Since the Shanghai Communiqué was touched on in comments, I thought I’d promote the discussion to the front page. The Shanghai Communiqué was a joint statement by the United States and the Peoples Republic of China 50 years ago. The complete text is here. It’s about 1,700 words long and takes the form of a sort of dialogue, attributing some statements to the United States and others to the PRC.
Here’s the portion relevant to the present discussion:
The US 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. The United States Government does not challenge that position.
There are competing interpretations of that passage. One interpretation is that the United States concurred with “all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait”. The other, which is what I hold, is that it is diplo-speak for an agreement to disagree. The United States neither affirms nor rejects the unity of Taiwan but states a preference to a peaceful settlement of the issue by the Chinese and Taiwanese.
I have no ability to determine what the views of the people of Taiwan were 50 years ago but, assuming they were as stated, it is rather clear they have changed. See these findings by Pew Research:
and
I suspect that events in Hong Kong since reunification have not bolstered support for unification with the mainland in Taiwan. Also note that Taiwanese opinion does not appear to be moving in China’s direction—the young are more likely to consider themselves as Taiwanese only than the old.
IMO attributing tensions in the Asia-Pacific to an abrogation of the Shanghai Communiqué by the United States is at best an exaggeration and at worst fantastical. Considerably more important is that China like Russia is irredentist and is seeking to expand into areas it believes it owns.
Well, I exaggerate and I fantasize. So be it. But the US Ruling Caste is the source of all the tension both in Europe and Asia. We are the Evil Empire. We are pushing the whole world toward WW III.
Irredentism means a policy of attempting to recovery lost territories. The emphasis is on the “lost.” By that category, Russia and China are irredentist, since Ukraine is historically Russian, and Taiwan is historically Chinese.
Where I will agree with you is that both China and Russia think we’re a threat to them. It doesn’t actually matter whether we are or not as long as they think so.
A major aggravating factor was our actions in removing Moammar Qaddafi in Libya. Both the Russians and Chinese have said as much. Additionally, many in China believe that our bombing of their embassy in Belgrade was deliberate. I don’t think that either Bosnia or Libya were worth further souring our relationships with China and Russia but, then, I’m not in a decision-making position.
“It doesn’t actually matter whether we are or not as long as they think so.”
No, it does matter. At some point we have to deal with reality and not fantasies.
Reality is its a dark forest; in the latest National Defense Strategy, China and Russia were named as this countries biggest strategic competitors. Its natural they would name the US as their foremost strategic competitor. There’s nothing nefarious or saintly in this; it is geopolitics and the result of how countries pursue their interests.
As to Shanghai communique. I like to add a bigger context to what occurred. It is correct the US didn’t agree with the PRC position of “One China and Beijing is the sole government of China”; but it did concede to Beijing’s condition that formal relations with China required the severing of formal relations with Taiwan. That’s all part of the Taiwan Relations Act which is law and supersedes the communique in policy.
Recall, the current government Taiwan is derived from the losers of the Chinese Civil War; so for Beijing, Taiwan’s government challenges its claim to be the legitimate government of China (i.e. this is an existential issue). Another important fact missing from those survey is the majority in Taiwan continue to prefer the status quo over formal independence.
So this is where policy makers need to think carefully. Mishandling Taiwan may not trigger a war, but it will create a long term rupture in relations between the US and China. Think of the period from 1950-1970; the US was involved in two separate wars bordering China but not over Taiwan. There’s plenty of simmering disputes in Asia that can burst into flames if China and US adopt the threat mentality towards each other that occurred during that time.
I have said American policy (especially economic policy) towards China needed adjustment in 2016. But adjusting policy on Taiwan must be done with utmost care — which hasn’t been done to date — because the issue is dynamite.
That is epistemologically, empirically, and pragmatically wrong.