Taiwan as the Central Issue of Donald Trump’s Visit to the People’s Republic of China
The visit of US President Donald Trump to the People’s Republic of China on 13–15 May, together with his talks with Chinese leader Xi Jinping, constituted a single landmark event in contemporary world politics.
Among its various accompanying aspects, the central one was determined by the Taiwan issue. It should once again be reiterated that this issue represents the principal challenge in relations between the world’s two leading global powers and, consequently, to the prospects for positive developments in the international situation as a whole. The issue is also becoming a source of an increasingly multifaceted split within the American establishment itself, which is likewise acquiring global significance given the current role of the United States on the world stage.
On Fundamentally Different Approaches to the Taiwan Issue in the United States
This particular split first manifested itself at the turn of the 2000s and 2010s during ostensibly academic debates between “neoconservatives” and “neo-isolationists” on US foreign policy. Today, Marco Rubio and Donald Trump, whose divergences are particularly noticeable in their rhetoric regarding Taiwan, could be considered as the public representatives of these two ideologies, albeit in a very rough way.
In US–Chinese relations, the principal — though certainly not the one and only — reason for its renewed relevance is precisely the Taiwan issue
It should be noted that during Donald Trump’s first presidential term, the interests of the “neocons” were represented by Mike Pompeo, Rubio’s predecessor as Secretary of State. Also belonging to the same camp was National Security Adviser John Bolton, although the 45th President of the United States dismissed him before the end of his tenure. Bolton openly advocated abandoning the nearly half-century-long policy of “strategic ambiguity” regarding Taiwan and replacing it with “strategic clarity,” that is, giving relations with the island the character of ordinary interstate relations.
In such a case, there would be no need for informational tightrope walking during visits by American officials to Taiwan, as it was the case during Nancy Pelosi’s notorious trip, nor for constructing “workarounds” for Taiwanese leaders travelling abroad. Nor would there be any need to justify to Beijing the sale of another batch of weapons to Taiwan: “An independent state requested them, and we sold them. What exactly is the issue?”
Such a hypothetical approach by Washington to the Taiwan question would inevitably further aggravate relations with Beijing, which are already of a high degree of tension. This is beyond the realms of the interests of Donald Trump and his supporters. A key role among these “supporters” is played by American business circles, whose position resides in the following: “We want your political disagreements not to interfere with our profitable business dealings in China.” Beijing, as it seems, shares these views, speaking of “managed and stable competition” between the two powers.
Whereas Mike Pompeo previously and Marco Rubio today, while avoiding Bolton-style public statements on Taiwan, clearly favour preserving the island’s de facto independence for the foreseeable future, with the prospect of eventually consolidating it de jure. At the same time, they rule out the very possibility of any negotiations with Beijing on the matter.
Taiwan as the Main Issue in the “Trump–Xi” Talks
What is worth paying attention to is that American and Chinese experts converged in their assessments of the principal outcomes of the “Trump–Xi” summit, particularly in highlighting its economic component. This could be explained by the stereotypical image of the American president as a “businessman interested in nothing but money.” Allegedly, this is one of the main reasons for the core of his entourage consisting of American business leaders, who indeed held specific negotiations with respective representatives of the Chinese leadership. It would also be reasonable to recall Donald Trump’s principal achievement in relations with China during his first presidency — the conclusion of the so-called “Phase One Agreement”, aimed at launching the process of gradually cutting down on the enormous US trade deficit with China.
However, further development and implementation of the initiative were put paid to by political obstacles, and neither side has ever had any illusions about their existence and the extent of the difficulty in resolving them. The issue resides in the mere necessity to find out a format for relations between the two global powers in which inevitable competition does not provoke either side into resorting to the ultima ratio regum of the Thirty Years’ War era. This time, with catastrophic consequences for the entire world.
This, as it comes across, became the central topic of the “Trump–Xi” negotiations. The Chinese leader referred to it through remarks about the danger of the emerging “Thucydides Trap” in bilateral relations. Notably, this was not the first time he had done so, and he emphasised not only that falling into such a trap is not inevitable, but also that both sides must make efforts to avoid it.
It should be noted that the very revival in 2017 of the “Thucydides Trap” as a concept has been subject to serious criticism due to the reliance on historical analogies, which are often highly questionable and at times somewhat forced. The concept is by no means a law of historical development, yet it frequently reflects certain dangerous realities of contemporary international politics. In US–Chinese relations, the principal — though certainly not the one and only — reason for its renewed relevance is precisely the Taiwan issue.
Taiwan’s Reaction to the US–China Summit: Nervousness and Hope
Even prior to the long-planned and repeatedly postponed visit of the US president to China, the very prospect of becoming an object of bargaining between the world’s two leading powers caused considerable nervousness within Taiwan’s ruling group. And there were, and still are, substantial reasons for this. These reasons lie not only in the rhetoric of those American advocates of a “grand bargain” with Washington’s principal foreign policy rival, within the framework of which Taiwan could potentially be sacrificed as an insignificant detail.
Thus, the so-called “Trump faction” continues, to varying degrees, to delay the implementation of two American arms packages for Taiwan with a total value of 25 billion dollars. Immediately after returning from China, President Trump, in an interview with Fox News, while giving a positive assessment of the results of the visit, spoke quite clearly against any form of provoking China.
Taipei’s official reaction to this, as expected, was somewhat submissive and nervous. However, the principal support for Taiwanese separatists once again came from the United States Congress, and on a bipartisan basis. Amidst the zeal displayed by outspoken supporters of Taiwanese independence in the United States, it is reasonable to pinpoint another unsuccessful attempt by Taipei to connect to the Starlink system. It should be recalled that the owner of the system, Elon Musk, was part of the delegation accompanying Donald Trump during his visit to China.
As for Chairman Xi’s position on Taiwan, as voiced during his talks with President Trump, it contained a clear message to the island’s current leadership: “Keep quiet and refrain from making any sudden moves; we shall see what to do with you later.” The response from Taiwan was no less nervous, accompanied by remarks from President Lai Ching-te that Taiwan is not part of the People’s Republic of China.
In conclusion, commenting on the recent US–China summit, it should be noted that its outcomes were received in a generally restrained yet positive manner. Given the current situation on the global stage, which increasingly resembles a “madhouse”, this is already no small matter. Such an assessment is driven less by certainty than by hopes for a non-catastrophic way out of the current situation – the outcome that the author of the article pins his own hopes on as well.