CHINA'S RED LINE

12 August 2022

“Strategic Ambiguity"

"Midline" (of the Straits of Taiwan)

"Unilateral Challenge to the Status Quo"

You can believe in Taiwan as an independent country, but at the same time take a bit of care with the language fabricated by our American friends. 

Noam Chomsky sussed out the linguistics of "this unprovoked invasion": it was hardly unprovoked, and although it was an invasion it was America that started the war.

I'm sure Chonsky would have a thing or two to say about these three latest linguistic traps. They take a long time to think up and create and an equally long time for us to see through them, they are so clever, clever cunning Orwellian minds at work, but really they're just tricks with words. 

The purpose is so that America can preserve its supremacy in the East Asian-Pacific seaboard region. That's the Americans' "ring of first islands" that contain China and block it from ever leaving Asia to cross the Pacific. It runs from Japan, S Korea, Taiwan, to the Philippines and Indonesia. None of those countries are much favourably disposed to China. That's why the Chinese would dearly love the Americans off those Islands.

--“Strategic Ambiguity"

As far as China is concerned, there is strictly no ambiguity here, and no room for ambiguity in their principle called "One China", which is that China includes Taiwan. “Strategic Ambiguity" is a blur of an idea and its purpose is to let America decide everything that they define as ambiguous and refuse everything that China defines unambiguously.

China made its opposition to this notion plain in its post-Pelosi military exercises.

--"Unilateral Challenge to the Status Quo"

What status quo would that be? "Status quo" 

is the accepted way things are, as opposed to the way they could be. 

China does not accept Taiwan as being independent, there is no accepted status quo here and therefore nothing to challenge.

Without a status quo, no actions can be termed "unilateral" because unilateral means affecting only one side, but in this "ambiguity", both sides are affected and each is challenging the other.

So each challenges the other, there is no agreed position. Thus there is no status quo and the challenges are bilateral.

--"Midline" (of the Straits of Taiwan)

This is a total fabrication.

 If you sail through the Straits of Taiwan, do you see a midline? No you don't.

 Is it referenced in the Law of the Sea or the 1958 and 1982 UN Conferences that padded  out an old idea that beyond a certain shoreline zone, oceans and seas should be open and navigeable to all? This is the fundamental basis of America's offer to the world when it's set up all those institutions after the last war ...and then it doesn't sign off.

This Law of the Sea Convention got sign-off from 100 countries or so, including China, but not America. So, no, it isnt a concept referenced in any UN doc.

 So how come America - far far away from Taiwan incidentally - takes it upon itself to impose a non-existent midline? 

Midline is not a recognised term and if America thinks it is a legitimate concept, then perhaps it should put it through the UN process that if agreed would legitimate it... and try setting an example by signing the convention itself.