would strengthen China and bring it closer to a great power status,  instability involving highly lethal weapons, let alone nuclear weapons, on its borders is the last thing that Beijing would desire. At best, China would let North Korea frustrate Washington and challenge its waning authority as a superpower only to the extent that it does not create any major instability in the region.

It must also be realised that there isn’t anything ‘invincible’ about Sino-North Korean friendship if it wasn’t for the United States. 72 years back, it was the United States which brought the two together and presently, it is Washington’s refusal to negotiate with North Korea in a nuanced manner which continues to embolden the two. The idea is not to show any clemency towards North Korea but to address its concerns without which no agreement on denuclearisation could ever be reached. Only peaceful dialogue, which addresses the realities of international power dynamics, can build a path to a peaceful world.

Cherry Hitkari is a postgraduate student of East Asian Studies at University of Delhi, India and a current intern at Modern Diplomacy.

Continue Reading
Comments

East Asia

What China Does Not Know about India

Published

on

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

Published

on

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

Published

on

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.

Then, 

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

Publications

Latest

Trending