WWIII

Military Challenges to China's South China Sea Claims are Increasing

Courtesy Royal Canadian Navy

Published Oct 27, 2024 7:00 PM by The Strategist

 

 

[By Joe Keary]

Deployments of ships and aircraft to challenge China’s illegal claims in the South China Sea are increasing. European ships are appearing more often, while Asia-Pacific countries are increasingly conducting activities in areas that China regards as sensitive.

Several nations have claims in the South China Sea, but China’s claim is the most extensive and controversial. Beijing seeks to enforce sovereign rights and jurisdiction over all features within the nine-dash line, including the islands, rocks and atolls that make up the Paracel and Spratly Islands. China claims this territory despite a 2016 ruling that found that China’s claims had no basis in international law.

With international law doing little to curb China’s ambitions, more countries are using their militaries to challenge China’s claims. In 2024, more European navies operated in the South China Sea than previously in recent years, with Britain, France, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands all sending ships to the region. Meanwhile regional counties, such as Japan, Canada, New Zealand and Australia, stepped up their engagement, including via joint sailings with the Philippines in the South China Sea.

Different countries take different approaches to challenging China’s illegal claims in the South China Sea. Some militaries are operating within the nine-dash line. Others sail naval ships directly through the Spratly Islands. Some advertise their activities; others do not.

Only a few have conducted activities close to the Paracels, because doing so is unusually risky. A 2022 incident in which a Chinese pilot dumped chaff in front of an Australian P-8 Poseidon surveillance aircraft is an example of the risk.

The US is the only country to send aircraft or ships within 12 nautical miles of claimed features. By doing so, it would be entering territorial waters if China did in fact own the territory.

These military activities to challenge China’s claims have occurred since 2015:

Apart from countries around the South China Sea, which must routinely operate on or over it, the US has by far the most public and active military presence. In 2023, the US military conducted 107 activities, including six specific operations to challenge China’s illegal claims under the US Freedom of Navigation program. US activities are always accompanied by strong public statements.

France and Canada are both active in the region, including within the Spratlys. Both advertise their military presence and actions. Canada now carries journalists on some South China Sea transits. It has operated close to the Paracel Islands, but, as demonstrated when a Chinese fighter fired flares near a Canadian helicopter in 2023, doing so comes with risks. In 2015, France boldly exercised its right to freedom of navigation by sailing a task force through the Paracels.

Australia has an active military presence in the South China Sea. There’s evidence that Australia operates close to China’s illegal claims. However, the tempo and nature of its military challenges are hard to determine, because Canberra does not advertise them. China’s military has been aggressive in seeking to deter Australia from operating near the two island groups by engaging in unsafe intercepts.

New Zealand has a semi-regular presence inside the nine-dash line, commensurate with the size of its armed forces. Meanwhile, Japan has a growing military presence in the region and is increasingly working with partners, such as the US, Australia and the Philippines. As with Australia, there are signs that Japan and New Zealand operate close to, or within, the Spratly group, but neither publicise specific actions, so the nature of them is hard to determine.

Britain sent a carrier strike group through the South China Sea in 2021 and intends to do so again next year. The British military operates close to the Spratly and Paracel Islands and uses public messaging to reinforce the importance of sailing in these areas.

Signalling growing European interest in the region, Germany, the Netherlands and Italy sent navy ships to the area in 2024. But none seems to have overtly challenged China’s claims within the Spratlys or Paracels.

The most notable regional absentee is South Korea. In 2018, a South Korean destroyer, Munmu the Great, took refuge from a typhoon in the Paracel Islands. But Seoul quickly clarified that the ship was not there to challenge China’s claims. Likewise, when the littoral states of South East Asia routinely operate there, they do not directly challenge China’s claims via freedom of navigation transits.

The growing presence of European navies in the South China Sea and stepped-up activity of Asia-Pacific countries there is welcome. It’s helping to push back on China’s growing aggression and reinforce longstanding rules and norms that underpin regional prosperity.

Joe Keary is a senior analyst at ASPI. This article appears courtesy of The Strategist and may be found in its original form here. 

The opinions expressed herein are the author's and not necessarily those of The Maritime Executive.

China Tailors its History for South China Sea Propaganda

Two China Coast Guard cutters on a "rights protection" mission water-cannon a Philippine cutter in the Philippine EEZ (Courtesy PCG)

Published Oct 27, 2024 2:24 PM by The Lowy Interpreter

[By Mahbi Maulaya]

Historians in China need to play a dual role. Not only do they contribute to the advancement of knowledge, but they also need to actively defend their country’s national interests in the South China Sea. According to a report by the South China Morning Post, Chinese scholars gathered at the end of June were urged to “give a forceful response to false narratives” to strengthen their nation’s claims in the South China Sea.

At the seminar held in Hainan Province, China, Wu Shicun, founder of the National Institute for South China Sea Studies, emphasised the critical importance of “narrative construction and discourse building” for China. He said that the strategy would effectively defend the nation’s rights and interests in the South China Sea.

Many Chinese strategies have focused significant attention on the South China Sea conflict.

China asserts its claim to more than three million square kilometres of the Sea through the “nine-dash line” concept – contrary to international law. History has become a battleground in the dispute waters. Beijing has sought to draw upon the Western Han dynasty (200BCE to 9CE) to illustrate that China has historically fished in the waters for thousands of years. Yet a 2016 international tribunal decision on the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea did not concur, concluding that there was no legal basis for China’s historic rights claim.

At the June seminar, Wu Shicun encouraged the 100 historians and numerous legal experts in attendance to help China defend its “rights and interests” in the legal field of the South China Sea. The aim was to rebut the 2016 arbitration ruling invalidating China’s claims to most of the South China Sea, including contested areas in the Philippines’ Exclusive Economic Zone and areas claimed by Vietnam, Brunei, Malaysia, and the Philippines.

Wu was reported to have said that the international academic community had developed “some strange theories that deliberately distort the history of the South China Sea and maliciously smear China’s rights and claims”. He urged the audience to restore the “correct” historical and legal background.

As a consequence, it seems likely we will witness a form of history warfare as part of China’s new propaganda to boost its South China Sea claim, drawing on documents, maps, and records that purportedly portray China’s long-standing rights. It could also help China galvanise domestic support.

The gathering of Chinese historians in June, with the express intention of crafting narratives around China’s ownership of the South China Sea, should not be underestimated.

Many studies have indicated that governments have the ability to influence public opinion by directing citizens’ attitudes towards history. Political scientists Yiqing Xu and Jiannan Zhao found that the historical narrative of China’s humiliation in the past has contributed to its society’s scepticism towards foreign governments and support for China’s aggressive foreign policies. This illustrates the powerful effect of propaganda in Chinese society.

Propaganda based on China’s history may also be directed at individuals who are not Chinese citizens. It is reasonable to anticipate that China’s interpretation of the South China Sea history will be taught in mainland China’s universities, where international students are pursuing their degrees. China may also choose to communicate this interpretation to the international community through public diplomacy channels that it has established globally.

Add to this China’s active construction of artificial islands in the South China Sea, and the claim becomes magnified. According to Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative data, China has established 3,200 acres of new land in the South China Sea since 2013. A scenario can be imagined where in the next ten years China claims historical rights to the territory because it has developed the region’s geography, habitats and facilities.

The gathering of Chinese historians in June, with urging to craft narratives around China’s ownership of the South China Sea, should not be underestimated. It is crucial to consider the potential outcomes of China’s proposed strategy.

Mahbi Maulaya is a private researcher who graduated from Universitas Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta’s International Relations Department. His research interests concern Security and Strategic Studies surrounding the Asia-Pacific, the South China Sea, and Indonesia. 

This article appears courtesy of The Lowy Interpreter and may be found in its original form here. 

The opinions expressed herein are the author's and not necessarily those of The Maritime Executive.

 Revolutionary Third World Leaders Praise China’s World Role

THERE ARE NO REVOLUTIONARY LEADERS

by Stansfield Smith / July 18th, 2025

China is a modern superpower, as is the US, but a qualitatively different superpower. The US uses military aggression, coups, and sanctions to impose US corporate interests worldwide. China is a peaceful power that respects national sovereignty, mutual development, and non-interference.

 Despite opposing imperialism, a tendency in the Western left is to recycle Western anti-China narratives that liken Chinese trade relations to Western imperial conduct, as in Sri Lanka and the Congo. Others have written of Chinese investments in the Occupied West Bank, and even criticize China for lack of aid to Cuba – clearly not issues the Western powers have problems with. 

 The US empire has at least 750 military bases in 80 countries. China has just one, in Djibouti – part of a UN mission against piracy. The US has continued wars against other countries on a non-stop basis, while China has invaded no country nor started any wars in close to half a century. The US instigated over 25 coups and coup attempts in Latin America just between 2000 and 2020. China has sponsored no coup attempts on any government. The US imposes blockades and “sanctions” warfare on at least 39 nations. China imposes no sanctions on anyone. The US regularly launches drone attacks on the people of other countries. China has launched no drone attacks on anyone. China is no imperial superpower, but a peaceful one. 

China is the outstanding example of a Third World country developing into a superpower despite the West’s centuries-long efforts to torpedo its progress. China engages in “win-win” economic relations with other nations. Its loans and investment are carried out based on equality, consensus and joint benefit, unlike the predatory behavior of the IMF and Western lending institutions. China is helping other countries of the Global South break out of the underdevelopment that colonialism and imperialism have imposed on their countries for 500 years.

Third World Leaders Praise China’s World Role

 At present, over 150 countries have chosen to participate in China’s economic program called the Belt and Road Initiative. Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega explained why:

The People’s Republic of China has brought progress, benefits, development to peoples who were colonized, and later became independent, but who were then subjugated under the boot of the interests of the powers that had colonized them, leaving those peoples in poverty, with people in misery, people going hungry, people in illiteracy, with infant mortality, in Africa, in Asia. And the People’s Republic of China has been developing a policy bringing benefits to developing countries, without setting any conditions… The powers that have been colonialists and neocolonialists, like the US, like Europe… have not stopped being colonialists. They still are neocolonialists. They have not stopped being criminals. They still are criminals. They still are killers. 

China’s role in helping other countries to develop has been noted by several anti-imperialist leaders. Fidel Castro rejected the notion that China was an imperial power. “China has objectively become the most promising hope and the best example for all Third World countries. I do not hesitate to say that it is already the main engine of the world economy… The role that China has been playing in the United Nations, including the Security Council, is an important element of balance, progress and safeguard of world peace and stability.” Of the Chinese leader he said, “Xi Jinping is one of the strongest and most capable revolutionary leaders I have met in my life.”

Present Cuban President Diaz-Canel also had high praise for Xi Jinping.

Former Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez likewise said, “one of the greatest events of the 20th century was the Chinese Revolution.” Chavez considered that an alliance with China constituted a bulwark against imperialism — a “Great Wall against American hegemonism… China is large but it’s not an empire. China doesn’t trample on anyone, it hasn’t invaded anyone, it doesn’t go around dropping bombs on anyone.” 

 Bolivian President Arce said: “We have built bridges of trust between the two countries and maintain a very positive bilateral relationship.” Evo Morales, the former president, said Bolivia and China “maintain a relationship characterized by wide-ranging and diverse cooperation and reciprocity.” China “works in a joined-up way with other countries and benefits the peoples of the world; the opposite to what was imposed on us for decades by the US, where predatory, individualistic and competitive capitalism looted our people’s resources for the benefit of transnational corporations.” “China develops, and helps, invests, without any conditions, just to support our development. China is always ready to cooperate unconditionally.”

 Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro declared, “Between China and Venezuela there is a model relationship, a model of what should be the relationship between a superpower like China, the great superpower of the 21st century, and an emerging, heroic, revolutionary and socialist country like Venezuela… China has inaugurated a new era of the emergence of non-colonialist, non-imperialist, non-hegemonic superpowers.”

 Former Ecuadoran President Rafael Correa spoke highly of Chinese aid to the Citizens Revolution. China’s assistance is “an example for Latin America and for the rest of the world.”

 Burkina Faso revolutionary President Ibrahim Traoré said Chinese aid was a “testament to a mutually beneficial partnership.”

 Even President Prabowo Subianto of Indonesia recently said at the ASEAN summit, “China has consistently defended the interests of developing countries. They consistently oppose oppression, oppose imperialism, oppose colonialism, oppose apartheid, The People’s Republic of China defends liberation struggles in countries that are still oppressed by imperialism and colonialism.” 

 Recent Western Left anti-China Stories

Yet, despite the testimonies of these anti-imperialist Third World leaders, some progressives still highlight West’s anti-China narratives, such as in Sri Lanka and in the Democratic Republic of Congo. 

Sri Lanka

The China debt-trap myth arose from Sri Lanka’s port Hambantota, that China lent money to the country to build the port, knowing Sri Lanka could not make it viable. This led Sri Lanka to default on the loans, and Beijing demanded the port as collateral. Chatham House and The Atlantic, both organs of the ruling elite, debunked this. First, the Hambantota Port project was not proposed by China, but by Sri Lanka. Second, Sri Lanka’s debt crisis resulted not from Chinese lending, but from Western loans. Third, there was no debt-for-asset swap. Rather, China leased the port for $1.1 billion, money Sri Lanka then used to pay down debts to the West. Chatham House concludes, “Sri Lanka’s debt trap was thus primarily created as a result of domestic policy decisions and was facilitated by Western lending and monetary policy, and not by the policies of the Chinese government.”

 China in Africa

Liberia’s former minister of public works, W Gyude Moore noted that under European colonialism “there has never been a continental-scale infrastructure building program for Africa’s railways, roads, ports, water filtration plants and power stations…China has built more infrastructure in Africa in two decades than the West has in centuries.”

 At the most recent Forum on China–Africa Cooperation in 2024, 53 of the 54 African countries chose to attend. China pledged $50 billion over the next three years on top of the $40 billion already invested.

 Dee Knight took up the issue of China’s exploitation in the Democratic Republic of Congo propagandized in the book Cobalt Red. He drew on Isabelle Minnon’s report, “Industrial Turn-Around in Congo?” She wrote, “China has responded to the DRC’s need to have partners who invest in industrialization.” The West had bled Congo dry through debts that prevented its development. China brought large-scale investment on a new basis, combining financing for industrial mining and public infrastructure – roads, railroads, dams, health and education facilities.

 Minion stated the result: “After decades of almost non-existent industrial production, the country became and remains the world’s leading producer of cobalt and, by 2023, became the world’s third largest producer of copper.” This “puts an end to the monopoly of certain Western countries and their large companies,” which just plundered the Congo. Furthermore, China cancelled $28 million in interest-free loans, and gave $17 million in support to the DRC.

 During the Covid pandemic, China announced that it also forgave 23 interest-free loans for 17 African nations.  This is in addition to China’s cancellation of more than $3.4 billion in debt and restructured $15 billion of debt in Africa between 2000 and 2019.

 Chinese investments in Israel

Chinese trades with Israel, as with all other countries, to establish mutually beneficial economic relations, to counter the US goal of turning countries against China. China’s trade with Israel is qualitatively different from that of the US, Britain, France, Germany and others since China does not export weaponry to Israel used to slaughter Palestinians and peoples in surrounding countries. 

Some have written of Chinese business involvement in the occupied West Bank. The report of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories Francesca Albanese (which brought US sanctions on her) substantiates one such instance. China’s role contradicts its vote in favor of the 2024 UN General Assembly resolution calling for no trade or investments with Israeli operations in the occupied territories. 

 Yet China worked hard to unite the divided Palestinian resistance with the recent Beijing Declaration. China has continually denounced the US and Israel in Gaza, upholds the Palestinian right to resist occupation, and has never condemned the October 7, 2023 Hamas breakout attack. China is also a participant in the present The Hague Group calling for “concrete measures” against Israel.

 China and Cuba

Some Western leftists have criticized China for lack of support for Cuba, suffering under a now worsening US blockade. However, China is working to build 55 solar installation complexes there this year, covering Cuba’s daytime shortfall, and another 37 by 2028, for a total of 2,000 megawatts. This aid would meet nearly two-thirds of Cuba’s present-day demand. China has long been a partner of Cuba in terms of trade and investment, participating in the Mariel Special Development Zone, and in projects in the production of medicines, biotechnology and agriculture.

 China, A Superpower that Supports Third World Development

It is a contradiction that many on the Western left are not supportive of China, given that the US rulers have long called China the primacy threat to imperialist domination. 

Recognizing the US’s continued economic and military power, if not superiority, China seeks to avoid a major destructive direct confrontation. China counters the US and Western isolation strategy by fostering a world based on cooperation with all countries, even with the US and its close allies. It focuses on obtaining essential resources for its industry and for economic self-sufficiency to fortify itself in self-defense against the US strategy to isolate it economically and politically, and on meeting countries’ desire for its cheaper goods and investments. As the Third World leaders above say, most of China’s foreign loans are not capitalist investments, but government funds that have been used to free countries from the grip of imperialism.

 That has made it impossible for the West to isolate China. In Africa, Asia and Latin America, Chinese investments in schools, roads, railroads, and other needed infrastructure are generally seen as a welcome change from the neglect and underdevelopment imposed by the imperial First World.  

 Consequently, every year China becomes more and more a world power in relation to the imperialist countries.

 China’s significance for the world lies in being a singular example of a Third World country developing despite the West’s goal to thwart its rise. This is a model for other Third World countries that seek to assert their independence of the West and make their own path.

 In this process, China, which just 75 years ago, had an illiteracy rate of 80%, has just ended poverty for 800 million people, which no capitalist group of countries ever accomplished. China has achieved the fastest growth in living standards of any country in the world. It achieved this without invading, massacring, colonizing and looting other countries, but peacefully, without threatening any other people, and in cooperation with them.

 As Daniel Ortega said:

The self-same ideologues of imperialism state that what worries them is that they see the People’s Republic of China bringing benefits to these Peoples and they feel that there they are losing the power to keep these peoples enslaved…They are upset, outraged, because the People’s Republic of China is making available billions in Africa, in Asia, in Latin America. These are investments for the development of our peoples. They see that as bad for themselves, but why can’t they do the same? Why have they never brought investment with the same conditions that the People’s Republic of China is making available?

The West, with the US at its head, seeks to maintain so-called “Western civilization,” the rule of the white colonizer over the rest of the world. It regards China and Russia as the two major threats to its continued domination and seeks to disable both. China and Russia are drawn into a struggle, where their continued growth, if not existence, is at stake. The more they can neutralize the West’s goal, the more this is a victory for all the oppressed people of the world.

FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

Stansfield Smith, ChicagoALBASolidarity.com, stansfieldsmith100@gmail.com. Stan has been involved in anti-war organizing for 45 years, and has written a number of articles about Venezuela, Bolivia, Cuba, Nicaragua, as well as previous articles related to the subject here. They have appeared in Monthly Review online, Orinoco Tribune, Dissident Voice, Counterpunch, Popular Resistance, and others. Read other articles by Stansfield.

The Danger Is Not China But the Fake China Threat

So argues Joseph Solis-Mullen in a slim, valuable book

by John V. Walsh Posted onMay 27, 2024

At times a book is convincing not only because its arguments are sound but also because of the author’s identity.  It would be no surprise to encounter a book penned by a socialist or Sinophile that takes on the false portrait of China that graces the US media.  But Joseph Solis-Mullen, the author of The Fake China Threat And Its Very Real Danger, is neither socialist nor Sinophile.

Solis-Mullen is a libertarian in the mold of Randolph Bourne and Justin Raimondo. Hence, he is classified as a conservative in our impoverished political taxonomy.  But his book is not written to appeal to people of any single political outlook.  It is written with only one thing in mind, the interest of the American people and, dare I say, of humanity in general, China included.  Hence it is of great utility for people across the political spectrum who sense that our people are being hoodwinked by fake China threats.  It may answer your questions on China or those of your friends in ways understandable to the average American.

The Fake China Threat is ubiquitous – and dangerous

Solis-Mullens explains the purpose and scope of the fake China Threat as follows:

“On the one hand, (the fake China Threat) serves as a legitimating device, a new reason for continually climbing defense budgets… and for the continued meddling… in the affairs of other states…

“On the other hand, the fake China Threat serves as a convenient scapegoat for the end results of the bad policies that Washington has itself authored and for decades pursued.  America deindustrialized?  China’ fault.  Millions of Americans hooked on drugs? China’s fault.  The Saudis and Iranians don’t want the Americans around anymore? China’s fault.  Et cetera.”

“There is one element of truth to the fake China Threat, however; the existence of an independent China (or Russia) is a threat to Washington’s accustomed ability to do more or less whatever it wants, wherever it wants.  But the existence of an independent China is already a fact.  Refusal on the part of Washington to accept it will cause more than theoretical problems, and therein lies the real danger. “ (Italics, jw)

To remedy that “real danger” is the purpose of this book as the author explains in these words:

“So built up in the imagination of many Americans has been the threat China allegedly poses to them and their families, that the determined opponent of the fake China Threat must venture onto the tiresome grounds of so-called ‘Great Power competition.’  He must then make estimations of relative power that, as it happens, largely buttress the case against Washington doing anything other than seeking normal relations with Beijing… The purpose of this book is to put in one place and in concise form the arguments why the interests of the American people are not served by confrontation with China.  The task is an urgent one.”

Solis-Mullen succeeds on all counts in that task. The book is indeed concise, a mere 65 pages, albeit in small print, and with extensive footnotes to satisfy the reader seeking more evidence or deeper understanding.

History, empathy, the military, and the economy

The author begins with a capsule history of Sino-US relations, really an account of the West’s interaction with China beginning in the early 19th Century and leading to a century of colonial exploitation and oppression which the Chinese refer to as the Hundred Years of Humiliation. Next, he proceeds to a view of how Beijing sees the world, in other words an attempt to see the world as our official enemies do, one of the main requisites for a peaceful world, all too often forgotten by would be champions of peace.  And he returns to these themes later in the book with a quick review of “Chinese Foreign Policy Historically.” One truth that emerges from this treatment is that China’s development of its military is reactive rather than aggressive, the result of the Century of Humiliation and the latest buildup of US forces ringing China since Obama launched his Pivot to Asia in 2011 which successor administrations have built on and developed further. The way to peace one concludes is to stop poking the Panda lest it morph into a fire breathing Dragon.

A central question is taken up in a chapter entitled “China’s Internal Problems and External Constraints.”  The author argues, incorrectly I believe, that China’s demographics and geography put limits on its economic might.  But we have heard such arguments in the past and they always come up short; China keeps surprising the pundits of the West.  But Solis-Mullen argues that both his pessimistic view of China’s economic prospects and my optimistic view are irrelevant when it comes to America’s course of action.

Either China is very strong, he says, “in which case antagonizing China over issues directly in its backyard is stupid; or actually China is quite weak in which case antagonizing China in its backyard is unnecessary and counterproductive.” He continues, “In any event is hard to hard to imagine how the life of the average American would be improved by courting conflict with China, while it is quite easy to imagine countless ways in which it could be made worse.”

The Uyghurs

One of the most powerful sections of the book is chapter 8, “Uyghurs, Genocides and Realities,” where the Uyghur “genocide” hoax is debunked.  One need only visit Xinjiang, home of the Uyghurs, and compare it to Gaza, to see that the charge of genocide is wildly off the mark.  It is easy to do this since China is encouraging tourism in Xinjiang.  Most notably, Solis-Mullen points out, the UN has not charged China with genocide despite entreaties from the US.  And the US State Department seems to have dropped the term, at least for now.  Most satisfyingly, the work of Adrian Zenz, who has provided much of the “documentation” to justify the charge of genocide, is called out.  Zenz, Solis-Mullen informs us, is “a German anthropologist of frankly questionable scholastic character and fitness,” citing as evidence the excellent work of Max Blumenthal and Gareth Porter at The Grayzone. (See also the articles by Ajit Singh here.).  The Uyghur genocide hoax makes for an excellent case history instructing us on how false narratives are constructed to advance anti-China sentiment.  The chapter “Who Writes About the Fake China Threat and Why” adds more to the picture.

Solis-Mullen’s book is solidly in the American tradition of anti-interventionism which has been struggling to make itself felt since it was smothered at the end of WWII.  He declares he is driven by enlightened self-interest, that most valuable form of selfishness, telling us: “It is the lives, liberty, property and the prosperity of my fellow Americans that I seek to defend in doing what I can to discredit the fake China Threat.”Faceboo

Author: John V. Walsh

John V. Walsh writes about issues of war, peace, empire, and health care for Antiwar.com, Consortium News, DissidentVoice.org, The Unz Review, and other outlets. Now living in the East Bay, he was until recently Professor of Physiology and Cellular Neuroscience at a Massachusetts Medical School. John V. Walsh can be reached at john.endwar@gmail.com View all posts by John V. Walsh

The Newly Elected Leader of Taiwan Says He’s the Only Legitimate Ruler over All of China

by Eric Zuesse / May 27th, 2024

The newly elected leader of Taiwan, Lai Ching-te, said in his May 20 inaugural speech, that all of China is one country, which is ruled by the leader of Taiwan, himself. His argument for this was that when the forces of (the Truman-backed) Chiang Kai-shek, who were beaten by the forces of Mao Tse-tung, escaped to the Japanese-occupied island of Taiwan after Japan was defeated in WW2, they set up a Government there and proclaimed it to be the Government of China and created a ‘Constitution’ for it that asserted itself to be the Constitution for all of China.

However, according to the “Constitution of the Republic of China (Taiwan)”, which was publicly announced on 1 January 1947, that narrative is simply not true: the escapees from mainland China who had set up that government in Taiwan, made no claim at that time alleging they controlled and ruled over anything but “Taiwan.” (On the other hand, the Truman Administration got Taiwan’s government appointed to the China-seats at the U.N. Security Council and General Assembly, and this remained in force until 25 October 1971 when mainland China received those seats instead.)

Lai’s speech ignored this historical fact — that the Constitution alleged to pertain only to Taiwan — and stated the opposite, by using the following argument:

We have a nation insofar as we have sovereignty. Right in the first chapter of our Constitution, it says that “The sovereignty of the Republic of China shall reside in the whole body of citizens,” and that “Persons possessing the nationality of the Republic of China shall be citizens of the Republic of China.” These two articles tell us clearly: The Republic of China and the People’s Republic of China are not subordinate to each other. All of the people of Taiwan must come together to safeguard our nation; all our political parties ought to oppose annexation and protect sovereignty; and no one should entertain the idea of giving up our national sovereignty in exchange for political power.

The U.S.-empire propaganda vehicle, Britain’s Financial Times, grudgingly headlined on May 21, “China has a point about Taiwan’s new leader: Lai Ching-te’s language on sovereignty has already strayed from the path taken by his more cautious predecessor”, and reported:

China is right to say that Lai is straying from the path of his predecessor Tsai Ing-wen — a leader whom China refused to engage but who managed to keep a delicate peace. And some question the wisdom of taking such a gamble at a time of high tension.

“Lai’s stance is a step back towards more confrontation, undoing much of Tsai’s line,” says Chao Chun-shan, a Taiwan academic who advised Tsai and her three predecessors on China policy. He argues that it puts China’s leader Xi Jinping in a difficult spot. “Xi doesn’t want a showdown now, before the result of the US election is clear.”

Lai ran for president with a pledge to follow Tsai’s China policy and preserve the status quo in the Taiwan Strait. …

But critics say Lai deviated from his promises this week during an inaugural address that used conspicuously different language, while also spelling out some of the facts that most jar Beijing.

They failed to identify what ‘facts’ they were referring to there, but said only:

He cited the ROC constitution’s language that sovereignty resides with the people, who are of ROC nationality. “This tells us clearly: the Republic of China and the People’s Republic of China are not subordinate to each other,” he concluded.

While this textual analysis may verge on hair splitting, China policy experts say Lai is in danger of upending the ambiguity that has provided political space to allow Beijing’s territorial claim to sit alongside Taiwan’s de facto independence without sparking conflict.

“He is raising the stakes by stressing a difference in sovereignty between the two countries,” says Tso Chen-dong, a professor at National Taiwan University who has advised the Kuomintang (KMT), the opposition party that embraces the notion of Taiwan being part of a greater Chinese nation. The KMT argues the ROC’s territory, under its constitution, still includes all of China; what divides it from Beijing is not a battle over sovereignty, but a question of jurisdiction.

Even the pro U.S-empire “Course Hero” online site gets the history here right when it says:

In 1949, China ended a long civil war. The victorious communist forces led by Mao Zedong established their capital in Beijing. About two million supporters of the losing side, known as the nationalists, retreated to Taiwan. China was divided between two governments, one on the mainland and one in Taiwan, that each considered itself China’s legitimate ruler. The government on the mainland never gave up its claim on Taiwan, and Taiwan never declared independence.

Lai did in his inaugural speech go even beyond declaring Taiwan’s independence — he declared himself to be the ruler of all of China, including mainland China. He is demanding to reverse the fact that Mao won that civil war and that Chiang lost the civil war.

By contrast, the Financial Times article said “Lai spoke of ‘China’ throughout. He also tackled the controversial issue of sovereignty head-on.”

The tactics by which U.S.-and-allied propaganda-vehicles warp meanings, and warp realities, 180 degrees to their exact opposites, are instructive models for any of the sophistry professions.

Also on May 21, the house-organ of the real China headlined “’Lai-style Taiwan independence’ agenda is a dead-end: Global Times editorial” and opened:

On May 20, Lai Ching-te assumed the role of Taiwan region’s new leader and delivered his inaugural speech. Lai shamelessly stated in his speech that “the Republic of China Taiwan is a sovereign, independent nation” and “the Republic of China and the People’s Republic of China are not subordinate to each other,” spewing various “Taiwan independence” fallacies and hostile provocations against the Chinese mainland, once again exposing his stubborn nature as “a worker for Taiwan independence.” This speech can be described as a blatant “Taiwan independence manifesto” and “a declaration of harm to Taiwan.” It is extremely dangerous, and the Taiwan compatriots should be particularly vigilant and united in opposition.

We noticed that in this speech, the term “democracy” was mentioned 31 times, and “peace” 21 times, which precisely exposes the anxiety of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) authorities – they are well aware that what they are doing now is pushing Taiwan into a dangerous pit of war and danger, hence desperately using “democracy” as a fig leaf and talisman to cover themselves. It is clear to all discerning eyes that the so-called “democracy” is nothing but inferior makeup smeared on the face of “Taiwan independence,” unable to conceal its true face of “seeking independence by relying on foreign support and by force.”

In the positioning of cross-Straits relations, Lai boldly defines the two sides of the Straits as “two countries,” listing “Taiwan,” “Republic of China Taiwan,” and “Republic of China” as so-called “national names,” further advancing on the “one China, one Taiwan” path of “Taiwan independence.” This blatant “two states” theory cannot change the fact that Taiwan is only a part of China, nor can it stop the historical trend of reunification of the motherland. Its only effect is to exacerbate the tension in the Taiwan Straits and make Taiwan society pay a high price for the reckless gamble of “Taiwan independence.”

While treating compatriots from the mainland as “foreigners,” Lai in his speech regards Western anti-China forces as “family members,” throughout the speech filled with servility and begging for mercy from Western anti-China forces, which is very shameful. In order to gain the support of Western anti-China forces, he claims that “the world greeting a new Taiwan,” Taiwan is “an important link in the global chain of democracies,” ” Taiwan is strategically positioned in the first island chain,” and so on. These remarks of selling out Taiwan treat the hard-earned social achievements and wealth accumulated by the Taiwan residents for decades as offerings to anti-China forces in the West, reducing Taiwan to a pawn of the US and giving it the appearance of “unworthy descendants.”

Even more dangerous is the subtle manifestation of the arrogant ambition of “seeking independence by force” in his speech. On the one hand, Lai echoes the fallacies of certain Western countries, smearing the mainland as a “threat”; on the other hand, he attempts to indoctrinate the residents in Taiwan into cannon fodder for “Taiwan independence,” openly advocating for raising the citizens’ “defense awareness,” fully exposing the sinister intention of sacrificing innocent people on the island for the selfish desire of “Taiwan independence.” …

The U.S. Government said, and signed with China’s Government, in 1972, the Shanghai Communique, including “The U.S. side declared: The United States acknowledges that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China.” George W. Bush’s Administration tried unsuccessfully in 2007 to outlaw internationally the phrase “Taiwan is a part of China”; and, so, the Shanghai Communique has remained the official U.S. Government policy to this day. (It hopes to get China to invade Taiwan in order for the U.S. to have a supposed pretext to then ‘defend that independent nation’ ‘against China’s aggression’, by invading China.)

On 19 July 2023, I headlined and documented “Biden Wants to Invade/Conquer China”. It opened:

His plan is to arm Taiwan and entice it to announce its complete independence from China — that Taiwan is no mere province of China but instead an independent country — which announcement would then immediately force China either to invade China or else to accept Taiwan’s becoming a separate and independent country.

Taiwan’s new leader has complied with that, even in his inaugural address. Will Biden go to war against China in the months leading up to the November 5 U.S. elections if China invades Taiwan in order to make clear to Taiwan’s voters that they had been suckered by U.S.-imperial propaganda to choose as their ‘President’ someone who would declare that Taiwan is not only independent of China but ruling over China? How much international backing would the U.S. regime have if it did that?

Taiwan’s billionaires — like Taiwan’s public — are hardly unified about whether Taiwan should concede that it is a Province of China (as it long had been), On 7 August 2023, the Hong Kong based South China Morning Post headlined “Two titans of tech are offering two very different views of Taiwan” and reported that whereas Foxconn’s leader Terry Guo was opposed to the independence movement and thought it wouldn’t win power, “Morris Chang, founder of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) who is often called the godfather of the island’s tech industry, said he didn’t think there was likely to be a war across the Taiwan Strait,” and,

We all hope he is right, but of course he would say that. After all, some Washington politicians have openly declared that at the first sign of conflict, the US military would blow up all of TSMC chip foundries to deny them to the mainland Chinese.

These billionaires are aware that the independence movement threatens them, but do nothing about it. On the other hand, Radio Taiwan International headlined on 16 August 2022, “UMC Founder: KMT needs to give up ‘one China policy’” and opened:

United Microelectronics (UMC) Founder Robert Tsao says the Kuomintang (KMT) party needs to give up its one China policy. He made the remarks in an interview with Radio Taiwan International on Tuesday.  The UMC is the world’s second-largest contract microchip maker.

Tsao recently announced he is donating NT$3 billion (US$100 million) for Taiwan’s defense. As China has been elevating its military threat against Taiwan, he said the people of Taiwan need to be determined to strengthen the nation’s defense abilities to deter China from attacking Taiwan.

He criticized the opposition KMT’s 1992 Consensus policy in which Taiwan and China agree to one China, but each side has its own interpretation. He said that’s because China has never accepted another interpretation.

On 15 January 2024, Australia’s Financial Review bannered “Billionaire urges Taiwan to ‘prepare for the worst’”, and reported:

Billionaire Robert Tsao warns that Taiwan’s 23 million people must be prepared for an eventual war with China, even though the risk of an invasion has eased while Xi Jinping fights economic challenges at home.

The 76-year-old founder of one of Taiwan’s first semiconductor manufacturers has retired from big business to devote his life to what he believes is protecting the island nation’s interests from its aggressive neighbour.

So, not only is he not doing nothing about it, but he is actually encouraging what America’s Government is encouraging (by its donating U.S. weapons to Taiwan): an open public declaration of Taiwan’s independence from China.

The only difference from Lai’s policy is that the policy of Tsao and unofficially of the current U.S. Government is that Taiwan and China are two separate countries and are at war against each other.

That policy, of course, is exactly what the world’s biggest armaments manufacturers, which are headquartered in the United States, would want and lobby for. Whether Tsao is receiving any behind-the-scenes financial benefits from the U.S. for this isn’t yet known

Eric Zuesse  is an investigative historian. His new book, America's Empire of Evil: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change, is about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’ — duping the public.