CUTTING THE BEARD OF THE CHINESE DRAGON

13 August 2022

THE ISSUE

Nancy Pelosi, leader America's House of Representatives, has just returned from a controversial unofficial visit to Taiwan. Lithuania is sending a delegation to Taiwan on a 5 day tour and Taiwan is about to open some sort of office consulate in Vilnius. 

Why would anyone want to cut the beard of the Chinese dragon?

As a matter of identity, the people of Taiwan, in polls, self-identify as Taiwanese, and have chosen the Republic of China ROC to govern them.

Aswhere China - the present govt at least, the PRC -  identifies them as Chinese.

That's because the PRC's wish is to extend its jurisdiction as executive authority to include Taiwan - easy to understand the strategic logic, but is it "right"?

Can you be Scottish and British, or is it Scottish or British? It's about who has the legitimacy to govern you, ie who can make the rules, by majority vote of all the representatives, that you accept as legitimate.

Diplomatically, any second party country unwilling to choose unambiguously between "One China" or "One China One Taiwan" (no comma) could sidestep the question of who is the first party by setting up offices for trade and local diplomatic relations under the name "Taipei" - Taipei the city is not a country with a frontier and a government, but local diplomats could represent local people, maintain relationships at a local level and shape future trade and relations. This is the solution chosen by all countries except Lithuania, and China has overlooked this.

So instead of continuing with  "strategic ambiguity" (which recognises Taiwan without saying so), why did Lithuania "cut the beard of the Chinese dragon" (cf "poke the bear in the eye with a sharp stick"); and, as Lithuania is a member of the European Union, what are the consequences for China and the EU?

Read More

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.

Read More