Während vom jeweils interessierten Seiten mal abwechselnd Warnung und Entwarnung vor einem bald oder eben nicht bald bevorstehenden Taiwankrieg oder sinoamerikanischen Krieg im Indopazifik in rythmischen Zyklen abgegeben werden, eine Woche US Generalstabschef Milley das gelassen sieht und an Xis Rationalität glaubt, während Ben Hodges einen „kynetic clash“ innerhalb der nächsten 5 Jahre , Habeck „spätestens 2027“ und die Expertin der Bundeswehruni Stumbaum eine Taiwaninvasion in lauer Vollmondnacht im Januar 2025 kommen sieht, hat jetzt der taiwanesische Parlamentssprecher You Si-Kun von der DDP bei einem weiteren Treffen des Hudson- Instituts klargemacht, dass wenn Taiwan fällt, die Welt falle und China dadurch nicht saturiert würde. You fiel auch schon zuvor dadurch auf, dass er meinte, dass eine diplomatische Anerkennung Taiwans durch die USA keinen Krieg auslösen würde und die KP China das Hudson Institute im Dunstkreis von Bolton und Pompeo sehen, die ja auch eine diplomatische Anerkennung Taiwans fordern. Interessant ist seine Begründung. Er sieht Pekings Weltherrschaftsansprüche zum einem i dem Wesen des neottlaitären/autoritre Systems der KP China begründet, dann aber auch im Konfluzianismus, der nach seiner Lesart e Weltherrschaft anstrebe. Letztere Begründung hatte man bisher noch nicht bei Chinahawks gefunden, zumal der Konfuzianismus ja von Taiwans Demokraten auch bisher nicht als Hindernis für Demokratie gesehen wurde, sondern angeblich eben durchaus auch liberale und demkrtaische Elemente in sich trage, die in Taiwan als erster chineischer Demokratie nun auch ihre Verwirklichung fanden. Scheinbar doch eher die Lesart der KMT als der DDP Yous.Immerhin gruppiere sich nun ein Abschreckungsring gegen China seitens der AUKUS, Quad und nun hätten Japan und Südkorea ihre alte Feindschaft begraben, Taiwan als ihr Problem der nationalen Sicherheit benannt und ihre Raketenabwehr durch real- data- Austaussch gekoppelt, wie auch die Philipinen sich nun in die Front gegen China eingruppierten.
„Thu, May 18, 2023 page1
China will not stop with Taiwan, You says in US
By Jonathan Chin / Staff writer, with CNA
China will not be satisfied with taking over Taiwan, as the nation is only a “stepping stone” to Beijing’s ambitions for global power, Legislative Speaker You Si-kun (游錫?) said in a speech at a US think tank on Tuesday.
“Taiwan is not [Beijing’s] ultimate goal or final destination,” he told the Washington-based Hudson Institute, adding: “The CCP [Chinese Communist Party] wants to see the East to rise and the West to decline; it wants to be hegemon over Europe, the Americas, and the entire world.”
You is leading a legislative delegation that includes Democratic Progressive Party Legislator Chen Ting-fei (陳亭妃), Taiwan People’s Party caucus whip Chiu Chen-yuan (邱臣遠) and New Power Party caucus whip Chiu Hsien-chih (邱顯智).
Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) has openly embraced a strategy to “upend the international order” after abandoning notions of China biding its time or pursuing a peaceful rise, he said.
China’s imperialism stems from the CCP regime’s authoritarianism and subscription to Confucian traditions that call for the whole of the world to be subjected to one ruler, he said.
“Protecting Taiwan equates to defending both Europe and the US; to ensure Taiwan’s security is to ensure the global public interest,” You said.
“If we do not take China’s threats seriously, a dark future awaits all of mankind,” he added.
The world should be confident in Taiwan’s will and ability to resist communist aggression, he said, adding that it took imperial Japan nearly six months to subjugate Taiwan proper in 1895.
Taiwan’s heritage of resisting foreign invaders, formidable geography, arms obtained from the US and Taiwanese’s will to resist their foes show that the nation would stand up to aggression, You said.
However, the nation’s strength alone is not enough stop China’s onslaught and it needs support from the US, Europe, Japan and South Korea, You said.
You praised Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida and South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol for calling Taiwan a global issue and opposing a change to the status quo by force. He said this had “offset” remarks by French President Emmanuel Macron that a conflict in the Taiwan Strait had nothing to do with Europe.
You said Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr had also said that granting the U.S. access to Philippine military bases was a defensive measure that would be useful if China were to attack Taiwan.
“The crescent of defense formed by Korea, Japan, Taiwan and the Philippines will, with American support, be a key stabilizer of peace and security in the Indo-Pacific region,” he added.
The staunch support democracies have provided Ukraine should act as a deterrent to Xi “to prevent him from taking any reckless action so that he will not become a second Putin,” You said.
The delegation has met with members of the US House of Representatives Select Committee on Strategic Competition between the US and the CCP, You said.
The groups also talked about US Representative Seth Moulton’s remarks that were used out of context by Chinese social media platforms.
Moulton said during a panel discussion that “one of the interesting ideas that’s floated out there for deterrence is just making it very clear to the Chinese, that if you invade Taiwan, we’re gonna blow up TSMC [Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co, 台積電].”
“I’m not promoting the idea. I’m not promoting the idea,” Moulton said.
However, his words were clipped to the effect that the US might blow up TSMC factories to deter Chinese aggression, You said.
The suggestion would have been foolish if anyone in the US actually made it in the first place, he said.
Doch in all die Kriegsszenarios tritt nun ein New Kid on the block, der vielleicht eine friedliche Vereinigung bringen und Taiwan an China ausverkaufen könnte. So warnt Carnegie- Kolumnist in Burdas Focus und „Chinaversteher“ Alexander Görlach vor einem enfant terribleund mögiche Präsidentschaftskandidaten der KMT in Taiwan, einem taiwanesischen Milliardär und Trumps Taiwans namens Terry Gou:
„Analyse vom China-Versteher
Unsere Welt wird sich vollkommen verändern, wenn dieser Mann Taiwan regiert
Gestern, 19.05.2023 | 21:53
Donald Trump und Terry Gou treffen sich 2018 in Wisconsin in den USA. imago images / ZUMA Press
Die Spannungen zwischen China und Taiwan halten weiter an: Mitten in der Krise will sich ein siebenfacher Milliardär an die politische Spitze Taiwans katapultieren und die Beziehungen zur Volksrepublik merklich verbessern. Die Mehrheit der Taiwaner wollen aber keine „Wiedervereinigung“.
Ein Milliardär hat angekündigt, im nächsten Jahr für die nationalistische KMT-Partei in Taiwan für die Präsidentschaftswahl anzutreten. Sollte der Gründer des Elektronikgiganten Foxconn, Terry Gou, den das Magazin Foreign Policy den „Donald Trump Asiens“ nennt, die Wahl gewinnen, könnte dies – ähnlich wie die Wahl Trumps 2016 – die Weltordnung, wie wir sie kennen, für immer verändern.
Denn Terry Gou gilt als chinafreundlich. Er könnte versuchen, einen Deal mit Chinas Machthaber Xi Jinping auszuhandeln. Seine politischen Konkurrenten warnen davor, dass er Taiwans Unabhängigkeit für Wirtschaftsdeals mit der Diktatur in Peking verspielen könnte. Denn Gou hätte sicherlich auch seine eigenen Interessen als Geschäftsmann im Sinn. Seit der Wahl der derzeitigen Präsidentin Taiwans, Tsai Ing-wen, ist der Handel mit der Volksrepublik über die Taiwanstraße deutlich schwieriger geworden.
Verlust Taiwans wäre nicht zu verkraften
Für den Rest der Welt wäre der Verlust Taiwans als unabhängiger Handelspartner nicht zu verkraften. Fast die Hälfte aller Containerschiffe passieren die Taiwanstraße. Schon heute hat die Volksrepublik Teile des Südchinesischen Meeres militarisiert, indem sie dort Inseln aufgeschüttet hat, auf denen die Armee Stützpunkte unterhält. Xis erklärtes Ziel ist es, diesen Teil der Weltmeere, den gesamten Westpazifik, unter seine Knute zu zwingen, um die Welt jederzeit politisch erpressen zu können.
Würde Taiwan unter Gou an Peking fallen, verlören die USA und ihre Verbündeten das wesentliche Element einer Sicherheitsarchitektur, die Peking am Vordringen hindern könnte. Zudem würde die Halbleitertechnologie, in der Taiwan weltweit führend ist, in die Hände von Xi Jinping fallen. China verfügt zwar über die Seltenen Erden, die für die Produktion dieser Chips notwendig sind, aber nicht über das Know-how, sie herzustellen.
Terry Gou, der sieben Milliarden Dollar schwer sein soll, will sich zu einem Zeitpunkt an die Spitze der Konservativen drängen, zu dem die Gefahr eines Krieges zwischen der jungen Inseldemokratie und der Volksrepublik so groß ist wie seit zwanzig Jahren nicht mehr.
Im vergangenen August und im April diesen Jahres übte die chinesische Streitmacht bereits die Blockade der Insel und zeigte der Welt eine Computersimulation, die darstellte, wie Machthaber Xi die Insel bombardieren und zerstören würde.
Peking könnte Taiwans Lieferketten lahmlegen
Aber auch jenseits eines tatsächlichen Kriegsausbruchs hat Peking Möglichkeiten, Taiwan empfindlich zu verletzen: Peking könnte erneut Internetkabel kappen lassen oder durch Blockaden die Energieversorgung der Inselindustrie (Taiwan hat nur Reserven für zwei Wochen) oder Lieferketten, in die Taiwan eingebunden ist, treffen. Das hätte Auswirkungen auf Investitionen in das Land, warnt Gou.
Seit 2016 die liberale Präsidentin Tsai Ing-wen an der Regierung ist, greift Peking verstärkt zu solchen Guerilla-Methoden, um die Insel in die Knie zu zwingen. Xi Jinping behauptet, das Eiland sei Territorium der Volksrepublik.
Doch das stimmt nicht: Die Kommunistische Partei Chinas hatte nie die Macht über Taiwan. Sollte der Kandidat Terry Gou am 13. Januar zum Präsidenten gewählt werden, so hofft Peking, könnte dieser die Tore für eine “Wiedervereinigung” öffnen, wie Xi die Eroberung Taiwans nennt.
Die Bevölkerung Taiwans will keine Wiedervereinigung
Die taiwanesische Öffentlichkeit will weder eine “Wiedervereinigung” noch die Gründung einer neuen Republik, für die ein Teil der regierenden liberalen Fortschrittspartei Sympathien bekundet hat. Rund 85 Prozent der Bevölkerung wollen, dass alles so bleibt, wie es ist: Die „Republik China”, wie Taiwans voller Name lautet, besteht seit 1949 nur noch aus Taiwan und einigen kleineren Inseln.
Sie ist der letzte Zipfel der 1912 auf dem Festland gegründeten Republik, die der Kommunistenführer Mao Zedong nach Jahrzehnten des Bürgerkriegs besiegt hat. Taiwan blieb seitdem vor allem durch die Unterstützung seines wichtigsten Partners, der Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika, vor einer Invasion durch Peking verschont.
Milliardär will Provokationen aus China ein Ende setzen
Doch die zunehmende Aggression Xi Jinpings beginnt die Menschen zu zermürben. Hier setzt Terry Gou an, der damit wirbt, die Drähte nach Peking aufrechtzuerhalten und dafür zu sorgen, dass die Provokationen gegen die Insel mit ihren 23,5 Millionen Einwohnerinnen aufhören. Diesen Ansatz unterstützt die Kuomintang-Partei, deren ehemaliger Präsident Ma Ying-jeou im März in die Volksrepublik reiste.
Der offizielle Grund war der Besuch des Grabes seiner Familie anlässlich des jährlichen buddhistischen Totengedenktages. Dennoch nutzte Ma, der Chinas Machthaber Xi Jinping zuletzt im Jahr 2015 in Singapur getroffen hatte, die Reise auch für politische Statements. “Wir sind alle Chinesen”, sagte der KMT-Veteran zum Auftakt seines Trips.
Taiwaner wollen sich im Ernstfall gegen China wehren
Damit mag er Peking gefallen, die große Mehrheit der Menschen auf Taiwan teilt diese Auffassung nicht. Rund 75 Prozent von ihnen sagen in Umfragen, dass sie Taiwaner, nicht Chinesen seien. Fast genauso viele geben an, Taiwan im Falle eines Angriffs durch die Volksrepublik verteidigen zu wollen.
Ob Gou, der bereits bei der letzten Wahl als Kandidat antreten wollte, dieses Mal Glück hat, die Kandidatur zu erhaschen, ist fraglich. Denn so einfach, wie er es die Menschen glauben lassen will, werden die Verhandlungen mit China nicht.
Zudem ist es offizielle Linie der KMT, dass Demokratie und Rechtsstaatlichkeit nicht aufgegeben würden. Und auch die Nationalisten sagen, Taiwan, also die Republik China, sei ein eigenständiges, unabhängiges Land. Solche Überzeugungen sind für Geschäftsleute wie Trump und Guo nur hinderlich. Die KMT hat deshalb noch nicht entschieden, wen sie aufstellen wird.
Ein Warnschuss für die regierenden Liberalen
Die Liberalen gehen mit Vizepräsident Lai Ching-te ins Rennen. Tsai Ing-wen kann sich nach zwei Amtsperioden nicht wieder zur Wahl stellen. Bei den Regionalwahlen im vergangenen November und Dezember hatte die KMT zahlreiche Siege errungen – ein Warnschuss für die regierenden Liberalen. In Umfragen für die landesweiten Wahlen im Januar liegen sie allerdings weiterhin vorn. Terry Gou könnte vielleicht die “Wild Card“ des konservativen Lagers werden.
Chinaexperte Professor van Ess kommentierte dies so:
„Ein böser Geschäftsmann. Das mit den 75% dürfte stimmen. Nur ist die Frage, was es bedeutet, Taiwaner zu sein. Will man damit auch die Anti-China-Politik und die Auslöschung des chinesischen Erbes so wie die „liberale“ Tsai Ing-wen?“
Entwarnung? Laut Taipeh Times wird Terry Gou gar nicht Präsidentschaftskandidat der KMT, sondern Hou. Dennoch betonte Gou ,dass er Hou seine „Friedensresolution“ übergeben habe. Also mal sehen, ob Hou und die KMT diese einfach übernimmt oder abändern oder ignoriert und was da überhaupt drinnen steht. Schwer zu sagen beim jetzigen Stand, ob Ma, Hou und Gou da an einem Strick ziehen oder es da ernsthafte Differenzen gibt. Gou scheint vor allem den sehr prochinesische Wirtschaftsflügel der KMT zu repräsentieren mit zumal eigenen Geschäftsinteressen in China. Vielleicht gilt er aber auch zu offensichtlich und zu opportunistisch, da man den Ausverkauf Taiwans befürchten könnte und dies ideales Wahlfutter für die DDP wiederum wäre. Zumal er auch Taiwans Trump genannt wird. Jedenfalls ist die DDP, die Taipeh Times und die Liberty Times auch Hou gegenüber misstrauisch und sieht die gesamte KMT- Politik als Appeasement und halben Ausverkauf Taiwans:
„“Sat, May 20, 2023 page8
The Liberty Times Editorial: World watching Hou’s China policy
With the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) on Wednesday nominating New Taipei City Mayor Hou You-yi (侯友宜) as its presidential candidate, the presidential campaign has moved into the next phase, in which the KMT and the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) will again cross swords.
Hon Hai Precision Industry Co founder Terry Gou (郭台銘), who was hoping to be nominated, said he would fully support Hou and help him get elected. He added that he would pass on his proposed “peace declaration” to his former rival.
This declaration is fully consistent with the discourse of the pan-blue camp, and it will be interesting to see how Hou receives it: Will he carry on the line from former vice president Lien Chan (連戰) through former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and on to KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) and Gou himself? All eyes are on how Hou will proceed.
The first thing that Hou will need to address is the geopolitical storm raging over the Taiwan Strait. Even setting aside for the moment all of the events that preceded Hou’s nomination, his first test will be his response to the G7 summit in Hiroshima, Japan, which includes the US, Japan and South Korea holding trilateral talks on countering China.
The White House has said that the G7 leaders would demonstrate a common approach to the challenge posed by the China — one that is based on shared values. At the same time, US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin has confirmed before the US Senate Committee on Appropriations that work is under way to send Taiwan US$500 million in stockpiled military equipment using the Presidential Drawdown Authority authorized by the 2023 National Defense Authorization Act.
Hou needs to rise above the collusion between the KMT and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and confront the rapid geopolitical changes that are occurring. He needs to set himself up in a strategically advantageous position in preparation for the coming onslaught, with a convincing narrative to contrast his vision with that of the democratically elected government that has been in power for the past eight years, and within the context of a global political maelstrom and mainstream domestic public opinion.
Some believe that cross-strait affairs take precedence over geopolitical concerns in Taiwan’s domestic politics. The pan-blue camp is convinced that China’s military intimidation is not aimed at Taiwanese, but at the DPP’s provocative words and actions, despite the fact that geopolitical concerns are engulfing Taiwan. The pan-blue camp has set its focus too narrowly on the logic of the civil war, allowing itself to be drawn into Beijing’s inverted narrative, blind to what is happening all around.
The tensions in the Taiwan Strait for the past few years have been born of geopolitical changes. As Japanese Minister of Foreign Affairs Yoshimasa Hayashi described it, China and Russia are intensifying their cooperation, Beijing is trying to alter the situation in the East and South China seas, and increasing its military activity there, and North Korea is firing guided missiles with unprecedented frequency.
All of this is happening against a backdrop of a receding pandemic that originated in Wuhan, China, and has wreaked havoc in the world since 2020, the announcement last year of an “unlimited” friendship between China and Russia, and Russian President Vladimir Putin’s decision to send forces into Ukraine.
Together, all of these factors have changed the geopolitical outlook and created the international context for the tensions in the Taiwan Strait. An objective assessment of all this is that, had the DPP been responsible for the creation of the crisis, the international community, and the US especially, would long ago have rapped President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) for causing so many problems. The reality is, it is Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) who is widely acknowledged internationally as having sparked the current state of affairs.
Taiwan has seen a succession of governments and parliamentary bodies from around the world express their support for the nation. The G7, NATO and the EU have continuously warned Beijing not to use military force to change the “status quo” in the Taiwan Strait; and the US is supplying defensive weapons to Taiwan: All of this is happening at unprecedented levels.
Since the beginning of this year, South Korea, Japan and the Philippines have consolidated their bilateral alliances with the US, and there has been a historic thaw in tensions between South Korea and Japan — developments that all originate from the need to confront the threat from China.
The idea that a Taiwan contingency is a contingency for Japan and will involve the US-Japan alliance, that the Taiwan issue does not simply involve China and Taiwan, but like the North Korea issue, is a global issue, and the Philippines granting US access to four more of its bases in the event that China attacks Taiwan all demonstrate that the countries surrounding Taiwan are fully aware that Taiwan is only the first domino in Xi’s plans for the realization of his dream of making China a major global power, and that this has nothing to do with which party is in power in Taiwan.
Since Tsai took office in 2016, public opinion has tended toward maintaining the “status quo” of de facto independence. This period coincided with a deterioration in US-China relations, which has turned into a fierce competition between the two sides under the administrations of former US president Donald Trump and US President Joe Biden. During this time, the so-called “1992 consensus” and the idea that “both sides of the Taiwan Strait belong to ‘one China’” have faded into irrelevance in policy debates in Washington’s hallowed halls.
In retrospect, maintaining the “status quo” was Beijing’s best opportunity, as it could at least avoid having Taiwan spin away and the rest of the world working to contain its ambitions.
The pan-blue camp to this day is deluded into thinking that the “1992 consensus” of “one China, each side having its own interpretation” is the “same consensus” that Beijing has long made explicitly clear refers to an oral agreement of a “consensus” that “both sides of the Taiwan Strait maintain the ‘one China’ principle.”
None of this is rocket science. Again, Beijing has been explicit, giving the official definition that “there is only one China in the world, that the government of the People’s Republic of China is the sole legitimate representative of this and that Taiwan is an inalienable part of China’s territory.”
Still, the pan-blue camp clings to the idea that unification would see others respecting, at the very least, the declaration by Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) and his son and successor, Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國), that “as far as the Republic of China is concerned, the so-called question of unification is the question of how to topple the bandit communist regime, so that the compatriots on the Mainland can be given back their liberty,” and that the way to address the one-party state, reject Taiwanese independence and bring about unification require the establishment of a democratic, free, prosperous China.
On the issue of “resisting the ‘one country, two systems’” and “opposing Taiwanese independence,” China’s Taiwan Affairs Office has said that the idea of different political systems is not an obstacle to unification, and it is certainly not an excuse for secession. And still the blue camp would hold back from hoping for a democratic China.
The crisis in the Taiwan Strait starts with Beijing. Speaking on the Russian invasion of Ukraine, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said it was important to make a distinction between the aggressor and the victim, and as the US Department of State said: We urge Beijing to cease its military, diplomatic and economic pressure against Taiwan and instead engage in meaningful dialogue with Taiwan.”
Clearly, the pan-blue camp does not accept the US’ analysis and is fully onboard with Beijing’s version. It is delighted with Beijing’s repeated broadcasting of its anti-DPP witch hunt, even when this is essentially an attack on mainstream public opinion in Taiwan.
Will Hou follow the likes of Lien, Ma, Chu and Gou in parroting Beijing’s line? Will he be like the sirens of Greek myth, singing a song that confuses and befuddles those who listen to drift into dangerous waters?
The world is watching what he decides to do.
Translated by Paul Cooper
Interessant wird, ob die Friedensresolution von Terry Gou und die neue oder alte Chinapolitik der KMT zu der nun angekündigten neuen Taiwanformel der KP China passen wird, die Politbüromitglied Wang Huning im Auftrage Xi Jinpings ausarbeiten soll. Jedenfalls fragt sich , auch was im Falle einer KMT-Regierung und gegebenenfalls auch friedlichen Vereinigung, der Westen und die USA dann machen würden.
Ex- NATO- General Domroese jr. meinte dazu noch:
„Wenn es denn so kommt, wäre es immerhin eine innerchinesische Geschichte….“
Bis es aber zu einem solchen Szenario kommen kann, wird weiterhin davon ausgegangen, dass die Taiwanesen sich nicht vereinigen wollen und auch eben an den Kriegsszenarien weiter elaboriert. Die neuste Studie kommt von der RAND Corporation, die fragt, welche Staaten im Falle eines Taiwankriegs den USA und Taiwan zu Hilfe kommen würden., wobei auch das Szenario eines Koreakriegs samt Zerfall Nordkoreas und ein Konflikt im Südchinesischen Meer durchgespielt wurde. Im Falle eines Taiwankonflikts würden im wesentlichen nur Japan, Australien und Singapur den USAQ begrenzte Unterstützung geben.
„Sat, May 20, 2023 page3
Report questions support for US
HYPOTHETICAL CONFLICTS: In a scenario involving Taiwan, only Australia, Japan and Singapore might provide ‘limited support’ to the US, Rand Corp said
By Liu Tzu-hsuan / Staff reporter
Allies of Washington might decline or only provide limited support to the US if a conflict breaks out across the Taiwan Strait, the Rand Corporation said in a report on Tuesday.
The Santa Monica, California-based think tank’s report, titled US Major Combat Operations in the Indo-Pacific, examined the willingness of US allies and partners to provide air combat support to US operations in the event of a major combat contingency in the Indo-Pacific region.
Twelve significant regional players were identified as the focus of the study — Taiwan, Australia, India, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, New Zealand, the Philippines, Singapore, South Korea, Thailand and Vietnam.
It proposed four hypothetical scenarios: a conflict over Taiwan, a second Korean war, a maritime conflict in the South China Sea and a major stability operation on the Korean Peninsula following a North Korean collapse.
The assessments were based on factors such as national interests, fear of retaliation, domestic politics, public statements by senior officials and the judgement of local experts.
Regarding the scenario of a conflict over Taiwan, only Australia, Japan and Singapore might provide “limited support” to the US, while other countries would be likely to decline support, the report said.
Australia has shown a willingness to invest more heavily to support regional operations in the Indo-Pacific region, but the assistance it provides to defend against maritime invasions might be minimal, it said.
Japan considers Taiwan “an extremely crucial partner and an important friend,” which demonstrates the nation’s closeness to Taiwan, it said.
Singapore is likely to see a Taiwan crisis initiated by China as a violation of its commitment to regional stability and a risk to be dominated by China if such an attack is successful, the report said.
The assessment showed that while Taiwan is most likely to support the US in a cross-strait conflict, “Taiwanese support under every other China-related scenario examined in this report is ambiguous at best and unlikely at worst” for fear of serious repercussions, Rand Corp said.
With the survival of Taiwan’s democratic governance and status as a de facto independent country at stake, non-China land invasion scenarios would probably significantly elevate the chances of Taiwanese support, it said.
Taiwan is fostering closer relations with the US and other like-minded democratic nations as the country has faced increasing hostility from China since President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) took office in 2016, it said.
The New Southbound Policy launched by Tsai is an effort to diversify the nation’s economy away from overdependence on China, it said.
Taiwan’s security strategy is “multifaceted and largely dependent on sustained US support,” aimed at blunting Chinese advantages, the report said.
RAND hatte schon zuvor die Studie „War with China“ herausgegeben, wo es Kriegsszenarien für 2025 und 2035 durchspielte. Die Studien kann man nachlesen unter:
“U.S. Major Combat Operations in the Indo-Pacific
Partner and Ally Views
- Which partners and allies in the Indo-Pacific have the willingness to support U.S. operations there?
- Does the nature of the conflict affect that willingness?
The study described in this report assessed the potential for the United States to receive support in air component capabilities from partners and allies in the event of a major combat contingency in the Indo-Pacific. A companion report focuses on technical and operational considerations associated with partner and allied support: whether they have the capability and capacity to support U.S. air operations in a major conflict. This report focuses on the geopolitical side of the equation: whether partners and allies have the willingness to support U.S. operations. Capabilities alone do not equal warfighting outcomes; the partners and allies must be willing to join the United States in the conflict.
The authors identified 12 countries for the focus of the analysis, representing a mix of U.S. treaty allies, significant regional players, and countries with specific air component assets potentially important to a contingency. These countries are Australia, India, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, New Zealand, the Philippines, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam. The authors then defined four potential scenarios for high-end conflict against which they assessed as these countries‘ possible contribution: a conflict over Taiwan, a second Korean war, a maritime conflict in the South China Sea, and a major stability operation on the Korean Peninsula following a collapse of North Korea.
- Australia and Japan have significant security interests at stake in major Asian contingencies. But both will face political (and, in the case of Japan, legal and constitutional) hurdles to participating in wars that do not directly engage them at first.
- South Korea values the U.S. alliance but has little interest in being a cobelligerent off the Korean Peninsula.
- The authors found little evidence that, unless directly attacked itself, Thailand is willing to endanger its security by offering military aid to the United States.
- Several other regional countries—notably India, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Vietnam—have very strong traditions of nonalignment and display no evidence of being willing to volunteer to join a war that does not directly involve them.
- New Zealand and the Philippines have few air assets to devote to a major fight and strong incentives to remain aloof from distant wars.
- Various factors will affect final choices of these partners, such as the degree of Chinese belligerence between now and the crisis, degree of U.S. commitment, and political changes in other countries in the region.
- The Air Force would likely make the most progress by focusing on efforts designed to enhance (1) deeper interoperability across the board with Australia and Japan, (2) local self-defense capabilities (as opposed to distant power projection capacity) of partners and allies, and (3) partner capability and ability to operate with the United States more broadly—but only in very narrow air systems (typically not combat aircraft) and with the goal of joint activities only in such scenarios as stability operations or humanitarian assistance and disaster response.
“War with China Thinking Through the Unthinkable
- What are the alternative paths that China and the United States might take before and during a war?
- What are the effects on both countries of each path?
- What preparations should the United States make, both to reduce the likelihood of war and, should war break out, to ensure victory while minimizing losses and costs?
Premeditated war between the United States and China is very unlikely, but the danger that a mishandled crisis could trigger hostilities cannot be ignored. Thus, while neither state wants war, both states‘ militaries have plans to fight one. As Chinese anti-access and area-denial (A2AD) capabilities improve, the United States can no longer be so certain that war would follow its plan and lead to decisive victory. This analysis illuminates various paths a war with China could take and their possible consequences.
Technological advances in the ability to target opposing forces are creating conditions of conventional counterforce, whereby each side has the means to strike and degrade the other’s forces and, therefore, an incentive to do so promptly, if not first. This implies fierce early exchanges, with steep military losses on both sides, until one gains control. At present, Chinese losses would greatly exceed U.S. losses, and the gap would only grow as fighting persisted. But, by 2025, that gap could be much smaller. Even then, however, China could not be confident of gaining military advantage, which suggests the possibility of a prolonged and destructive, yet inconclusive, war. In that event, nonmilitary factors — economic costs, internal political effects, and international reactions — could become more important.
Political leaders on both sides could limit the severity of war by ordering their respective militaries to refrain from swift and massive conventional counterforce attacks. The resulting restricted, sporadic fighting could substantially reduce military losses and economic harm. This possibility underscores the importance of firm civilian control over wartime decisionmaking and of communication between capitals. At the same time, the United States can prepare for a long and severe war by reducing its vulnerability to Chinese A2AD forces and developing plans to ensure that economic and international consequences would work to its advantage.
Unless Both U.S. and Chinese Political Leaders Decline to Carry Out Counterforce Strategies, the Ability of Either State to Control the Ensuing Conflict Would Be Greatly Impaired
- Both sides would suffer large military losses in a severe conflict. In 2015, U.S. losses could be a relatively small fraction of forces committed, but still significant; Chinese losses could be much heavier than U.S. losses and a substantial fraction of forces committed.
- This gap in losses will shrink as Chinese A2AD improves. By 2025, U.S. losses could range from significant to heavy; Chinese losses, while still very heavy, could be somewhat less than in 2015, owing to increased degradation of U.S. strike capabilities.
- China’s A2AD will make it increasingly difficult for the United States to gain military-operational dominance and victory, even in a long war.
Conflict Could Be Decided by Domestic Political, International, and Economic Factors, All of Which Would Favor the United States in a Long, Severe War
- Although a war would harm both economies, damage to China’s would be far worse.
- Because much of the Western Pacific would become a war zone, China’s trade with the region and the rest of the world would decline substantially.
- China’s loss of seaborne energy supplies would be especially damaging.
- A long conflict could expose China to internal political divisions.
- Japan’s increased military activity in the region could have a considerable influence on military operations.
- U.S. and Chinese political leaders alike should have military options other than immediate strikes to destroy opposing forces.
- U.S. leaders should have the means to confer with Chinese leaders and contain a conflict before it gets out of hand.
- The United States should guard against automaticity in implementing immediate attacks on Chinese A2AD and have plans and means to prevent hostilities from becoming severe. Establishing „fail safe“ arrangements will guarantee definitive, informed political approval for military operations.
- The United States should reduce the effect of Chinese A2AD by investing in more-survivable force platforms (e.g., submarines) and in counter-A2AD (e.g., theater missiles).
- The United States should conduct contingency planning with key allies, especially Japan.
- The United States should ensure that the Chinese are specifically aware of the potential for catastrophic results even if a war is not lost militarily.
- The United States should improve its ability to sustain intense military operations.
- U.S. leaders should develop options to deny China access to war-critical commodities and technologies in the event of war.
- The United States should undertake measures to mitigate the interruption of critical products from China.
- Additionally, the U.S. Army should invest in land-based A2AD capabilities, encourage and enable East Asian partners to mount strong defense, improve interoperability with partners (especially Japan), and contribute to the expansion and deepening of Sino-U.S. military-to-military understanding and cooperation to reduce dangers of misperception and miscalculation.
Eine weitere interessante Studie von RAND, beschäftigt sich, wie die KP China die Stärke ihrer Volksbefreiungsramee misst , bewertet und wahrnimmt und welche Folgen sich daraus für sdie Militärbalance ziwschen den USA und China ergibt:
Eine weitere interessante Studie von RAND, beschäftig sich mit der Frage, wie die KP China die Stärke hrer Volksbefreiungsarmee misst, bewertet und wahrnimmt und welche Auswirkungen dies auf die strategische Balnce zwischen den USA und China hat:
“Gaining Victory in Systems Warfare
China’s Perspective on the U.S.-China Military Balance
- How do PRC leaders assess the Chinese PLA’s military strength?
- What are the implications of these assessments for the U.S.-China military balance?
The People’s Republic of China’s (PRC’s) and the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA’s) understanding of the military balance is fundamentally based on systems warfare concepts. Systems concepts drive China’s perceptions of the successes of its three-decade-old modernization and its identification of enduring or emerging weaknesses. China’s leaders recognize the qualitative and quantitative improvements in PLA weapons and technology; however, in key areas essential to conducting systems confrontation and systems destruction warfare, there remain significant gaps that have received the attention of Xi Jinping himself. During Xi’s tenure, the PLA has been forced to confront a range of problems that go well beyond technological modernization, force structure, and organizational relationships. Still, both the United States and the PRC, through different evaluation processes, have concluded that war with the other has the potential to be extremely risky from an escalation standpoint, protracted and costly, and fatally harmful to long-term credibility and/or strategic goals. This analysis is one of the first to detail how the PLA understands and assesses military balance.
The PLA sees itself as the weaker side in the overall military balance, largely because it has made only limited progress in those key areas that will define future warfare, most importantly informatization and system-of-systems–based operations. Necessary improvements have not materialized quickly and will likely take time because of the PLA’s organizational culture and the improvements‘ systemic complexity. A refined understanding of Beijing’s view of the PLA also has significant implications for U.S. policymakers, military commanders, and planners.
- The PRC’s and PLA’s understanding of the military balance is fundamentally based on systems warfare concepts, which view modern warfare as a confrontation between opposing operational systems rather than between units, arms, services, and platforms, as was the case in earlier eras.
- Systems concepts drive China’s perceptions of the successes of its three-decade-old modernization and its identification of enduring or emerging weaknesses.
- China’s leaders recognize the improvements in PLA weapons and technology; however, in key areas essential to conducting systems confrontation and systems destruction warfare, there remain significant gaps that have received the attention of Xi Jinping himself.
- During Xi’s tenure, the PLA has been forced to confront a range of problems that go well beyond technological modernization, force structure, and organizational relationships.
- Current PLA self-assessments focus on four broad themes, two of which hardly, if ever, have been addressed in U.S. net assessments: political reliability and mobilization. Two others are somewhat more familiar: fighting and winning wars and leadership and command.
- Necessary improvements in the PLA have not materialized quickly and will likely take time because of its organizational culture and the improvements‘ systemic complexity, which particularly affects the PLA’s capabilities relative to its primary benchmark — the U.S. military. These self-assessments drive the PRC to very different views of risk in regard to potential great power conflict, namely over the status of Taiwan.
- The PLA sees itself as the weaker side in the military balance, largely because it has made only limited progress in informatization and system-of-systems–based operations.
Ex- NATO- General Domroese jr. meinte noch dazu:
„Sollte es zu Sanktionen kommen, dann würden besagte Staaten mitmachen. Es gibt keine andere Wahl…Beim Waffengang sehe ich es ähnlich. Hinzu kämen noch UK und FRA. Kurz: dieser Artikel ist wohl eher ein Testballon….“
In einem anderem Artikel der Taipeh Times wird auf das gemeinsame Durchfahren der Taiwanstraße durch Kriegsschiffe des UK und Frankreich hingewiesen. Scheinbar rechnet man doch mit Unterstützung-seltsamerweise trotz Macrons Äußerungen, dass Taiwan keine europäische Angelegenheit ist und man sich nicht vor den Karren der USA spannen lassen solle. Gleichzeitig auch eine US-Studie über die sich vertiefende Zusammenarbeit zwischen den USA und F im Indopazifik seitens RAND. Ein wenig undurchsichtig, wo Frankreich jetzt steht
„Expanding Army Cooperation Between the United States and France in the Indo-Pacific
by Stephanie Pezard
- What opportunities exist for cooperation between the U.S. Army and the French Army to achieve their shared objectives in the Indo-Pacific region?
The United States and France share the similar objectives of maintaining stability, protecting free access to the Indo-Pacific commons, and preventing nuclear proliferation in the Indo-Pacific and plan to do so through their engagement with their allies and partners in the region. However, the United States often seems to overlook France as an Indo-Pacific power. In this report, the author explores the commonalities between the U.S. and French strategies in the Indo-Pacific; outlines key French military and security cooperation activities, including shared activities with the United States; and suggests ways that the U.S. Army can further engage France to develop mutually beneficial cooperation activities.
Jedenfalls scheint man nun von einer neuen Strategie Chinas gegenüber Taiwan auszugehen:
„Sun, May 14, 2023 page2
Drills reveal China’s new military strategy: expert
INTIMIDATION: China’s combat readiness drills pose more of a risk than previous live-fire drills, as they could be used as a smokescreen for an attack, an expert said
By Chung Li-hua and Jonathan Chin / Staff reporter, with staff writer
The Chinese People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) latest round of military exercises revealed a new strategy in Beijing’s campaign of intimidation against Taiwan, a defense expert said.
Last month, China launched a three-day drill following President Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) meeting with US House of Representatives Speaker Kevin McCarthy in the US, National Defense University researcher Ma Chen-kun (馬振坤) wrote in an article published in the Mainland Affairs Council’s (MAC) latest briefing.
These exercises, named “joint sword,” included 232 air sorties — 134 of which crossed the median line of the Taiwan Strait — but did not feature the use of exclusion zones or live-fire maneuvers, he said.
The drills suggest that the PLA has adopted a strategy to regularly and without warning conduct preparedness patrols around Taiwan proper, which cements the notion that the Taiwan Strait is part of China’s territorial waters, he said.
The intended effect of this is to compress Taiwan’s air-sea defensive depth, which allows the PLA to project power into the western Pacific Ocean, and potentially launch an invasion during a supposed patrol, Ma said.
The strategic implications of the preparedness patrols are more of a threat to Taiwan’s security than the high-profile live-fire drills of the past, due to the possibility that the PLA could use the exercises as a smokescreen for an attack, he said.
The PLA likely dispensed with firing missiles during the exercises to avoid raising unwanted attention from the international community, which was counterproductive, he said.
The Chinese forces that took part in the drills conducted rehearsals of maneuvers that would be used in an attack on Taiwan proper, he said, adding that the PLA demonstrated improved capabilities to prevent US forces from aiding the nation.
Although China’s aircraft carriers are inferior to the US’, the PLA could deploy more modern warships, submarines, and ground and air-launched anti-ship missiles, as it would be closer to the warzone, he said.
The PLA is in a stronger position against the US than ever before, and it has capacity for deterrence that it did not have during the 1996 Taiwan Strait Crisis, Ma said.
The urgency displayed by the US in efforts to stock Taiwan with secure ammunition storage is an indication of the dangers, he said.
China’s aggressive use of military exercises not only breached the tacit understanding between Taipei and Beijing to respect the median line, but also significantly increased the risk of inadvertently triggering a conflict through mishap, he said.
The PLA would likely refrain from carving out exclusion zones when it uses military drills to threaten Taiwan, to avoid international censure that disrupting sea communications would spark, he said.
Beijing would exert pressure by increasing the frequency and size of war games, he said.
Ähnlich sieht dies auch Gordon Chang, Autor des Buches „The Coming Collapse of China“, der aber nicht eintrat, der aber meint China aggressives Verhalten würde nun alte Feinde wie Japan und Südkorea zusammenbringen, ja eine Triade USA-Südkorea-Japan sei vielleicht auch bld möglich und machbar und das werde zu Ende des Jhres bei den trilateralen Gesprächen in Singapur vielleicht besiegelt.
“The Threat of China Is Making Friends of Traditional Foes | Opinion
It is, however, Chinese and North Korean provocations that are forcing South Koreans to shelve, at least for the moment, centuries of enmity. Moreover, those provocations are moving Japan away from now-ingrained pacifism. In Tokyo, the government of Prime Minister Fumio Kishida in December announced a plan to increase defense spending by more than 50 percent in five years.
Hostile Chinese and North Korean activities will inevitably push Seoul and Tokyo even closer together. Gatling believes that they will cooperate in data collection involving their peripheral seas, namely the Yellow Sea, East China Sea, and the Sea of Japan. South Korea calls the last body of water the East Sea.
Success in limited areas, Gatling notes, „should encourage broader talks in the future, normalizing such exchanges and hopefully highlighting the potential value of a direct, bilateral security relationship between South Korea and Japan.“
The U.S. has not yet been successful in creating that „trilateral alliance“ in North Asia, but Washington has been busy stitching up alliances and near-alliance arrangements elsewhere. There is, for instance, the AUKUS pact of Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States, announced in 2021. The deal reinforces treaty and other arrangements binding Canberra, London, and Washington to each other.
Moreover, Australia, Japan, India, and the U.S. form the Quad, which is not a formal multilateral alliance but is nonetheless operationalized by military agreements. In particular, India and the U.S. have been working closely with each other, entering into a 10-year defense framework agreement in 2015. The Quad, like AUKUS, is the result of a shared perception that the People’s Republic of China must be contained.
China, which maintains the world’s largest military, is the strongest military power in the region, but it is by no means as strong as the coalitions that are forming in reaction to its belligerence.
That’s why the inking of a Japan-South Korea-U.S. deal next month in Singapore is crucial. At the moment, Japan is called America’s „cornerstone ally“ in Asia. Extended cooperation with Seoul will mean America will soon have two cornerstones in the region.
Gordon G. Chang is the author of The Coming Collapse of China
Aber die Global Times sieht da eher die Bruchstellen in den US- Bündnissen und sieht in der Absage Bidens bezüglich seines Besuchs in Papua Neuguinea und dem Quadtreffen in Sidney nach den G7- Gipfel in Hiroshima wegen dem drohenden Schuldenausfall durch US- Kongress samt Heimreise zu nun dringenden Verhandlungen mit den Republikanern den Quad schon vorschnell für gescheitert an. China meint, dass die USA finanziell gar nicht mehr in der Lage seien, ihre ganzen geplanten geopolitischen Ambitionen politisch verlässlich und finanziell noch nachzukommen. Der Quad sei in einer Krise.
“Cancellation of Sydney summit an omen of Quad’s future fate
By Global Times Published: May 18, 2023 09:31 PM
Illustration: Liu Rui/GT
The planned Quad summit in Sydney, scheduled for May 24, has been canceled as Biden is busy putting out the financial fire of a possible debt default at home. The leaders will meet later this week on G7 sidelines in Japan instead. But, even though the gathering continues, it won’t be the same. The cancellation of the Sydney summit is an omen of Quad’s fate.
The planned summit was called off mainly because the US government is going broke. Interestingly, some Western media outlets make it about China, portraying the case as China’s champagne moment. On Wednesday, the Guardian published an article, „The cancelled Quad summit is a win for China and a self-inflicted blow to the US‘ Pacific standing,“ which claimed „Chinese state media outlets won’t need to muster much creative energy to weave together some of Beijing’s preferred narratives: that the US is racked by increasingly severe domestic upheaval and is an unreliable partner, quick to leave allies high and dry.“
The narrative only proves the media has nothing more to talk about Quad, experts said. Such high-level summit is supposed to have many „high-end“ perspectives to dig, yet now the Western media has no alternative but to cover it as a farce with gossip. It shows the US government and Quad have little to deliver. If there could be any practical and substantial agenda and content, the focus won’t be placed on guessing what China will say, Shen Yi, a professor at Fudan University, told the Global Times.
If Western observers still believe in Quad, their analyses should be full of content about innovative ways to contain China and make the West great again. There is no such wording, but only disappointment in the US. It is not just the US government which is facing a crisis, but is also Quad. After all, it won’t be easy to boost something that goes against the trend of the times.
Global economic recovery endures but the road is getting rocky, the IMF reported in April. Meanwhile, an increasing number of regional turmoil is rising. Yet the US makes no secret of its intention to exacerbate geopolitical conflicts and camp confrontation. Since the establishment of the Quad, their cooperation and statements have long revealed their unspoken target – China. And when people say a bump for Quad is a win for China, they just confess that Quad is a geopolitical tool against China.
That mindset is simply too shallow. Quite a few Western observers are so used to gauging the heart of a gentleman with their own mean measure. All countries worldwide are facing a difficult time. China, as a responsible major country, is playing a stabilizing role, in pursuit of common development. But such good will and efforts from China alone aren’t enough. China hopes that the US can also bear some responsibility instead of being driven by selfish calculations and only worrying that others may profit from the US‘ challenges, Lü Xiang, a research fellow at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, told the Global Times.
Nevertheless, the Guardian does make one point right – the US should worry about its crumbling credibility.
When calling off its participation in Quad Sydney summit, the US is just like someone who used to be loaded, going on a shopping spree, cramming the shopping cart, but suddenly realizes, on the way to the checkout counter, his credit card may be declined. In other words, the US is failing to financially afford its global strategic objectives, which not only require huge amount of money, but is also confrontation-centered and against the trend of the times, Lü said.
And the expenses of US strategic objectives are not just shouldered by the US itself, but allotted to its allies. As the Guardian pointed out, the cancellation is a blow to the Australian host. „Officials had spent months extensively planning the huge logistical and security operation; last October’s budget set aside $23m for the costs of hosting the summit,“ the report said. Now the investment is evaporated.
Moreover, Lü said there is also growing discussion in Australia about whether the country is bearing the cost of an expensive mistake over the AUKUS submarine deal, and if Australia will realize development or just be exploited by the US.
When more and more such discussions, speculations, and doubts emerge, the dynamic of Quad will only decline. The cancellation of the Sydney summit is a fatal blow to Quad, experts said. It also foreshadows the fate of other US-led anti-China cliques.
Während gerade kein Pelosibesuch, Mc Carthybesuch oder ähnliches ansteht, verzichtet China momentan auf militärische Drohgebärden gegenüber Taiwan und stört sich eher an den Bemühungen der USA Taiwan in die Unterorganstation der WHO, der WHA u bringen, sowie eine Art Freihandelsabkommen vorzubereiten. Hierüber wiederum berichtet die DDP-nahe Taipeh Times. Bisher mehr über Regeln und Verhaltensregeln und Korruptionsbekämpfung als über konkrete Zollerleichterungen oder Beseitigung nichttarifärer Handelsbarrieren. 7 Gebiete gilt es aber noch zu verhandeln, bis man erhofft zum Jahresende dann das Handelsabkommen haben will, das jetzt schon ein „Meilenstein“ sei und erst werden solle.
„Sat, May 20, 2023 page1
US, Taiwan reach deal on trade pact
‘MILESTONE’: The first phase of the agreement covers regulations, anti-corruption procedures and practices to streamline and strengthen trade between the two sides
Staff writer, with CNA
Taiwan and the US have concluded negotiations on the first phase of the US-Taiwan Initiative on 21st-Century Trade, which is expected to be signed by the two sides in the coming weeks, the Office of Trade Negotiations said yesterday.
The initiative’s First Agreement is comprised of eight chapters and more than 80 articles, and is being called the most detailed trade agreement signed between Taiwan and the US since 1979, when formal bilateral ties were severed.
The office described the document as a milestone that would serve as a crucial “building block” in efforts to negotiate a free-trade agreement between the countries, and shows that Taiwan’s trade system meets high international standards.
Unlike standard trade pacts, this initial agreement does not cover tariff reductions or exemptions. It outlines practices and procedures related to a host of topics aimed at streamlining and strengthening trade relations.
The areas covered were customs and trade facilitation, regulatory practices, domestic regulation of services, anti-corruption practices, and small and medium-sized enterprises.
Under the new deal, the two sides have committed to working to facilitate bilateral trade and investment flows, improve regulatory practices, promote anti-corruption measures and minimize unnecessary formalities at the border.
It also establishes a foundation for addressing trade and investment challenges and opportunities.
Most of the provisions offer measures aimed at small, incremental improvements.
For example, on trade facilitation measures, the office said that by using a digital declaration and risk assessment system, goods that meet the criteria, such as products with a short shelf life, would be allowed to clear customs on arrival.
The agreement requires both sides to improve coordination on adopting regulatory practices, including adopting the digitization of paperwork, and taking into account the potential effect of regulations on small and medium-sized enterprises, the office said.
These measures are expected to benefit communications companies, medical equipment manufacturers and pharmaceutical firms, which are subject to strict regulatory standards.
As for anti-corruption practices, the office said that Taiwan and the US introduced guidelines on preventing and combating corruption in all areas affecting trade and investment, which should benefit exporters, contractors that have undertaken projects overseas and private companies that engage in business with government agencies.
Although the First Agreement is seen as a milestone, the Executive Yuan said that at least seven areas remain on the agenda for bilateral negotiations, which it plans to finalize by the end of this year.
These would include issues on labor standards and the environment.
The conclusions reached during future talks would be added to the First Agreement to lay an even more solid foundation, the Executive Yuan said in a statement.
No time frame was given for when the next meeting would be.
“We are glad to see that we can conclude the negotiations over the first five trade agendas in such a short time,” Minister of Economic Affairs Wang Mei-hua (王美花) told reporters. “This indicates that Taiwan and the US are deepening trade exchanges.”
The US-Taiwan Initiative on 21st-Century Trade was launched on June 1 last year, and two rounds of negotiations have since been held in New York and Taipei, along with several videoconferences.
“This accomplishment represents an important step forward in strengthening the US-Taiwan economic relationship,” US Trade Representative Katherine Tai (戴琪) said in a statement on Thursday.
Eher störend sieht die KP China da aber auch Forderungen der abgesetzten britischen Eintagsfliegenpremierinisterin Liz Truss, die gerad ein Taiwan weilt nach einer „ökonomischen NATO“. Truss Forderung einer Wirtschafts-NATO ist der GT einen Kommentar wert, auch bezüglich solcher Ideen wie einer Global NATO von Ivo Daalder oder Rasmussens von einer Asian NATO oder einer Indo-Pacific NATO, die nur Kalte Kriegsmentaliät, Blockbildung und Konfrontation bedeute würden und Chinas rote Linien bedrohen würden, während China demgegenüber Weltfriedensmacht sei:
„GT Voice: ‚Economic NATO‘ emboldens those who maliciously trample on China’s red lines
By Global Times Published: May 18, 2023 11:08 PM
Illutration: Liu Rui
Not long ago, two former senior NATO officials made a similar proposal to create an „Economic Article 5“ to counter so-called authoritarian coercion. One is the former NATO secretary-general, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, and the other is Ivo Daalder, the former US ambassador to NATO. Such a proposal reeks of rotten imperial hegemony.
The danger of an „Economic NATO“ is that it is encouraging countries that maliciously impinge on China’s red lines of core interests and tying all member countries to a chariot that is rushing to engage in economic warfare with China.
New terms for various derivatives of NATO have surfaced for some time, such as the „economic NATO,“ „Asian NATO,“ and „Indo-Pacific NATO,“ and the discussions are still simmering.
No matter what they are called, they expose a major risk in the world today, that is, the Western group, led by the US, is stepping up political manipulation based on ideological values and accelerating the push for a new Cold War across the globe. And since the US, shackled to a Cold War mentality and ideological prejudice, wants to paint China as an economic and political threat to the West, encircling and containing China on both the political and economic levels has become a priority direction.
What NATO has been instigating in the Asia-Pacific also points to the attempt to encourage member states to challenge China’s core interests by provoking the one-China principle. Taiwan is an inalienable part of China’s territory. China’s position on the Taiwan question is consistent and clear. And all NATO members accept the principle, which is the cornerstone of their diplomatic and economic relations with China.
Anyone who attempts to cross the red line of China’s core interests will be met with due retaliation. Today’s China is not the same as it was during the Opium War more than 100 years ago.
It needs to be pointed out that the essence of NATO’s expansion to the economic sphere is an apparent attempt to weaponize economic issues. NATO itself is a military alliance with plenty of political-military instruments at its disposal. And their tendency to use economic tools as weapons against others is obvious.
While the NATO still describes itself as a global security alliance in which member countries agree to help one another in terms of the defense mechanism, it has been trying to exploit opportunities to make itself evolve into a military organization with global intervention capabilities. It is on the basis of this change that the NATO has turned its eye to economic weapons. While Western sanctions against Russia were not primarily coordinated under the NATO mechanism, it is highly possible that the NATO will improve its coordination capabilities in terms of economic intervention in the next step.
Yet, the attempt to trigger a new Cold War against China is doomed to be unpopular. NATO is the product of the Cold War in the past, and it is highly questionable whether the Asian economies and even most of NATO’s European members are willing to be trapped in a new economic Cold War, which could risk their economic future. China is already the No. 1 trading partner for economies in the Asia-Pacific region, and has close economic ties with all members of NATO. Most European members of NATO don’t think „decoupling“ from China is a viable option. And most importantly, they are willing to respect each other’s core interests with China.
Under such circumstances, the idea of an „economic NATO“ is nothing more than political gimmick, and it would be laughable if any country will really fall for it. The minds of those who want to increase the economic crackdown to force China to accept harm to its core interests are still stuck in the last century.”
Der G7- Gipfel in Hiroshima hat nun an China die Forderung gestellt in dem Ukrainekrieg Druck auf Russland zu machen, zumal neue Sanktionen gegen Russland auf 300 Gebieten beschlossen, den Status quo Taiwans zu akzeptieren, eine wirtschaftliche Erpressung auszuüben und sich den internationalen Handelsregeln der WTO im Sinne eines fair trade und anderer internationaler Institutionen nachzukommen. Desweiteren erklären die G7 keine Decouplingstrategie, sondern nur noch eine Deriskingstrategie zu verfolgen.Die jaoanische Asahi Shimbum berichtet:
“G-7 urges China to press Russia to end war in Ukraine, respect Taiwan’s status, fair trade rules
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
May 20, 2023 at 18:50 JST
President Joe Biden, second left, sits with the President of Comoros, Azali Assoumani, left, Brazil’s President, Luiz Inacio Lula de Silva, and Canadian Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, right, during a G-7 working session on food, health and development during the G-7 Summit in Hiroshima on May 20. (AP Photo)
HIROSHIMA–The Group of Seven wealthy democracies united Saturday in urging China to pressure its strategic partner Russia to end its war on Ukraine.
In a joint statement issued Saturday, the G-7 leaders emphasized they did not want to harm China and were seeking “constructive and stable relations” with Beijing, “recognizing the importance of engaging candidly with and expressing our concerns directly to China.”
“We call on China to press Russia to stop its military aggression, and immediately, completely and unconditionally withdraw its troops from Ukraine,” it said. “We encourage China to support a comprehensive, just and lasting peace based on territorial integrity and the principles and purposes of the U.N. Charter,” including in direct talks with Ukraine.
Cooperation with China is needed given its global role and economic size, the group said, in appealing for working together on challenges such as climate change, biodiversity, debts and financing needs of of vulnerable countries, global health concerns and economic stability.
But the leaders expressed “serious concern” about the situation in the East and South China seas, where Beijing has been expanding its military presence and threatening to use force to exert its control over self-governed Taiwan. They called for a “peaceful resolution” of China’s claim to Taiwan, which has remained unresolved since the communists gained power on the Chinese mainland in 1949.
The statement said there was “no legal basis for China’s expansive maritime claims in the South China Sea, and we oppose China’s militarization activities in the region.“
“A growing China that plays by international rules would be of global interest,” the statement said, alluding to charges that Beijing is undermining the “rules-based international order.”
The G-7 also united in voicing concerns about human rights in China, including in Tibet, in Hong Kong and in the far western region of Xinjiang, where the issue of forced labor is a perennial issue.
But the statement also sought to counter accusations that the G-7 is seeking to prevent China’s rise as a global power.
“Our policy approaches are not designed to harm China nor do we seek to thwart China’s economic progress and development,” it said. The statement highlighted a consensus that efforts to diversify manufacturing supply chains and ensure stable access to strategically vital minerals and other resources is not aimed at unraveling trade ties with the world’s second-largest economy.
“We are not decoupling or turning inwards,“ the statement said. “At the same time, we recognize that economic resilience requires de-risking and diversifying. We will take steps, individually and collectively, to invest in our own economic vibrancy. We will reduce excessive dependencies in our critical supply chains.”
At the same time, the G-7 members vowed to take a stand against various types of “economic coercion,” saying they “will counter malign practices, such as illegitimate technology transfer or data disclosure,” while also avoiding “unduly limiting trade and investment.”
Chinese officials have reacted to various G-7 statements about economic coercion and other issues by accusing the U.S. and other members of hypocrisy.
The state-run Xinhua News Agency ran a scathing editorial Friday describing such allegations as a “witch hunt,“ bullying and ”superpower suppression.“
“When it comes to ‘coercion,’ the coercer of the first water is the United States,” it said. “America’s G-7 allies must have much to grudge, given how Washington has exploited, or bled them, over the years.”
The G-7 includes Japan, this year’s host of the leader’s annual summit, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Canada and Italy, as well as the European Union.
The statement was released on the second day of a three-day summit. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy arrived in Hiroshima on Saturday to participate in meetings planned for Sunday.
Gleichzeitig nutzt Japan den Tagungsort Hiroshima, um auf den Atombombenabwurf der USA zu erinnern, auch in der Hoffnung, dass Biden da ein paar mahnende Worte spricht (Entschuldigung wohl nicht erwartet- für was auch?), die utopische Forderung einer nuklearfreien Welt erhoben wird, Kishida aber vor Nordkoreas und Chinas Atomwaffen warnt , sowie der deutsche Bundeskanzler Scholz vor der nuklearen Aufrüstung Chinas warnt und Rüstungskontrollverhandlungen anmahnt. China protestiert, aber auf der Global Times ist ein Bericht, der trotz Handelsvertragsverhandlungen der USA mit Taiwan, nun von einem geplanten Besuch des chinesischen Handelsministers in den USA berichtet, der ja gerade auf Europa- und Deutschlandtour weilte.
Da momentan keine Drohgebärden gegenüber Taiwan nötig sind, hält China in Xian seinen ersten China- Zentralasien ab, der als Zukunftsmodell für die Menschheit in Sachen Stabilität, wirtschaftlicher Entwicklung, Sicherheit und Frieden ausgiebig in der Global Times herausgestellt wird, wobei die Taipeh Times auf Chinas Militärhilfe für die Staaten Zentralasiens hinweist, zumal die sogenannte Verteidigungs- und Sicherheitskooperation weiter vorangetrieben werden soll, nebst der unerwähnten weiteren Expansion der Private Security Companies Chinas, wie die Jamestown Foundation in ihrem China Brief auch zu berichten weiss:
„Sat, May 20, 2023 page1
Xi vows to boost security, defense in Central Asia
From left, Uzbek President Shavkat Mirziyoyev, Tajik President Emomali Rahmon, Kazakh President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev, Chinese President Xi Jinping, Kyrgyz President Sadyr Japarov and Turkmen President Serdar Berdymukhamedov attend a news conference at the China-Central Asia Summit in Xian, China, yesterday.
China is ready to help Central Asian nations bolster their security and defense capabilities, Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) said at a summit of the region’s leaders, underscoring Beijing’s efforts to deepen its influence there as an expansionist Russia raises fresh security issues.
China can help the region improve its “law enforcement, security and defense capability construction,” Xi said during a keynote speech at the inaugural in-person China-Central Asia Summit, Xinhua news agency reported.
He said China would provide 26 billion yuan (US$3.7 billion) in financing support and “free assistance” to the countries.
The event assembled the leaders of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan for two days in the Chinese city of Xian, where they discussed ways to deepen ties on everything from defense to finance, trade and energy.
The summit came as US President Joe Biden joined other G7 leaders in Japan this week to discuss, among other things, measures to counter perceived Chinese threats to global economic security. The simultaneous meetings symbolized an increasingly multipolar world, as China tries to challenge the US-led system.
While Russia and China are united in that mission to counter Washington, Xi’s gathering of five former Soviet states without Russian President Vladimir Putin demonstrates Beijing’s increasingly senior position in their “no limits” relationship.
Since Russia began its invasion of Ukraine, the Kremlin has become reliant on China to provide economic cover from Western sanctions and much-needed diplomatic support.
Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin would next week lead a delegation to a Shanghai business forum that has also invited sanctioned tycoons, exemplifying how China can shelter Moscow from Western economic sanctions.
At the summit, Xi also stressed that Central Asia has the “conditions and capabilities” to become a Eurasian hub, adding that their “sovereignty, security, independence and territorial integrity” must be “safeguarded.”
That emphasis on their “sovereignty” came weeks after Chinese Ambassador to France Lu Shaye (盧沙野) sparked a firestorm when he questioned the independence of former Soviet states during a television interview.
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February last year deepened a tussle for influence in the resource-rich Central Asian states, which were already on a trajectory of economic realignment toward China.
Last year, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan each did more trade with China than with either Russia or the G7 bloc, the IMF said.
Chinese imports from the region are mostly commodities, including cotton, oil, natural gas and copper, official trade data showed.
China made some inroads on other economic ties during this week’s summit.
On Thursday, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan vowed to ensure the stable supply of gas to China.
The two countries combined accounted for about 6.4 percent of China’s gas imports in 2021, but Uzbekistan last year began reducing Chinese exports so it could keep more fuel for its growing domestic petrochemical industry.
In Taipei, Taiwan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs yesterday strongly protested and condemned four joint statements issued by China and four Central Asian countries supporting China’s territorial claim over Taiwan.
The leaders of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan separately signed bilateral statements with Xi following the China-Central Asia Summit, according to the ministry.
The statements, which claimed that Taiwan is an inalienable part of China’s territory, deviated from the fact that the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and the Republic of China (ROC) have never been subordinate to each other and Taiwan has never been ruled by the PRC, MOFA said.
No country has the right to deny the existence of the ROC, nor are they able to do so by issuing a joint statement with China, the ministry said via a press release.
Additional reporting by CNA
Während China den China- Zentralasiengipfel quasi als eine Art Gegengipfel zum G7- Treffen abhält und als Friedensmodell, engagiert sich gleichzeitig Chinas Sonderbeauftragter für Eurasien und den Ukrainekrieg Li Hui in Verhandlungen. Interessantdabie: Macron hin, Scholz her, scheinbar wollen die Chinesen noch die russlandfeindlichen Polen ins Boot holen, damit ein eventueller Kompromiss auch die Osteuropäer berücksichtigt und tragfähiger und nachhaltiger sein kann. Klingt fast ein wenig nach Weimarer Dreieck Deutschland, Frankreich Polen ohne USA und GB, also mehr eine beabsichtigte europäische, denn anglosächsische Lösung:
“China to work with Poland on the political resolution of Ukraine crisis: China’s special envoy
By Global Times Published: May 20, 2023 09:13 PM Updated: May 20, 2023 10:43 PM
China values Poland’s role as Ukraine’s neighbor and an important country in Central and Eastern Europe in regional affairs and is willing to maintain communication with Poland on the political resolution of the Ukraine crisis and support the establishment of a balanced and sustainable European security architecture, Special Representative of the Chinese Government on Eurasian Affairs Li Hui told Poland Deputy Foreign Minister Wojciech Gerwel on Friday in Warsaw.
Li said that the escalation and prolongation of the Ukraine crisis is not in the interest of any party. China’s position on the Ukraine crisis has been consistent, advocating for peace and dialogue.
Based on China’s position paper on the political resolution of the crisis, China is willing to strengthen dialogue and communication with all parties involved, further expand consensus on the political resolution of the crisis, and lay a solid foundation for ceasefire and gradually reaching a consensus.
China attaches great importance to Poland’s important role in regional affairs and is willing to maintain communication with Poland on the political resolution of the issue, Li said, noting that China supports the establishment of a balanced, effective, and sustainable European security architecture, providing lasting guarantees for peace in Europe.
Li stressed that China and Poland enjoy a traditional friendship, and China is willing to work with Poland to continuously elevate bilateral ties to new heights based on mutual respect, equality, and win-win cooperation.
Gerwel said that Poland consistently adheres to the one-China principle and is willing to work with China to make significant progress in bilateral relations.
Poland highly appreciates China’s constructive role as a permanent member of the UN Security Council in international affairs and looks forward to China’s continued positive influence on the Ukraine issue, promoting the easing and de-escalation of current tensions and the realization of peace at an early date.”
Na, dann ist Polen noch nicht verloren.