© The Indian Express Pvt Ltd
Tags:
Journalism of Courage
Two events this week underlined the significance of Taiwan for the Chinese government.
First was the United States government approving the sale of fighter jets and other aircraft parts to Taiwan for $330 million. While US-Taiwan defence ties are not new, the fact that this was the first such sale under the current Trump administration matters.
Second were comments from the newly appointed Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi. An opposition leader questioned when Japan would consider events around Taiwan as a threat to itself. Notably, China has had its military aircraft fly by the island multiple times and organised large-scale military exercises in recent years to assert its territorial claims. It has also not ruled out taking control of the island by force.
She responded, “If there are battleships and the use of force, no matter how you think about it, it could constitute a survival-threatening situation,”. The BBC reported that a “survival-threatening situation” is a legal term under Japan’s 2015 security law, for when an armed attack on allies poses an existential threat. In such a situation, Japan’s self-defence forces (its army) can be activated to respond to the threat.
Here is a closer look at these developments:
A statement from the Pentagon, the US Department of Defence, said that “The proposed sale will improve the recipient’s capability to meet current and future threats by maintaining the operational readiness of the recipient’s fleet of F-16, C-130.”
The government of Taiwan responded with gratitude, with an official spokesperson stating that “The deepening of the Taiwan-U.S. security partnership is an important cornerstone of peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific region.”
As expected, the Chinese government made its displeasure known, with a spokesperson saying such a move “seriously undermines China’s sovereignty and security interests and sends a seriously wrong signal to the “Taiwan independence” separatists.”
UPSHOT: The sale has attracted attention not for the act itself, but the timing. As is the case with many things, Trump has changed decades of establishment policy of US support for Taiwan.
He had previously claimed that Chinese President Xi Jinping told him China would not invade Taiwan, and while campaigning for the 2024 presidential elections, he suggested that Taiwan should pay the US for its defence. Trump also once claimed that Taiwan “stole” the US’s semiconductor business.
This was not the case during the first Trump presidency (2017-21). A Bloomberg report said that back then, “Trump presided over a dramatic expansion of ties with the government in Taipei. He oversaw $18.65 billion in weapons deals with Taiwan and approved the sale of the first US fighter jets to Taiwan in three decades.” His second term in power, with the government populated with his loyalists and marked by a transactional approach, has upended previously established norms.
In his statement, the Chinese spokesperson “urged the US to abide by the one-China principle and the three China-US joint communiques, especially the August 17 Communique.” These date back to the establishment of US-China relations in 1978, when, amid the Cold War, both countries sought to turn away from the erstwhile USSR.
The one-China principle states that countries hoping to form diplomatic ties with China must acknowledge Taiwan as a part of it. In 1978, the US said it officially “acknowledged” the position in a communique, but it never explicitly agreed to it. The communique also provided for the US to maintain “cultural, commercial, and other unofficial relations with the people of Taiwan.” This has been described as a policy of “strategic ambiguity”.
A later communique had the US state that it did not “seek to carry out a long-term policy of arms sales to Taiwan” If it did, they would not, qualitatively or quantitatively, exceed the pre-1978 levels, and would gradually be reduced. That has not happened.
At present, under a more aggressive approach under Xi, there have been calls in the US to unambiguously pledge support to Taiwan. Trump has not done that, but the recent sale is seen as a positive sign of the US maintaining its heft in the Indo-Pacific and against China.
Takaichi’s remarks were deemed “erroneous” by the Chinese government. Soon after, the Chinese consul general in Osaka, Xue Jian, threatened to “cut off that dirty neck” in a post on X while not directly naming her. The post has since been deleted, and the Japanese government called the comments “extremely inappropriate.”
On Sunday, a Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson posted in English and Japanese on X, quoting bilateral communiques and reminding Japan that “irrespective of which administration is in office, Japan should honor its commitments.” A Chinese Coast Guard formation also passed through the waters of the disputed Senkaku Islands. Commentary in the state media and Communist Party news sites was full of warnings and criticism towards Japan.
UPSHOT: Even before her appointment as the PM, China was wary of Takaichi for her reputation as a China hawk, as we previously explained here. One example is her frequent visits to the Yasukuni shrine war memorial in Tokyo, which is seen by China as a glorification of war criminals.
A recent editorial in state media Xinhua said that “Just over a month into office, she has floated proposals for dramatic defense expansion, including a substantial military budget hike, full relaxation of arms-export controls, enhanced pre-emptive strike capabilities, and accelerated revision of security documents, with the most controversial being signs of a backtrack on Japan’s long-standing “three non-nuclear principles.”
The principles mandate not possessing, not producing and not allowing the introduction of nuclear weapons into Japanese territory. It points to how Japan’s long-held stance of pacifism and renunciation of war, in the aftermath of World War 2, has been undergoing a shift in recent years.
In the case of China, the two countries’ sensitivities regarding their history often become a source of divergence. Add to that the overtly nationalistic stance that their present leaders take, and the importance China attaches to Taiwan, and the result is a major controversy that may not be the last of its kind.
