[Long before Speaker Pelosis plane touched down on, relations
between China and the United States had been on a downward spiral.
Isn’t it time to set aside the blame game and resume talks on
measures that could reduce the risk of violent conflict?]
[[link removed]]

THE US AND CHINA PLAY WITH FIRE  
[[link removed]]


 

Michael T. Klare
September 19, 2022
Le Monde diplomatique
[[link removed]]


*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

_ Long before Speaker Pelosi's plane touched down on, relations
between China and the United States had been on a downward spiral.
Isn’t it time to set aside the blame game and resume talks on
measures that could reduce the risk of violent conflict? _

High alert: flag-lowering ceremony in Liberty Square, Taipei, August
2022, High alert: flag-lowering ceremony in Liberty Square, Taipei,
August 2022

 

Long before the US House Speaker’s plane touched down on 2 August,
relations between China and the United States had been on a downward
spiral. The Biden administration had been working to encircle China
with a network of hostile military alliances and China had stepped up
its aggressive military manoeuvres in the East and South China Seas.
Still, bilateral relations had not deteriorated to the point where it
was impossible for leaders to discuss cooperation on climate change
and other vital matters, as Presidents Joe Biden and Xi Jinping did
during their 28 July phone conversation.

Ever since the Carter administration established diplomatic relations
with the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in 1978, US officials have
adhered (at least in public) to the One China principle, under which
Washington acknowledges that Taiwan and the mainland are both parts of
‘one China’, although not necessarily parts of a single political
entity. At the same time, the US is obliged under the Taiwan Relations
Act of 1979 to provide the Taiwanese with defensive arms as needed and
to regard any Chinese attempt to alter the island’s status by force
as a matter of ‘grave concern’ — a stance known as ‘strategic
ambiguity’ as it leaves open whether the US will actually intervene
in such a situation.

These two precepts have helped maintain stability until now: the One
China principle by suggesting an inherent bond between Taiwan and the
mainland, thereby deterring a hasty Chinese move to seize the island;
‘strategic ambiguity’ by leaving both Taiwan and China uncertain
as to the US response in the event of action by either.

Although US officials continue to profess adherence to both, top
congressional and administration leaders have in recent months
suggested a shift away from them toward a ‘One China, One Taiwan’
policy, along with ‘strategic clarity’ or an unambiguous
commitment to intervene on Taiwan’s behalf should China invade.
Biden himself has helped to fuel this move by declaring on several
occasions that the US has a ‘commitment’ to defend Taiwan, even
though that is not formal US policy. When asked by Anderson Cooper of
CNN last autumn whether the US would defend Taiwan if attacked by
China, Biden replied, ‘Yes, we have a commitment to do that’.

‘Public opinion can’t be defied’

Biden and other senior officials have also suggested a policy shift by
seeking commitments from such allies as Australia, Japan and South
Korea to assist US forces if they get involved in a war with China
over Taiwan. On the congressional side, the process has been abetted
by numerous high-level visits to Taiwan, strong bipartisan support for
US arms transfers to the island, and plans to replace the Taiwan
Relations Act with a new version that replaces ‘strategic
ambiguity’ with a specific pledge to help defend Taiwan if attacked
by China.

Chinese leaders have watched these moves with growing dismay. For the
PRC leadership — and especially Xi Jinping, who is seeking a third
five-year term as China’s paramount leader — reunifying Taiwan
with the mainland has become the ultimate goal, a prerequisite for
China’s rise to national ‘rejuvenation’. ‘Resolutely
safeguarding China’s national sovereignty and territorial integrity
is the firm will of the more than 1.4 billion Chinese people,’ Xi
reportedly told Biden during their 28 July call. ‘The public opinion
cannot be defied’.

Nancy Pelosi was aware of all this when she travelled to Taiwan, and
knew her trip was bound to exacerbate the situation. Both Pentagon and
White House officials warned her that a visit at this time would
antagonise the PRC leadership and provoke a reaction. Yet she chose to
go and ensured it would get maximum international attention. We can
only assume that she had every intention of provoking China and
accelerating the drive toward a One China, One Taiwan policy, with all
the risks that entails.

It appears she has largely succeeded. Despite White House efforts to
inform their Chinese counterparts about the separation of powers in
the US political system, it has proved difficult for Beijing to accept
that Pelosi was speaking for herself alone. For Beijing, her visit
represented the culmination of a combined Congress/White House drive
to repudiate the One China policy and commence the recognition of
Taiwan as an independent state.

‘Taiwan question an internal affair’

The Biden administration has attempted damage limitation, insisting
that there’s been no change in US policy, but these claims haven’t
persuaded Beijing. Indeed, on 10 August, just a week after her visit,
the State Council Information Office released a new white paper on the
Taiwan Question reaffirming Beijing’s desire to achieve Taiwan’s
reunification with the mainland by peaceful means, but warning it was
prepared to employ military means to overcome any resistance by
pro-independence forces in Taiwan or their foreign supporters.

‘We are ready to create vast space for peaceful reunification, but
will leave no room for separatist activities of any form,’ the white
paper states. ‘The Taiwan question is an internal affair that
involves China’s core interests … and no external interference
will be tolerated’.

Official statements of this sort have been accompanied by a series of
military and diplomatic moves intended to demonstrate Beijing’s
diminished tolerance for ‘external interference’ of the sort
displayed by Pelosi and increased preparedness to blockade or invade
Taiwan if it moves any further in the direction of independence.

As indications of this new stance, China has undertaken several
worrying moves: on 4 August the People’s Liberation Army (PLA)
Rocket Force fired 11 DF-15 ballistic missiles into waters northeast
and southwest of Taiwan, suggesting an intent to blockade the island
in the event of a future crisis or conflict. Five of the missiles are
said to have landed in Japan’s exclusive economic zone, suggesting
that any war over Taiwan would quickly expand to involve Japan, which
hosts numerous US military bases.

On 6 August Chinese officials announced that they were cancelling
communications between the PLA and the US military aimed at avoiding
an unintended clash between their respective air and sea forces, and
suspending talks on such vital issues as climate change and global
health. On 7 August state media outlets in China reported that the PLA
will now conduct ‘regular’ military exercises on the eastern
(Taiwan-facing) side of the median line of the Taiwan Strait. The
Chinese have largely kept their forces on the western (China-facing)
side of the line until now; by conducting regular exercises on the
eastern side, they are increasing the psychological pressure on Taiwan
and also testing their plans for a possible invasion.

Time to end the blame game

All of these moves have been denounced by US leaders as
‘irresponsible’ and ‘provocative’. ‘We should not hold
hostage cooperation on matters of global concern because of
differences between our two countries,’ Secretary of State Antony
Blinken asserted at a press conference in Manila on 6 August.
‘Others are rightly expecting us to continue to work on issues that
matter to the lives and livelihood of their people as well as our
own’.

There is considerable truth in Blinken’s remarks, but to blame the
impasse entirely on China is misleading. Blinken has spent most of the
past year trying to line up alliances aimed at containing China’s
rise while issuing ultimatums to the Chinese leadership on domestic
issues they cannot possibly satisfy, such as mistreatment of Uyghur
Muslims in Xinjiang and political repression in Hong Kong. Yes, he’s
also called for cooperation on climate change, but only as an
afterthought. From China’s perspective, it’s Washington that is
holding hostage cooperation on matters of global concern.

Isn’t it time to set aside the blame game and resume businesslike
talks on measures that could reduce the risk of violent conflict? The
US should promise to stop its warships transiting the Taiwan Strait,
and Beijing should undertake to keep its forces on the western side of
the median line. If we cannot go back to the pre-Pelosi-visit era, we
must do everything we can to prevent these new conditions from
erupting into war.

_[MICHAEL T KLARE is professor emeritus of Hampshire College (Amherst,
Massachusetts) and a senior visiting fellow at the Arms Control
Association in Washington DC. He is the author, most recently of All
Hell Breaking Loose: the Pentagon’s Perspective on Climate
Change, Metropolitan Books, New York, 2019.]_

_Copyright ©2022 Le Monde diplomatique — distributed by Agence
Global [[link removed]]_

* China
[[link removed]]
* Taiwan
[[link removed]]
* U.S.-China relations
[[link removed]]
* Asia/Pacific region
[[link removed]]
* Asia
[[link removed]]
* war and peace
[[link removed]]
* Nancy Pelosi
[[link removed]]
* U.S. foreign policy
[[link removed]]
* U.S. military policy
[[link removed]]

*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

 

 

 

INTERPRET THE WORLD AND CHANGE IT

 

 

Submit via web
[[link removed]]

Submit via email
Frequently asked questions
[[link removed]]

Manage subscription
[[link removed]]

Visit xxxxxx.org
[[link removed]]

Twitter [[link removed]]

Facebook [[link removed]]

 




[link removed]

To unsubscribe, click the following link:
[link removed]