China is currently turning to the most drastic measure to voice its displeasure toward the United States. The Chinese leadership sees its interests threatened by a wave of solidarity with Taiwan that began after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Putin’s reckless actions have set off a chain reaction that now threatens stability in East Asia.
Since China has not distanced itself from the invasion and, in fact, supports Russia ideologically, parallels emerge despite all their differences. Two authoritarian superpowers are laying claim to the territory of their weaker neighbor. It is understandable that concerns about Taiwan are growing among Western politics, and with them, the call for clearer security assurances for the island.
Nancy Pelosi’s travel plans were also born from this mentality. According to Chinese logic, however, Taiwan’s latent aspirations for independence are receiving dangerous support from these efforts. Moreover, the very foundation of the status quo is dwindling: the practical concept of One-China. Our guest author Minxin Pei highlights this point.
Now the battle is taking its course. It is still unclear on what possible foundation the triangular relationship between China, Taiwan and the United States will again stabilize. Speaking with Marcel Grzanna, the Taipei representative in Berlin, Shieh Jhy-wey, expressed his conviction that Taiwan will emerge stronger from these clashes. The sanctions hurt, but if Taiwan has to pay the price to preserve its democracy, it is willing to do so.
Shieh also gives us an interpretation of the One-China policy by the current Taiwanese government. “If it were up to us, it would be fine for there to be only one China, which would then be called the People’s Republic.” As long as Taiwan is not part of it. Therefore, instead of One-China policy, there should be a “China policy” and a “Taiwan policy”, according to Shieh.
This means that Beijing’s and Taipei’s positions diverge even further. The status quo, which has long guaranteed peace, is currently crumbling. Hopefully, it can be patched up in time.
Professor Shieh, Nancy Pelosi was in Taiwan for just a few hours last week. The economic consequences for your country, on the other hand, could last much longer. Was it worth it?
Sanctions always hurt, of course. But our democracy is non-negotiable. That’s why I’m particularly pleased that Nancy Pelosi made good on her visit despite Beijing’s threats. She has sent a tremendously important signal that democracies must support each other. If we have to pay a price for that, we are willing to do it. It is worth it.
Do you think other democracies have also learned this lesson?
I most certainly believe that. What Pelosi has achieved with her visit is a milestone, a real turning point. There has always been a silent agreement between democracies to stand up for each other. Her visit articulated this agreement. After all, this is not just about China and Taiwan, but about a conflict between the values of freedom and the values of dictatorship.
Is Germany positioning itself appropriately?
Any forceful attempt to change the status quo in the Taiwan Strait is completely unacceptable. This must be made perfectly clear to the Chinese. Violence has nothing to do with politics. The mistakes made in relations with Russia must not be repeated. Foreign Minister Baerbock said that it won’t be accepted if international law is broken and a larger neighbor invades its smaller neighbor. She referred to Russia on the one hand, but also explicitly mentioned China in this context. That, too, was a very important signal that was clearly heard in Taiwan.
Despite Baerbock’s statements, a Chinese military maneuver raged around Taiwan for days.
Xi Jinping is trying to save face with these maneuvers. He gambled so high and was convinced that the threats would stop Mrs. Pelosi’s visit. This deterrence tactic has always been successful in previous years. But not this time. Xi has no other option. He has to appease his people, who always take his threats at face value, and he ordered the maneuvers. This also shows the West that Chinese threats are not necessarily always put into action.
Do such maneuvers still have any effect at all in Taiwan?
As those affected, we cannot afford to take such threats lightly. They are real and not imaginary. But again, our democracy is not negotiable. Taiwan has fought hard for this freedom. The fortunes of many families were sacrificed for it. We will not give that back. Our President Tsai Ing-wen has said many times that Taiwan will defend its democracy to the last man. We have seen her more often in military uniform. She is trying to create crisis awareness, especially among young people.
Germany is firmly committed to the One-China policy. Does that help Taiwan at all?
When Germany, the US and other countries emphasize their commitment to the one-China policy, it must also be clarified what exactly this means. Traditionally, this has meant recognizing only one China. But this interpretation dates back to the times of Mao Zedong and Chiang Kai-chek. It is out of date. Taiwan never inherited Chiang Kai-chek’s legacy, but rather ushered in a new era on July 15, 1987, when martial law ended, leaving Chiang behind. That is why we insist that whenever the one-China policy is mentioned, it should also be added that the status quo cannot be ended by force. Without mentioning this, it is not clearly articulated what Germany accepts and what it does not.
Does this mean that Taiwan can basically live with the term One-China policy?
No, this is not about being able to live with something, but, unfortunately, about our very survival. As long as people talk about the One-China policy, they are playing into the hands of the concrete heads in Beijing. If it were up to us, it would be fine for there to be only one China, which would then be called the People’s Republic. But only if that does not mean that Taiwan will be part of it. Instead of a one-China policy, we should talk about a China policy and a Taiwan policy.
Despite pledges to adhere to the One-China policy, do you have faith in the solidarity of democracies?
Yes, I have that faith. For the democracies of the world, an attack on Taiwan means an attack on themselves. This realization has also matured as a result of the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Before Russia’s attack, was your faith in democratic solidarity limited?
Americans, Europeans, but also Japan and South Korea have realized that Taiwan can no longer be viewed in isolation in a globalized world. After all, not only are we a democracy, we are also a key player in the semiconductor industry and in the Indo-Pacific.
So solidarity with Taiwan is more about semiconductors and geostrategy than love for democracy?
They are not mutually exclusive. Democracies have to stand together, otherwise, there will be a domino effect. If you constantly let authoritarian states have their way and automatically make concessions out of fear of retaliation, then you strengthen these states to such an extent that you will eventually no longer be able to resist them.
When President Tsai says Taiwan wants to defend its democracy to the last man, is she speaking for all 23 million people or perhaps only a part?
There is always opposition in Taiwan. That is why we are a democracy. And, of course, some people say, I’m unhappy with the president’s policy because she provoked China. That’s normal. But if China were to attack Taiwan, then our people will certainly stand united.
Why are you so certain about that?
When China fires missiles at Taiwan, it means they don’t care who gets hit. Beijing always talks about bringing home the lost son. But is that the reason to resort to violence against a family member? Besides, the son was not lost. He just got married and started a family. This will deter even those Taiwanese who prefer closer relations with the People’s Republic out of economic interest. The case of Hong Kong also shows us that the Chinese government cannot be trusted.
How long will Chinese sanctions really hurt Taiwan?
This will affect individual sectors, which will suffer as a result. We have to compensate them. But the question that arises is a different one: Why doesn’t China just cut all our exports? 40 percent of our exports go to the People’s Republic. That would really hurt us. The answer is: Because China is just as dependent on our imports and would suffer a lot without our products. China always makes it sound like others are only dependent on them. But China’s need for imports is huge. This is especially true for German imports. Germany should really be aware of this strength.
Shieh Jhy-wey 謝志偉 was a professor of German studies at Soochow University and has represented Taiwan in Germany since 2016. He also served as a government spokesman under President Chen Shui-bian of the Democratic Progressive Party (DDP) and as a talk show host. The interview was conducted in German.
Japan probably did not expect to be so directly affected by Pelosi’s visit to Taipei before the Chinese maneuvers began. However, on the very first day of Chinese military operations around Taiwan last Thursday, at least five missiles landed in Japan’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ), which is what the ocean within 200 nautical miles of the mainland and islands is called (China.Table reported). Several of the country’s small islands are also sandwiched between maneuver areas: Yonaguni Island, east of Taiwan, and the Senkaku Islands (Diaoyu Islands), which are contested between Tokyo, Beijing and Taipei and administered by Japan.
In response, Tokyo urged Beijing to put an immediate end to the military exercises. “China’s actions this time have serious implications for the peace and stability of our region and the international community,” Prime Minister Fumio Kishida said on Friday during a press conference with Nancy Pelosi. Even before the US leader’s trip, Japan had been among the strongest supporters of Washington’s position among its neighbors – and is increasingly willing to openly criticize Beijing’s actions toward Taipei as economic and military harassment. The missile exercise virtually forced Kishida to openly voice criticism.
The incident shows how much the riparians are already being drawn into the crisis on the Taiwan Strait – regardless of their current allegiances. After all, Pelosi’s trip to Taipei not only exacerbates the conflict in the triangle of China, Taiwan and the United States – it renders the entire region less stable. And not every nation in the region, like Japan, has the intention or the self-confidence to stand up to China – and to risk the consequences of doing so.
Australia also took a clear position. This is no surprise: Canberra is also a close US ally and condemned the military exercises around Taiwan as “disproportionate and destabilizing” on Friday. Foreign Minister Penny Wong called for “restraint and de-escalation.” This is what she conveyed to her counterpart Wang Yi.
By contrast, South Korea adopted a much more cautious approach. President Yoon Suk-yeol decided against meeting Pelosi during her visit to Seoul on Thursday. There was only a telephone conversation. Officially, Yoon was said to be on vacation. But local media reported that he was in Seoul. And so criticism hailed from some parliamentarians and newspapers. It is obvious that concern about Beijing’s wrath led to the cancellation. After all, Yoon had still announced a tougher line toward China during his election campaign. China was pleased: “PIt may have dawned on the South Korean leader that whoever plays high-profile host to Pelosi at this sensitive moment could risk provoking China,” the state-run Global Times newspaper sneered on Friday.
It seems that every nation in the region currently has to choose between caution and principles, between China and Taiwan – and endure domestic political debates in the process. However, many Southeast Asian countries, in particular, would rather avoid making this choice. On Wednesday, the Southeast Asian confederation of states ASEAN called upon all parties to exercise “maximum restraint“ – not just China.
Experts believe the reason for overall reluctance is China’s economic presence. “Beijing’s military exercises near Taiwan have clearly caused concern among ASEAN governments – where China has significant economic influence,” Valarie Tan of China Research Institute Merics tells China.Table. “However, this does not mean that ASEAN countries now have picked sides and will openly support the US and Taiwan from now on.” Nor can they; their economic ties with China are too close. The US, on the other hand, has made only few economic offers to ASEAN countries so far.
Despite all caution, the ASEAN states were drawn into the maelstrom of events. This was evident at the foreign ministers’ meeting in Phnom Penh, Cambodia. At an event with counterparts from other states, the foreign ministers of China and, tellingly, Russia – Wang Yi and Sergei Lavrov – demonstratively left the room when their Japanese counterpart Yoshimasa Hayashi began his speech.
Wang had already canceled a meeting with Hayashi on Thursday. The official reason was a China-critical statement by the G7 group on Taiwan. Japan is a member of the G7. Hayashi shrugged it off, saying on Friday on the sidelines of the Phnom Penh conference that Japan remains open to dialogue with China: “In times like this, when the situation is tense, communicating well is important.”
There is also academic criticism of Pelosi’s trip to Southeast Asia because of the uncontrollable nature of the situation. The South China Morning Post interviewed several regional experts and heard a lot of discontent. It quoted, for example, Thitinan Pongsudhirak, a professor of political science at Thailand’s Chulalongkorn University: “Adding fuel to the China fire will be unhelpful to Southeast Asia, which has to rely on China economically and handle Beijing’s geopolitical belligerence,” he said. “Now Beijing is likely to be more assertive, not less.” Thitinan called Pelosi’s visit “ill-advised”.
Interviewees also expressed irritation about China’s behavior. The anger is understandable. The smaller Asian states are ultimately trapped. Others decide the general political climate in their region. They have to adapt.
And the situation had already become visibly tenser before the current Taiwan crisis, says Merics expert Tan: “The fact that China is exacerbating tensions in the region is nothing new. But this week’s events are particularly troubling. In a situation of such high political tension, there is a lot of room for miscalculation and escalation.” This not only applies to China, but also to all other parties involved. An accidentally triggered conflict is the last thing Asia and the world would need.
China left open on Sunday whether it considers naval maneuvers around Taiwan to be over. Exercises were expected to continue until noon on Sunday. However, the People’s Liberation Army held back with details on Sunday. It used the word “continue” in its latest announcement without clearly stating whether the maneuvers had been continued or were still continuing. There was no formal announcement of an end to the actions by late evening. However, Taiwan no longer registered any fleet movements and gradually reopened its airspace as a result.
Instead of relieving news about an end to their Maneuvers, came the ominous announcement on Sunday that China plans recurring “routine exercises” on the “eastern side of the Taiwan Strait” – meaning on the Taiwanese side. Permanent maneuvers? Beijing apparently wants to drag out uncertainty on the Taiwanese side.
China also announced a month-long exercise in the Bohai Gulf and the Yellow Sea. These areas are far north of Taiwan near the Korean Peninsula. Taiwan, in turn, raised the prospect of artillery exercises in the south of the island to simulate defense against an invasion. Meanwhile, the United States and India plan a joint “high-altitude military exercise” on the disputed border with China.
On Sunday, the geopolitical uncertainties of the past week continued after it ended with a fierce diplomatic row. On Friday, China announced it would impose unspecified sanctions on US House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Her visit was called “provocative” and “malicious” (China.Table reported). It is likely that the Speaker of the House of Representatives and her family will no longer be allowed to enter China in the future.
It was quickly followed by further diplomatic blows. China canceled a whole series of dialog formats. Particularly unfortunate is the fact that the list of talks that China has now canceled includes the climate dialogue. This step has caused widespread dismay. The climate crisis can only be tackled in a globally coordinated manner, the United Nations announced. In recent years, China and the West have repeatedly emphasized common interests in this field.
Former US Secretary of State John Kerry said the withdrawal “doesn’t punish the United States – it punishes the world, particularly the developing world.” China, in turn, blamed Nancy Pelosi for unnecessarily destroying dialogue. “The US cannot violate China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity on the one hand and ask China to cooperate with the US in its chosen areas on the other,” a spokeswoman tweeted.
Aside from the climate talks, Beijing has put other important dialogue formats on hold:
The merry-go-round of blow and counter-blow then continued turning. The United States summoned China’s Ambassador Qin Gang about the scale of its military maneuvers (China.Table reported). The Biden administration considers the magnitude of China’s response to Pelosi’s visit inappropriate.
The operations of the People’s Liberation Army have put a new dimension on the military confrontations between China and Taiwan. In previous Taiwan crises, China had maintained a buffer zone around the island. These unwritten boundaries have now all been crossed. Missiles passed over the megacity of Taipei, drones buzzed over Taiwanese islands, and aircraft flew over the centerline of the strait. All six maneuver areas were at least partially within Taiwan’s designated air defense zone. Over the weekend, China’s media broadcast videos of the drills in the style of thrilling war movies, which were primarily intended to convey pride in the strength of the country’s own armed forces.
Pelosi is so far the highest-ranking US politician to be hit with sanctions, but not the only one. Former Secretary of State Michael Pompeo, who represented the US under Donald Trump, was also banned from entering the country. He also visited Taiwan, but only after he left office. In fact, the sanctions came after the Biden administration had already taken over.
Meanwhile, the human rights committee of the German parliament does not want to let the turmoil surrounding Pelosi prevent it from making a long-planned trip to Taiwan. “If we take ourselves seriously, then we must finally take China seriously and dismiss the threat,” says CDU human rights politician Michael Brand. The trip is scheduled to begin on October 22, and the parliamentarians plan to spend a week on the island. The last time MEPs headed to Taiwan was at the end of January.
However, China has been very thin-skinned since Pelosi’s visit. In this situation, a visit by German MEPs could cause a special irritation in Beijing. Here, too, there is likely to be deliberate confusion between the roles of parliamentary and government representatives. Pelosi, too, is actually a member of parliament and, according to democratic interpretation, enjoys considerable freedom of expression. Beijing, however, interpreted her visit entirely as a change of course by the US government.
Meanwhile, the US industry fears trade political side effects of Pelosi’s trip. Apple contract manufacturer Pegatron has already reportedly run into trouble with Chinese customs after its Vice Chairman Jason Cheng went for lunch with Pelosi in Taipei. However, Pegatron dismissed the reports of irregularities in the company’s internal supply chain.
However, Apple requested all suppliers to comply with China’s customs regulations accurately to avoid delays. Above all, they are to use the designations accepted by China for Taiwanese components in any case. For example, “Chinese Taipei”. Apparently, “Republic of China” (or R.O.C. for “Republic of China”) or “Taiwan” had repeatedly been found on products and packages as places of origin. Both are unacceptable to China. As the Republic of China, Taiwan maintains a claim to sole representation for all of China.
US Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s arrival in Taiwan has incited a predictably strong response from China. Chinese warplanes have brushed up against the median line dividing the Taiwan Strait. The Chinese foreign ministry has warned of “serious consequences” as a result of Pelosi’s visit to the island. Chinese President Xi Jinping has told US President Joe Biden that “those who play with fire will perish by it.” And now, China has just announced a major military exercise with live-fire drills starting August 4 (just after Pelosi leaves Taiwan). The specter of military confrontation looms large.
Contrary to the prevailing narrative, this is not primarily because Xi is committed to reunifying Taiwan during his rule. Although reunification is indeed one of his long-term objectives (it would be a crowning achievement for both him and the Communist Party of China more broadly), any attempt to achieve it by force would be extremely costly. It might even carry existential risks for the CPC regime, the survival of which would be jeopardized by a failed military campaign.
For a Chinese invasion of Taiwan to have a good chance of succeeding, China would need first to insulate its economy from Western sanctions and acquire military capabilities that can credibly deter an American intervention. Each of these processes would take at least a decade.
The main reasons for China’s current saber-rattling over Taiwan are more immediate. Chinese authorities are signaling to Taiwanese leaders and their supporters in the West that their relations with one another and with China are on an unacceptable trajectory. The implication is that if they do not change course, China will have no choice but to escalate.
Until relatively recently, China’s leaders viewed the situation in the Taiwan Strait as unsatisfactory but tolerable. When Taiwan was ruled by the traditionally China-friendly Kuomintang (KMT) party, China was able to pursue a gradual strategy of economic integration, diplomatic isolation, and military pressure – one that it believed would eventually make peaceful reunification Taiwan’s only option.
But in January 2016, the pro-independence Democratic Progressive Party returned to power in Taiwan, upending China’s plans. While the KMT claims that Taiwan and China have different interpretations of the 1992 Consensus – the agreement the party reached with mainland Chinese authorities 30 years ago asserting the existence of “one China” – the DPP rejects it altogether.
Though it is difficult to pinpoint precisely when the new status quo became intolerable to China, a key turning point probably came in January 2020, when Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen of the DPP easily won a second term, and when her party trounced the KMT in legislative elections. As the DPP solidified its political dominance, China’s dream of achieving peaceful reunification moved further out of reach.
It also did not help that the United States had been gradually shifting its Taiwan policy. Under Donald Trump’s administration, the US lifted restrictions on contacts between US officials and their Taiwanese counterparts; subtly changed the formulation of its “one-China” policy, by placing more emphasis on American commitments to Taiwan; and transferred advanced weapons systems to the island. Such challenges to China have continued under Biden. Last year, US marines openly trained with Taiwan’s military. And this past May, Biden signaled that the US would intervene militarily if China attacked Taiwan (although the White House quickly walked back his statement).
The Ukraine war also seems to have heightened the sense among Western leaders that Taiwan is in grave and immediate danger. They appear to believe that only robust and vocal support, including high-level visits and military assistance, can avert a Chinese attack. What they fail to recognize is that, viewed from Beijing, their support for Taiwan looks more like an attempt to humiliate China than anything else. It is thus more provocation than deterrent.
China now fears that if DPP leaders and their Western supporters do not pay a price for their affronts, it will lose its grip on the situation. This would not only undermine Xi’s chance of achieving his long-term goal of reunification; it also could invite accusations of weakness that would undermine his standing both within and outside China.
China is probably not planning to launch an immediate and deliberate attack on Taiwan. But it may decide to engage the US in a game of chicken in the Taiwan Strait. It is impossible to predict such a confrontation’s exact form or timing. But it is safe to assume that it would be extremely dangerous, because China believes that only brinkmanship can concentrate all the players’ minds.
Like the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, a new Taiwan Strait crisis might end up stabilizing the status quo – albeit after a few hair-raising days. And that may well be China’s plan. But such a gambit could also go horribly wrong. Lest we forget, the fact that nuclear war did not break out in 1962 was largely a matter of luck.
Minxin Pei, Professor of Government at Claremont McKenna College, is a non-resident senior fellow at the German Marshall Fund of the United States.
Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2022.
www.project-syndicate.org
China is currently turning to the most drastic measure to voice its displeasure toward the United States. The Chinese leadership sees its interests threatened by a wave of solidarity with Taiwan that began after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Putin’s reckless actions have set off a chain reaction that now threatens stability in East Asia.
Since China has not distanced itself from the invasion and, in fact, supports Russia ideologically, parallels emerge despite all their differences. Two authoritarian superpowers are laying claim to the territory of their weaker neighbor. It is understandable that concerns about Taiwan are growing among Western politics, and with them, the call for clearer security assurances for the island.
Nancy Pelosi’s travel plans were also born from this mentality. According to Chinese logic, however, Taiwan’s latent aspirations for independence are receiving dangerous support from these efforts. Moreover, the very foundation of the status quo is dwindling: the practical concept of One-China. Our guest author Minxin Pei highlights this point.
Now the battle is taking its course. It is still unclear on what possible foundation the triangular relationship between China, Taiwan and the United States will again stabilize. Speaking with Marcel Grzanna, the Taipei representative in Berlin, Shieh Jhy-wey, expressed his conviction that Taiwan will emerge stronger from these clashes. The sanctions hurt, but if Taiwan has to pay the price to preserve its democracy, it is willing to do so.
Shieh also gives us an interpretation of the One-China policy by the current Taiwanese government. “If it were up to us, it would be fine for there to be only one China, which would then be called the People’s Republic.” As long as Taiwan is not part of it. Therefore, instead of One-China policy, there should be a “China policy” and a “Taiwan policy”, according to Shieh.
This means that Beijing’s and Taipei’s positions diverge even further. The status quo, which has long guaranteed peace, is currently crumbling. Hopefully, it can be patched up in time.
Professor Shieh, Nancy Pelosi was in Taiwan for just a few hours last week. The economic consequences for your country, on the other hand, could last much longer. Was it worth it?
Sanctions always hurt, of course. But our democracy is non-negotiable. That’s why I’m particularly pleased that Nancy Pelosi made good on her visit despite Beijing’s threats. She has sent a tremendously important signal that democracies must support each other. If we have to pay a price for that, we are willing to do it. It is worth it.
Do you think other democracies have also learned this lesson?
I most certainly believe that. What Pelosi has achieved with her visit is a milestone, a real turning point. There has always been a silent agreement between democracies to stand up for each other. Her visit articulated this agreement. After all, this is not just about China and Taiwan, but about a conflict between the values of freedom and the values of dictatorship.
Is Germany positioning itself appropriately?
Any forceful attempt to change the status quo in the Taiwan Strait is completely unacceptable. This must be made perfectly clear to the Chinese. Violence has nothing to do with politics. The mistakes made in relations with Russia must not be repeated. Foreign Minister Baerbock said that it won’t be accepted if international law is broken and a larger neighbor invades its smaller neighbor. She referred to Russia on the one hand, but also explicitly mentioned China in this context. That, too, was a very important signal that was clearly heard in Taiwan.
Despite Baerbock’s statements, a Chinese military maneuver raged around Taiwan for days.
Xi Jinping is trying to save face with these maneuvers. He gambled so high and was convinced that the threats would stop Mrs. Pelosi’s visit. This deterrence tactic has always been successful in previous years. But not this time. Xi has no other option. He has to appease his people, who always take his threats at face value, and he ordered the maneuvers. This also shows the West that Chinese threats are not necessarily always put into action.
Do such maneuvers still have any effect at all in Taiwan?
As those affected, we cannot afford to take such threats lightly. They are real and not imaginary. But again, our democracy is not negotiable. Taiwan has fought hard for this freedom. The fortunes of many families were sacrificed for it. We will not give that back. Our President Tsai Ing-wen has said many times that Taiwan will defend its democracy to the last man. We have seen her more often in military uniform. She is trying to create crisis awareness, especially among young people.
Germany is firmly committed to the One-China policy. Does that help Taiwan at all?
When Germany, the US and other countries emphasize their commitment to the one-China policy, it must also be clarified what exactly this means. Traditionally, this has meant recognizing only one China. But this interpretation dates back to the times of Mao Zedong and Chiang Kai-chek. It is out of date. Taiwan never inherited Chiang Kai-chek’s legacy, but rather ushered in a new era on July 15, 1987, when martial law ended, leaving Chiang behind. That is why we insist that whenever the one-China policy is mentioned, it should also be added that the status quo cannot be ended by force. Without mentioning this, it is not clearly articulated what Germany accepts and what it does not.
Does this mean that Taiwan can basically live with the term One-China policy?
No, this is not about being able to live with something, but, unfortunately, about our very survival. As long as people talk about the One-China policy, they are playing into the hands of the concrete heads in Beijing. If it were up to us, it would be fine for there to be only one China, which would then be called the People’s Republic. But only if that does not mean that Taiwan will be part of it. Instead of a one-China policy, we should talk about a China policy and a Taiwan policy.
Despite pledges to adhere to the One-China policy, do you have faith in the solidarity of democracies?
Yes, I have that faith. For the democracies of the world, an attack on Taiwan means an attack on themselves. This realization has also matured as a result of the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Before Russia’s attack, was your faith in democratic solidarity limited?
Americans, Europeans, but also Japan and South Korea have realized that Taiwan can no longer be viewed in isolation in a globalized world. After all, not only are we a democracy, we are also a key player in the semiconductor industry and in the Indo-Pacific.
So solidarity with Taiwan is more about semiconductors and geostrategy than love for democracy?
They are not mutually exclusive. Democracies have to stand together, otherwise, there will be a domino effect. If you constantly let authoritarian states have their way and automatically make concessions out of fear of retaliation, then you strengthen these states to such an extent that you will eventually no longer be able to resist them.
When President Tsai says Taiwan wants to defend its democracy to the last man, is she speaking for all 23 million people or perhaps only a part?
There is always opposition in Taiwan. That is why we are a democracy. And, of course, some people say, I’m unhappy with the president’s policy because she provoked China. That’s normal. But if China were to attack Taiwan, then our people will certainly stand united.
Why are you so certain about that?
When China fires missiles at Taiwan, it means they don’t care who gets hit. Beijing always talks about bringing home the lost son. But is that the reason to resort to violence against a family member? Besides, the son was not lost. He just got married and started a family. This will deter even those Taiwanese who prefer closer relations with the People’s Republic out of economic interest. The case of Hong Kong also shows us that the Chinese government cannot be trusted.
How long will Chinese sanctions really hurt Taiwan?
This will affect individual sectors, which will suffer as a result. We have to compensate them. But the question that arises is a different one: Why doesn’t China just cut all our exports? 40 percent of our exports go to the People’s Republic. That would really hurt us. The answer is: Because China is just as dependent on our imports and would suffer a lot without our products. China always makes it sound like others are only dependent on them. But China’s need for imports is huge. This is especially true for German imports. Germany should really be aware of this strength.
Shieh Jhy-wey 謝志偉 was a professor of German studies at Soochow University and has represented Taiwan in Germany since 2016. He also served as a government spokesman under President Chen Shui-bian of the Democratic Progressive Party (DDP) and as a talk show host. The interview was conducted in German.
Japan probably did not expect to be so directly affected by Pelosi’s visit to Taipei before the Chinese maneuvers began. However, on the very first day of Chinese military operations around Taiwan last Thursday, at least five missiles landed in Japan’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ), which is what the ocean within 200 nautical miles of the mainland and islands is called (China.Table reported). Several of the country’s small islands are also sandwiched between maneuver areas: Yonaguni Island, east of Taiwan, and the Senkaku Islands (Diaoyu Islands), which are contested between Tokyo, Beijing and Taipei and administered by Japan.
In response, Tokyo urged Beijing to put an immediate end to the military exercises. “China’s actions this time have serious implications for the peace and stability of our region and the international community,” Prime Minister Fumio Kishida said on Friday during a press conference with Nancy Pelosi. Even before the US leader’s trip, Japan had been among the strongest supporters of Washington’s position among its neighbors – and is increasingly willing to openly criticize Beijing’s actions toward Taipei as economic and military harassment. The missile exercise virtually forced Kishida to openly voice criticism.
The incident shows how much the riparians are already being drawn into the crisis on the Taiwan Strait – regardless of their current allegiances. After all, Pelosi’s trip to Taipei not only exacerbates the conflict in the triangle of China, Taiwan and the United States – it renders the entire region less stable. And not every nation in the region, like Japan, has the intention or the self-confidence to stand up to China – and to risk the consequences of doing so.
Australia also took a clear position. This is no surprise: Canberra is also a close US ally and condemned the military exercises around Taiwan as “disproportionate and destabilizing” on Friday. Foreign Minister Penny Wong called for “restraint and de-escalation.” This is what she conveyed to her counterpart Wang Yi.
By contrast, South Korea adopted a much more cautious approach. President Yoon Suk-yeol decided against meeting Pelosi during her visit to Seoul on Thursday. There was only a telephone conversation. Officially, Yoon was said to be on vacation. But local media reported that he was in Seoul. And so criticism hailed from some parliamentarians and newspapers. It is obvious that concern about Beijing’s wrath led to the cancellation. After all, Yoon had still announced a tougher line toward China during his election campaign. China was pleased: “PIt may have dawned on the South Korean leader that whoever plays high-profile host to Pelosi at this sensitive moment could risk provoking China,” the state-run Global Times newspaper sneered on Friday.
It seems that every nation in the region currently has to choose between caution and principles, between China and Taiwan – and endure domestic political debates in the process. However, many Southeast Asian countries, in particular, would rather avoid making this choice. On Wednesday, the Southeast Asian confederation of states ASEAN called upon all parties to exercise “maximum restraint“ – not just China.
Experts believe the reason for overall reluctance is China’s economic presence. “Beijing’s military exercises near Taiwan have clearly caused concern among ASEAN governments – where China has significant economic influence,” Valarie Tan of China Research Institute Merics tells China.Table. “However, this does not mean that ASEAN countries now have picked sides and will openly support the US and Taiwan from now on.” Nor can they; their economic ties with China are too close. The US, on the other hand, has made only few economic offers to ASEAN countries so far.
Despite all caution, the ASEAN states were drawn into the maelstrom of events. This was evident at the foreign ministers’ meeting in Phnom Penh, Cambodia. At an event with counterparts from other states, the foreign ministers of China and, tellingly, Russia – Wang Yi and Sergei Lavrov – demonstratively left the room when their Japanese counterpart Yoshimasa Hayashi began his speech.
Wang had already canceled a meeting with Hayashi on Thursday. The official reason was a China-critical statement by the G7 group on Taiwan. Japan is a member of the G7. Hayashi shrugged it off, saying on Friday on the sidelines of the Phnom Penh conference that Japan remains open to dialogue with China: “In times like this, when the situation is tense, communicating well is important.”
There is also academic criticism of Pelosi’s trip to Southeast Asia because of the uncontrollable nature of the situation. The South China Morning Post interviewed several regional experts and heard a lot of discontent. It quoted, for example, Thitinan Pongsudhirak, a professor of political science at Thailand’s Chulalongkorn University: “Adding fuel to the China fire will be unhelpful to Southeast Asia, which has to rely on China economically and handle Beijing’s geopolitical belligerence,” he said. “Now Beijing is likely to be more assertive, not less.” Thitinan called Pelosi’s visit “ill-advised”.
Interviewees also expressed irritation about China’s behavior. The anger is understandable. The smaller Asian states are ultimately trapped. Others decide the general political climate in their region. They have to adapt.
And the situation had already become visibly tenser before the current Taiwan crisis, says Merics expert Tan: “The fact that China is exacerbating tensions in the region is nothing new. But this week’s events are particularly troubling. In a situation of such high political tension, there is a lot of room for miscalculation and escalation.” This not only applies to China, but also to all other parties involved. An accidentally triggered conflict is the last thing Asia and the world would need.
China left open on Sunday whether it considers naval maneuvers around Taiwan to be over. Exercises were expected to continue until noon on Sunday. However, the People’s Liberation Army held back with details on Sunday. It used the word “continue” in its latest announcement without clearly stating whether the maneuvers had been continued or were still continuing. There was no formal announcement of an end to the actions by late evening. However, Taiwan no longer registered any fleet movements and gradually reopened its airspace as a result.
Instead of relieving news about an end to their Maneuvers, came the ominous announcement on Sunday that China plans recurring “routine exercises” on the “eastern side of the Taiwan Strait” – meaning on the Taiwanese side. Permanent maneuvers? Beijing apparently wants to drag out uncertainty on the Taiwanese side.
China also announced a month-long exercise in the Bohai Gulf and the Yellow Sea. These areas are far north of Taiwan near the Korean Peninsula. Taiwan, in turn, raised the prospect of artillery exercises in the south of the island to simulate defense against an invasion. Meanwhile, the United States and India plan a joint “high-altitude military exercise” on the disputed border with China.
On Sunday, the geopolitical uncertainties of the past week continued after it ended with a fierce diplomatic row. On Friday, China announced it would impose unspecified sanctions on US House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Her visit was called “provocative” and “malicious” (China.Table reported). It is likely that the Speaker of the House of Representatives and her family will no longer be allowed to enter China in the future.
It was quickly followed by further diplomatic blows. China canceled a whole series of dialog formats. Particularly unfortunate is the fact that the list of talks that China has now canceled includes the climate dialogue. This step has caused widespread dismay. The climate crisis can only be tackled in a globally coordinated manner, the United Nations announced. In recent years, China and the West have repeatedly emphasized common interests in this field.
Former US Secretary of State John Kerry said the withdrawal “doesn’t punish the United States – it punishes the world, particularly the developing world.” China, in turn, blamed Nancy Pelosi for unnecessarily destroying dialogue. “The US cannot violate China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity on the one hand and ask China to cooperate with the US in its chosen areas on the other,” a spokeswoman tweeted.
Aside from the climate talks, Beijing has put other important dialogue formats on hold:
The merry-go-round of blow and counter-blow then continued turning. The United States summoned China’s Ambassador Qin Gang about the scale of its military maneuvers (China.Table reported). The Biden administration considers the magnitude of China’s response to Pelosi’s visit inappropriate.
The operations of the People’s Liberation Army have put a new dimension on the military confrontations between China and Taiwan. In previous Taiwan crises, China had maintained a buffer zone around the island. These unwritten boundaries have now all been crossed. Missiles passed over the megacity of Taipei, drones buzzed over Taiwanese islands, and aircraft flew over the centerline of the strait. All six maneuver areas were at least partially within Taiwan’s designated air defense zone. Over the weekend, China’s media broadcast videos of the drills in the style of thrilling war movies, which were primarily intended to convey pride in the strength of the country’s own armed forces.
Pelosi is so far the highest-ranking US politician to be hit with sanctions, but not the only one. Former Secretary of State Michael Pompeo, who represented the US under Donald Trump, was also banned from entering the country. He also visited Taiwan, but only after he left office. In fact, the sanctions came after the Biden administration had already taken over.
Meanwhile, the human rights committee of the German parliament does not want to let the turmoil surrounding Pelosi prevent it from making a long-planned trip to Taiwan. “If we take ourselves seriously, then we must finally take China seriously and dismiss the threat,” says CDU human rights politician Michael Brand. The trip is scheduled to begin on October 22, and the parliamentarians plan to spend a week on the island. The last time MEPs headed to Taiwan was at the end of January.
However, China has been very thin-skinned since Pelosi’s visit. In this situation, a visit by German MEPs could cause a special irritation in Beijing. Here, too, there is likely to be deliberate confusion between the roles of parliamentary and government representatives. Pelosi, too, is actually a member of parliament and, according to democratic interpretation, enjoys considerable freedom of expression. Beijing, however, interpreted her visit entirely as a change of course by the US government.
Meanwhile, the US industry fears trade political side effects of Pelosi’s trip. Apple contract manufacturer Pegatron has already reportedly run into trouble with Chinese customs after its Vice Chairman Jason Cheng went for lunch with Pelosi in Taipei. However, Pegatron dismissed the reports of irregularities in the company’s internal supply chain.
However, Apple requested all suppliers to comply with China’s customs regulations accurately to avoid delays. Above all, they are to use the designations accepted by China for Taiwanese components in any case. For example, “Chinese Taipei”. Apparently, “Republic of China” (or R.O.C. for “Republic of China”) or “Taiwan” had repeatedly been found on products and packages as places of origin. Both are unacceptable to China. As the Republic of China, Taiwan maintains a claim to sole representation for all of China.
US Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s arrival in Taiwan has incited a predictably strong response from China. Chinese warplanes have brushed up against the median line dividing the Taiwan Strait. The Chinese foreign ministry has warned of “serious consequences” as a result of Pelosi’s visit to the island. Chinese President Xi Jinping has told US President Joe Biden that “those who play with fire will perish by it.” And now, China has just announced a major military exercise with live-fire drills starting August 4 (just after Pelosi leaves Taiwan). The specter of military confrontation looms large.
Contrary to the prevailing narrative, this is not primarily because Xi is committed to reunifying Taiwan during his rule. Although reunification is indeed one of his long-term objectives (it would be a crowning achievement for both him and the Communist Party of China more broadly), any attempt to achieve it by force would be extremely costly. It might even carry existential risks for the CPC regime, the survival of which would be jeopardized by a failed military campaign.
For a Chinese invasion of Taiwan to have a good chance of succeeding, China would need first to insulate its economy from Western sanctions and acquire military capabilities that can credibly deter an American intervention. Each of these processes would take at least a decade.
The main reasons for China’s current saber-rattling over Taiwan are more immediate. Chinese authorities are signaling to Taiwanese leaders and their supporters in the West that their relations with one another and with China are on an unacceptable trajectory. The implication is that if they do not change course, China will have no choice but to escalate.
Until relatively recently, China’s leaders viewed the situation in the Taiwan Strait as unsatisfactory but tolerable. When Taiwan was ruled by the traditionally China-friendly Kuomintang (KMT) party, China was able to pursue a gradual strategy of economic integration, diplomatic isolation, and military pressure – one that it believed would eventually make peaceful reunification Taiwan’s only option.
But in January 2016, the pro-independence Democratic Progressive Party returned to power in Taiwan, upending China’s plans. While the KMT claims that Taiwan and China have different interpretations of the 1992 Consensus – the agreement the party reached with mainland Chinese authorities 30 years ago asserting the existence of “one China” – the DPP rejects it altogether.
Though it is difficult to pinpoint precisely when the new status quo became intolerable to China, a key turning point probably came in January 2020, when Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen of the DPP easily won a second term, and when her party trounced the KMT in legislative elections. As the DPP solidified its political dominance, China’s dream of achieving peaceful reunification moved further out of reach.
It also did not help that the United States had been gradually shifting its Taiwan policy. Under Donald Trump’s administration, the US lifted restrictions on contacts between US officials and their Taiwanese counterparts; subtly changed the formulation of its “one-China” policy, by placing more emphasis on American commitments to Taiwan; and transferred advanced weapons systems to the island. Such challenges to China have continued under Biden. Last year, US marines openly trained with Taiwan’s military. And this past May, Biden signaled that the US would intervene militarily if China attacked Taiwan (although the White House quickly walked back his statement).
The Ukraine war also seems to have heightened the sense among Western leaders that Taiwan is in grave and immediate danger. They appear to believe that only robust and vocal support, including high-level visits and military assistance, can avert a Chinese attack. What they fail to recognize is that, viewed from Beijing, their support for Taiwan looks more like an attempt to humiliate China than anything else. It is thus more provocation than deterrent.
China now fears that if DPP leaders and their Western supporters do not pay a price for their affronts, it will lose its grip on the situation. This would not only undermine Xi’s chance of achieving his long-term goal of reunification; it also could invite accusations of weakness that would undermine his standing both within and outside China.
China is probably not planning to launch an immediate and deliberate attack on Taiwan. But it may decide to engage the US in a game of chicken in the Taiwan Strait. It is impossible to predict such a confrontation’s exact form or timing. But it is safe to assume that it would be extremely dangerous, because China believes that only brinkmanship can concentrate all the players’ minds.
Like the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, a new Taiwan Strait crisis might end up stabilizing the status quo – albeit after a few hair-raising days. And that may well be China’s plan. But such a gambit could also go horribly wrong. Lest we forget, the fact that nuclear war did not break out in 1962 was largely a matter of luck.
Minxin Pei, Professor of Government at Claremont McKenna College, is a non-resident senior fellow at the German Marshall Fund of the United States.
Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2022.
www.project-syndicate.org
