07.04.2022 Views

Australian Polity, Volume 10 Number 1 & 2

March 2022 issue of Australian Polity

March 2022 issue of Australian Polity

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS
  • No tags were found...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

The recent US-China dialogue between Presidents

Biden and Xi produced a flurry of confusing

interpretations by commentators and the media.

The BBC, for example, chose both a pro-US and a pro-

China stance. The Corporation first headlined its report

‘US says opposed to “unilateral effort” to change Taiwan’

stating ‘US president Joe Biden had told his Chinese

counterpart Xi Jinping that the US is strongly opposed to

“unilateral efforts” to change the status quo or undermine

peace across Taiwan.’ A few hours later, the headline was

changed to ‘China warns US about “playing with fire” on

Taiwan’ and the story rewritten.

The confusion arises partially from the different

understandings attached to the words and phrases

used by the respective leaders. The day after the virtual

summit, President Biden said, ‘Taiwan makes its own

decisions’ and that it is ‘independent’, but later asserted

that ‘we are not encouraging independence’ and that US

policy remains unchanged. ‘We are not going to change

our policy at all,’ said Mr Biden. ‘We are encouraging them

to do exactly what the Taiwan [Relations] Act requires.’

While the US recognises the People’s Republic of China as

‘China’, it does not declare Taiwan as part of China. The PRC

insists that Taiwan is part of the PRC, but Taiwan rejects

this assertion. In January 2020, Taiwanese President

Tsai Ing-wen was clear: ‘We are an independent country

already and we call ourselves the Republic of China,

Taiwan.’ The Taiwanese government has not proposed

any constitutional change or formal legal declaration of

independence. In her National Day address President Tsai

reiterated four commitments: that Taiwan will adhere to

a free and democratic constitutional system; that the

Republic of China and the PRC are not subordinate to each

other; that Taiwan will resist annexation or encroachment

upon its sovereignty; and the Republic’s future must be

decided in accordance with the will of the people.

President Biden reflects the continuing US view of his

nation’s ‘one China policy.’ But Beijing assets a ‘one China

principle’, in the face of 70 years of reality. As former British

Prime Minister, Tony Blair, said ‘China needs to realise

that Western countries don’t view the self-ruled island

of Taiwan in a similar way to the semi-autonomous city

of Hong Kong. . . . They have to understand that Taiwan

is not the same as Hong Kong.’

There is a current discussion amongst strategic policy

wonks about whether the US is moving from a concept of

‘strategic ambiguity’ to ‘strategic clarity’ about its stance

on Taiwan. The former describes a position in which

the US refuses to state if Taiwan has sovereignty and

whether it would use military force to defend the island.

The latter involves a declaration of Taiwanese sovereignty

and a preparedness to come to the aid militarily of the

Republic. In between is a notion of ‘strategic denial’ - a

position that the US and its allies will defend Taiwan

without proclaiming its sovereignty.

Recent comments suggest that the West has adopted

the concept of ‘strategic denial’. When asked at a town

hall meeting in October, President Biden said the US

would defend Taiwan against any unilateral attempt to

change the status quo. During the virtual summit, Mr

Biden reminded President Xi that as a Senator, he had

voted to support Taiwan’s self-defence. Secretary of

State, Antony Blinken, said recently that allied nations

would be prepared to ‘take action’ if China uses force

against Taiwan. More recently, Defence Minister, Peter

Dutton, said it was ‘inconceivable’ that Australia would

not participate in any US military action, prompting the

usual bellicose rhetoric from China.

The Biden administration has also rejected a list of 16

‘erroneous’ US policies towards China. The list, like the

14 grievances that China issued against Australia, was

handed to Deputy Secretary of State, Wendy R. Sherman,

by Chinese Foreign Minister, Wang Yi, during a meeting in

Tianjin in July. A Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson,

Zhou Lijian, told the media the following day that the US

must refrain from criticising Chinese communism, stating

that this was one of three ‘bottom lines’.

‘The first is that the US must not challenge, slander or

even attempt to subvert the path and system of socialism

with Chinese characteristics,’ he said. Secondly, the US

should not attempt to disrupt Chinese development.

Thirdly, it should not challenge China’s sovereignty or

territorial integrity. This list also contained grievances

levelled against Australia, including identifying China

as the source of Covid-19; criticising its human rights

record; and objecting to its actions in Hong Kong. It

also demanded that sanctions and visa restrictions on

Chinese officials be lifted.

Australian Polity 25

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!