Washington and Beijing each interpreted it in their own way

Echoes of Pelosi's visit to Taiwan and wordplay have led to an angry reaction from both sides

  • The Speaker of the US House of Representatives visits Taiwan.

    AFP

  • US destroyer crossing the Taiwan Strait.

    AFP

picture

There is no doubt that the echoes of the visit of US House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, to Taiwan, early last August, will continue for some time, as an interactive dynamic unfolds between Beijing, Washington and Taipei, and each party has its own interpretation of what is happening, and what it had to do in response.

Following the visit, Beijing launched an unprecedented series of military exercises around the island, and confirmed that Washington and Taipei had violated its own red line by violating previous understandings of the "one China" framework.

Paul Hare, a senior fellow at the Center for National Interest, a non-resident fellow at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, says in a report published by the American magazine "National Interest", that Washington saw in China's moves an unjustified and destabilizing reaction, and pledged to maintain its military position. in the Taiwan Strait, to deter Beijing from any actual use of force.

Taipei announced that it would increase defense spending to bolster preparations for a possible Chinese attack.

For Hare, who is also a former national intelligence official for East Asia (2007-2015), all of this reflects and reinforces the three parties' tendency to see the stalemate in the Strait as a military problem, making it more difficult than it already was to pursue a diplomatic de-escalation path. .

Nevertheless, preoccupation with military exercises in the Gulf of Taiwan diverts attention from the complex play of words by the three parties to justify their positions and actions.

The prevailing narrative now, says Hare, is that Beijing has created a "new status quo" or "new normal" by arranging an enhanced military posture around the island.

However, this overlooks, or obscures, the changes that occurred to the status quo, which Washington and Taipei are said to have made.

Hare says that Chinese policy specialists often cite that in 2004 then-US Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly asserted in a congressional testimony that America does not support "unilateral moves (on Taiwan) that would change the status quo, as we define it." But Kelly did not specify the "status quo," and neither did any of the US officials recently, and they affirm Washington's opposition to any "unilateral changes to the current situation."

In any case, it is clear that the "status quo" is that the Speaker of the House of Representatives can visit Taiwan as a routine and consistent with the "one-China policy", despite reports that the Biden administration did not favor Pelosi's visit and did not want it to happen.

Taipei also refrained from defining the "status quo", but it is reported that it has gradually retreated from the "one China" framework.

For its part, Beijing mainly defines the "status quo" from the perspective of the "one China principle", the existence of one China, of which Taiwan is a part, and Beijing is the only legitimate government and its international representative.

From this, Hare concludes that the main element is that it makes no sense to talk about the "status quo" in the Taiwan Strait without acknowledging the lack of mutual agreement between the parties concerned about its definition or characterization.

In addition, the "status quo" in the strait has never been static.

He pointed to another wordplay, focusing on the difference between the "one China principle" adopted by Beijing and the "one China policy" adopted by Washington.

Most of the comments in recent weeks criticized Beijing's continued claim that America has long adhered to the "one-China principle", even though Washington only "recognizes" the phrase "Taiwan is part of China", without accepting or endorsing it, including that America considered Taiwan Part of China until the outbreak of the Korean War in 1950. Washington later adopted a position regarding Taiwan's legal status as "undefined", a position that was discussed a lot, and sometimes violated by US officials in their speeches.

Moreover, Beijing sees an “emptying” of Washington’s “one-China policy,” specifically, after he declared that Pelosi’s visit does not represent a violation or change of this policy, and whether the Biden administration can adopt a position that Pelosi’s visit is acceptable in In the shadow of US policy - despite its opposition to it - how can Beijing know the limits of these actions?

Later, Washington adopted a position regarding Taiwan's legal status as "undetermined", a position that has been discussed a lot, and sometimes violated by US officials in their speech.

Moreover, Beijing sees an “emptying” of Washington’s “one-China policy,” specifically, after he declared that Pelosi’s visit does not represent a violation or change of this policy, and whether the Biden administration can adopt a position that Pelosi’s visit is acceptable in the In the shadow of US policy - despite its opposition to it - how can Beijing know the limits of these actions?

Later, Washington adopted a position regarding Taiwan's legal status as "undetermined", a position that has been discussed a lot, and sometimes violated by US officials in their speech.

Moreover, Beijing sees an “emptying” of Washington’s “one-China policy,” specifically, after he declared that Pelosi’s visit does not represent a violation or change of this policy, and whether the Biden administration can adopt a position that Pelosi’s visit is acceptable in In the shadow of US policy - despite its opposition to it - how can Beijing know the limits of these actions?

In addition, the manipulation of words also includes assertions by US officials that Beijing overreacted to Pelosi's visit to Taiwan, and used it as a "pretext" to implement pre-planned plans to conduct unprecedented military exercises in the region surrounding Taiwan.

Hare says that in all circumstances, Beijing will lose a lot, and gain little, by rattling swords around Taiwan, without any clear provocation, especially in light of the risks faced by Chinese President Xi Jinping from igniting an international crisis weeks before his attempt to win a third term. and dominate the agenda of the 20th General Conference of the Communist Party of China, scheduled for mid-October.

There has also been a semantic debate about whether Pelosi's visit sparked a new "crisis" in the Taiwan Strait, but some political scientists do not seem to want to classify it as a crisis, based on an assessment that there is little chance of an actual military conflict.

Presumably, the Biden administration does not want to describe the situation as a crisis, since showing an alert that would lead to a reconsideration of America's policies is what Beijing is seeking.

It is difficult to deny that Pelosi's visit to Taiwan resulted in a hardening of the positions of all parties, an escalation of tension between America and China, and an exchange of accusations that seems to escalate, especially if these parties continue to focus on expressing military reactions to the situation.

Taiwan remains a prisoner of a historical trap woven by Washington and Beijing more than four decades ago, which is represented in the three statements, a set of three joint statements between the governments of America and China, which played a crucial role in the normalization of relations between the two countries, and remains an essential element in the dialogue between them.

This is not said of the Taiwanese, but these are the conditions that must be faced rather than denied or avoided.

In concluding the analysis, the writer Hare says that Pelosi's visit to the island revealed the hidden impasse in US policy toward Taiwan, and put it in the foreground in a disturbing way.

• Washington saw China's moves as an unjustified and destabilizing reaction, and pledged to maintain its military position in the Taiwan Strait, to deter Beijing from any actual use of force.

• The escalation of tension between America and China, and an exchange of accusations seems likely to escalate, especially if these parties continue to focus on expressing military reactions to the situation.

Follow our latest local and sports news and the latest political and economic developments via Google news