It will be interesting to see how both the US and China handle their bilateral relationship moving forward. From an Australian perspective, I sometimes feel uncomfortable with both sides calling for enhanced people-to-people ties because there is no support or even people to talk to if you dedicate years of your life to this effort, only for things to turn sour. It can take a massive personal toll. I am all for niceties and pleasantries, but I also think that this kind of language can have detrimental impacts on the human beings who go and try to make people-to-people ties happen — because it is often those people who get targeted by both sides in any dispute or disagreement when neither side sees eye to eye. As someone who once truly felt passionate about doing everything possible to improve links and ties, my journey engaging with China has left me wanting nothing to do with it, which is a shame because that is a whole lot of education and experience wasted. Unfortunately, with things the way they are, if you have robust relationships both at home and in China, both sides can see that as something to be suspicious of, rather than an asset. But life is just better when you don’t need to constantly worry about how two societies with very different (no judgment here, different doesn’t mean wrong) sets of values and political situations are going to interact. I admire you for your tireless efforts and tenacity, and the world certainly does need more people like you. I just don’t know if we have enough people like you!
My favorite quote: “We should encourage peaceful cross-strait dialogue and oppose unilateral changes to the status quo by either side.” I think the US has always been comfortable with this stance. The governments of Taiwan and the US are both comfortable with this. Unfortunately, the Chinese government is not. They make no bones about it: one way or another, peacefully or by force, bilaterally or unilaterally, they seek to change the status quo and bring Taiwan under the rule of Beijing, just as it has done with Hong Kong. That keeps people awake at night, all over the world.
But you’re right, US policy should be to declare loudly and convincingly that the US, unlike China, seeks to maintain the status quo.
“The Republic of China and People's Republic of China are not subordinate to each other - this is the definition of Taiwan independence” - Lai Ching-te, 2023. That doesn’t sound like “one China policy” or strategic ambiguity to me. If US can really ensure to rein in this type of voice, we might have a good chance for maintaining the status quo.
I guess I’m confused. When the government of Taiwan says 1) it is the sovereign Republic of China, and 2) it is not subordinate to the People’s Republic of China, do you view that as a “unilateral change” to the “status quo?” I find that hard to accept, since the government of Taiwan has been essentially asserting that non-stop since the 1950’s, AFAIK. Its formal diplomatic relations with a few foreign governments are certainly evidence of that. I just wanted to clarify that point, before moving on to the “Taiwan independence” comment, which I agree is something that should be reined in.
Touché to Robert's comment. However, the Status Quo (versus "status quo" reflecting aspects of power relations between Taiwan and China) on which the US strategic ambiguity is based really targets two specific aspects of the relations: (1) to-date, Taiwan has not attained statehood and (2) the US will neither encourage Taiwanese independence nor maintain neutrality in defense of Taiwanese safety from coercion as codified in the Taiwan Relations Act. This position makes no explicit statement about maintaining any precedence established at that time of relationship between China and Taiwan, and specifically leaves open the possibility -- as unlikely as it might be -- of a peaceful reunification.
In this reading, certain moves by US vis-a-vis Taiwan can be seen by PRC as an unilateral change to (1) via a breach of (2).
> They make no bones about it: one way or another, peacefully or by force, bilaterally or unilaterally, they seek to change the status quo and bring Taiwan under the rule of Beijing, just as it has done with Hong Kong.
I would say "yes and no." From where I am standing, I would argue that the PRC government also adopts an ambiguous view towards Taiwan, but the collapse of the ambiguity against peaceful reunification alla 一国两制 (one country, two systems) would result in escalation of coercive forces, including military. Furthermore, the government has adopted mostly "soft" influences in cultural, economic and geopolitical spheres to "entice" reunification under one country, two rule. Now, if I were a Taiwanese resident (as I am not), I may not see the military exercises as "soft influences", but the reality of an eminent Chinese invasion is not fully materialized per, say, Culver's excellent article.
I think this is subtly different to what you are saying, which assigns much more policy clarity (and maybe some strategic underhandedness) to PRC. I just want to call this out.
Thanks for the additional input. To be clear, again: is the first part of Lai’s statement, as quoted by Robert, a violation of either the Status Quo or status quo? My argument was that it is not.
I am going to channel my inner 王毅 (the Chinese foreign minister) in answering your question. He's probably going to say "the first part is irrelevant, and the full statement is a violation of the Status Quo." Here's why (with my personal -- and very irrelevant -- point-of-view to follow):
- China is a single polity, and, since 1945, includes the territory of Taiwan
- The legitimate government of the polity of China is the PRC
- Any legitimate government of the polity of China has full territorial sovereignty over Taiwan
Under this line of thinking, the statement "The Republic of China and People's Republic of China are not subordinate to each other," while true, reflects merely the 1949 outcome of the dispute for the legitimate government of China; that struggle, which PRC and ROC are still engaged albeit without open conflict, is about which government has legitimate control of the polity of China, and not about differing visions of the territorial composition of China. The nature of the conflict and the territorial integrity of China the polity remain unchanged as of 1979 (the Second Taiwan Strait Crisis), and through the subsequent ceasefire.
Therefore, this statement does not justify changing the status of any territory that the ROC ultimately controls; it does not justify Taiwan's independence. The conclusion "...this is the definition of Taiwan independence" is, thus, a non sequitur, and insistence on its validity is a unilateral change to (1) in the Status Quo, and runs contrary to the One China clause.
Let me make this clear: I personally do not subscribe to this viewpoint. There are obvious issues with the characterizations in this narrative. It is based on shaky legal precedence, but, in many important ways, that's also irrelevant.
The problem with this viewpoint is that it casts as secondary or irrelevant the dignity and evolving political situation and societal values of the people in Taiwan. Given that 賴清德 is the elected president, the reality is that Taiwanese people increasingly value their identity as Taiwanese, politically and culturally. To suppress the expression of their identity through threats in the name of territorial integrity and nationalism reflects the worst instincts of statecraft. (Obviously, there's plenty to assail in my point-of-view as well.)
It will be interesting to see how both the US and China handle their bilateral relationship moving forward. From an Australian perspective, I sometimes feel uncomfortable with both sides calling for enhanced people-to-people ties because there is no support or even people to talk to if you dedicate years of your life to this effort, only for things to turn sour. It can take a massive personal toll. I am all for niceties and pleasantries, but I also think that this kind of language can have detrimental impacts on the human beings who go and try to make people-to-people ties happen — because it is often those people who get targeted by both sides in any dispute or disagreement when neither side sees eye to eye. As someone who once truly felt passionate about doing everything possible to improve links and ties, my journey engaging with China has left me wanting nothing to do with it, which is a shame because that is a whole lot of education and experience wasted. Unfortunately, with things the way they are, if you have robust relationships both at home and in China, both sides can see that as something to be suspicious of, rather than an asset. But life is just better when you don’t need to constantly worry about how two societies with very different (no judgment here, different doesn’t mean wrong) sets of values and political situations are going to interact. I admire you for your tireless efforts and tenacity, and the world certainly does need more people like you. I just don’t know if we have enough people like you!
My favorite quote: “We should encourage peaceful cross-strait dialogue and oppose unilateral changes to the status quo by either side.” I think the US has always been comfortable with this stance. The governments of Taiwan and the US are both comfortable with this. Unfortunately, the Chinese government is not. They make no bones about it: one way or another, peacefully or by force, bilaterally or unilaterally, they seek to change the status quo and bring Taiwan under the rule of Beijing, just as it has done with Hong Kong. That keeps people awake at night, all over the world.
But you’re right, US policy should be to declare loudly and convincingly that the US, unlike China, seeks to maintain the status quo.
“The Republic of China and People's Republic of China are not subordinate to each other - this is the definition of Taiwan independence” - Lai Ching-te, 2023. That doesn’t sound like “one China policy” or strategic ambiguity to me. If US can really ensure to rein in this type of voice, we might have a good chance for maintaining the status quo.
I guess I’m confused. When the government of Taiwan says 1) it is the sovereign Republic of China, and 2) it is not subordinate to the People’s Republic of China, do you view that as a “unilateral change” to the “status quo?” I find that hard to accept, since the government of Taiwan has been essentially asserting that non-stop since the 1950’s, AFAIK. Its formal diplomatic relations with a few foreign governments are certainly evidence of that. I just wanted to clarify that point, before moving on to the “Taiwan independence” comment, which I agree is something that should be reined in.
Touché to Robert's comment. However, the Status Quo (versus "status quo" reflecting aspects of power relations between Taiwan and China) on which the US strategic ambiguity is based really targets two specific aspects of the relations: (1) to-date, Taiwan has not attained statehood and (2) the US will neither encourage Taiwanese independence nor maintain neutrality in defense of Taiwanese safety from coercion as codified in the Taiwan Relations Act. This position makes no explicit statement about maintaining any precedence established at that time of relationship between China and Taiwan, and specifically leaves open the possibility -- as unlikely as it might be -- of a peaceful reunification.
In this reading, certain moves by US vis-a-vis Taiwan can be seen by PRC as an unilateral change to (1) via a breach of (2).
> They make no bones about it: one way or another, peacefully or by force, bilaterally or unilaterally, they seek to change the status quo and bring Taiwan under the rule of Beijing, just as it has done with Hong Kong.
I would say "yes and no." From where I am standing, I would argue that the PRC government also adopts an ambiguous view towards Taiwan, but the collapse of the ambiguity against peaceful reunification alla 一国两制 (one country, two systems) would result in escalation of coercive forces, including military. Furthermore, the government has adopted mostly "soft" influences in cultural, economic and geopolitical spheres to "entice" reunification under one country, two rule. Now, if I were a Taiwanese resident (as I am not), I may not see the military exercises as "soft influences", but the reality of an eminent Chinese invasion is not fully materialized per, say, Culver's excellent article.
I think this is subtly different to what you are saying, which assigns much more policy clarity (and maybe some strategic underhandedness) to PRC. I just want to call this out.
Thanks for the additional input. To be clear, again: is the first part of Lai’s statement, as quoted by Robert, a violation of either the Status Quo or status quo? My argument was that it is not.
I am going to channel my inner 王毅 (the Chinese foreign minister) in answering your question. He's probably going to say "the first part is irrelevant, and the full statement is a violation of the Status Quo." Here's why (with my personal -- and very irrelevant -- point-of-view to follow):
- China is a single polity, and, since 1945, includes the territory of Taiwan
- The legitimate government of the polity of China is the PRC
- Any legitimate government of the polity of China has full territorial sovereignty over Taiwan
Under this line of thinking, the statement "The Republic of China and People's Republic of China are not subordinate to each other," while true, reflects merely the 1949 outcome of the dispute for the legitimate government of China; that struggle, which PRC and ROC are still engaged albeit without open conflict, is about which government has legitimate control of the polity of China, and not about differing visions of the territorial composition of China. The nature of the conflict and the territorial integrity of China the polity remain unchanged as of 1979 (the Second Taiwan Strait Crisis), and through the subsequent ceasefire.
Therefore, this statement does not justify changing the status of any territory that the ROC ultimately controls; it does not justify Taiwan's independence. The conclusion "...this is the definition of Taiwan independence" is, thus, a non sequitur, and insistence on its validity is a unilateral change to (1) in the Status Quo, and runs contrary to the One China clause.
Let me make this clear: I personally do not subscribe to this viewpoint. There are obvious issues with the characterizations in this narrative. It is based on shaky legal precedence, but, in many important ways, that's also irrelevant.
The problem with this viewpoint is that it casts as secondary or irrelevant the dignity and evolving political situation and societal values of the people in Taiwan. Given that 賴清德 is the elected president, the reality is that Taiwanese people increasingly value their identity as Taiwanese, politically and culturally. To suppress the expression of their identity through threats in the name of territorial integrity and nationalism reflects the worst instincts of statecraft. (Obviously, there's plenty to assail in my point-of-view as well.)