The Taiwan question is for Beijing – not the US – to resolve

There is no need for Taiwan to be a tinderbox for US-China relations. The US can simply return to its one-China policy, laid out in three joint communiques
These historical documents might also remind the US of the importance its leaders placed on US-China cooperation for global peace and stability

Regina Ip

Published: 1:00am, 16 Apr 2023

Why you can trust SCMP

Much has changed in the global balance of power since the 1972 Shanghai Communique set in motion steps towards the normalisation of US-China relations. This relationship has since become the world’s most consequential.

The steady US-China collaboration on trade, investment, manufacturing, science and technology, and academic, sport and cultural exchanges, in the past 50 years has yielded handsome dividends for both countries and the world. Yet, in recent years, relations have deteriorated rapidly into distrust and hostility, with some pundits even predicting a military confrontation over Taiwan.

What went wrong? How do we bring the relationship back on an even keel?

In 1972, the United States was willing to adopt a more tolerant and magnanimous attitude towards China, despite the vast differences in ideology, sociopolitical system and foreign policy. Perhaps this was because China was much poorer and weaker, unlikely to challenge US hegemony.

The US stated in the Shanghai Communique: “Countries should treat each other with mutual respect and be willing to compete peacefully, letting performance be the ultimate judge. No country should claim infallibility and each country should be prepared to re-examine its own attitudes for the common good.”

This is a far cry from the US industrial policy recently adopted to blunt China’s competitiveness in advanced technologies. The US has restricted hi-tech exports to China, forced allies to do the same and compelled the world’s most successful chip contractor, Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, to relocate some of its most advanced production to the US.

Talk of a “China threat” now permeates political conversations in the US, which has solidified its security collaboration with its allies, through the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue with India, Australia and Japan, and the Aukus alliance with the United Kingdom and Australia.

The ostensible purpose is to improve security in the Indo-Pacific. Should military conflict break out between the US and China, such alliances would ensure a network of battle-ready nations capable of encircling and reining in China.

The US and China are thousands of miles apart with no common border. Both know full well the only tinderbox is Taiwan, which has strong ties with Washington and which Beijing regards as an inalienable part of China.

Beijing stated its position unambiguously in the Shanghai Communique: “The government of the People’s Republic of China is the sole legal government of China; Taiwan is a province of China which has long been returned to the motherland; the liberation of Taiwan is China’s internal affair in which no other country has the right to interfere; and all US forces and military installations must be withdrawn from Taiwan.”

It further stated: “The Chinese government firmly opposes any activities which aim at the creation of ‘one China, one Taiwan’, ‘one China, two governments’, ‘two Chinas’, an ‘independent Taiwan’ or advocate that ‘the status of Taiwan remains to be determined’.”

Beijing reiterated its position on Taiwan in the 1979 joint communique that established US-China diplomatic relations, and in the 1982 joint communique, which focused on the question of Taiwan.

03:10

US House Speaker Kevin McCarthy meets Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen, despite Beijing’s warnings

While insisting that its position on Taiwan has not changed, the US has stepped up arms sales and let Taiwan’s ruler Tsai Ing-wen meet US House Speaker Kevin McCarthy and other lawmakers during her California “stopover”. This is the second meeting of senior American politicians with Tsai within one year. Such meetings would have no other effect than aiding and abetting Taiwan’s aspirations for independence.

No Chinese leader can afford to go down in history as the one who acquiesced to Taiwan’s secession. To underscore that independence for Taiwan is a red line that must not be crossed, China has responded with military drills and sanctions on Taiwan’s top representative in the US Hsiao Bi-khim – like it did last August after then House speaker Nancy Pelosi’s visit – and on the US institutions that hosted Tsai.

After three days of military exercises simulating targeted attacks on Taiwan, China announced a three-day closure of airspace over Taiwan to conduct “aerospace activities”, which was cut short, reportedly to avoid affecting the G7 foreign ministers’ meeting in Japan. Whatever the reason, the situation in Taiwan is getting pretty close to triggering a confrontation.

03:36

Taipei says it is monitoring Beijing’s planned ‘no-fly zone’ and continued military drills

It is a dangerous play of words for some in the US to argue that in all three communiques, the US merely acknowledged China’s position on Taiwan. Having repeatedly acknowledged this, it is inconceivable for the US to walk back its one-China policy.

Note that in the 1982 communique, the US stated that “it does not seek to carry out a long-term policy of arms sales to Taiwan”, that “it intends to reduce gradually its sales of arms to Taiwan, leading over a period of time to a final resolution”.

It also said the development of US-China relations “is not only in the interests of the two peoples but also conducive to peace and stability in the world”. Return to this consensus is as critical as ever, as the world faces daunting challenges, including a war in Ukraine, a global economic slowdown arising from deglobalisation, and climate change.

To avert war over Taiwan, US must breathe life back into one-China policy

The ball is in the US’ court. The solution is as simple as it may appear complex. Return to the basics of the US-China agreement on Taiwan as spelled out in the three communiques. Let China resolve the question of Taiwan over time, relying on the use of force as the last resort.

The emotional return of Taiwan’s former ruler Ma Ying-jeou to the mainland to pay his respects to his ancestors and visit history-laden sites is a case in point. Not all Taiwanese feel detached from the mainland. Let China work on the people of Taiwan. Without US meddling, let peace prevail.

Regina Ip Lau Suk-yee is convenor of the Executive Council, a lawmaker and chairwoman of the New People’s Party