Giving the Taiwan Hot Pot a Good Stir
...this is how it is done...
This is a very serious exchange, even discounting for the expected dramatic heavy breathing from the People’s Republic of China Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
China’s Permanent Mission to the UN @Chinamission2un sent a second letter to the UN Secretary-General @antonioguterres to reiterate China’s position on Japanese PM Takaichi’s erroneous remarks on Taiwan.
The letter once again expresses China’s strong opposition to the Japanese side’s wrongful moves, such as implying use of force against China, disrespect for UN Charter and international legal instruments and pushing military buildup—all of which signal the Japanese side’s desire to challenge the postwar international order and revive militarism.
More specifically, the letter asks the Japanese side to fully articulate its “consistent position” on the Taiwan question—a simple request that Japan keeps shying away from—as laid down in the four political documents between China and Japan.
We once again call on the Japanese side to rectify its wrongdoing, fulfill its obligations as a defeated country in World War II and truly honor its commitments to China and the international community.
You cannot help but giggle a bit about the PRC’s concern with the “postwar international order”.
LOLOL
Via Gabriele Ninivaggi in The Japan Times, what were Prime Minister Takaichi’s (PBUH) remarks?
During a heated exchange with the Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan’s Katsuya Okada on Friday, Takaichi voiced her thoughts on the concrete ways in which Japan’s response could potentially unfold in the event of China attacking Taiwan by sea.
“If battleships are used and a naval blockade involves the use of force, I believe that would, by any measure, constitute a situation that could be deemed a threat to Japan’s survival,” Takaichi said, implying the criteria would have been met for the Self-Defense Forces (SDF) to be mobilized.
…
A law approved in 2015 under the administration of former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe stipulates that the use of military force is permitted for collective self-defense if three conditions are met.
The first condition would be for Japan, or a foreign country in a close relationship with Tokyo, to be facing an armed attack that posed a threat to Japan’s survival and a danger to people’s right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
The second would require there to be no other appropriate means available to repel the attack, ensure the country’s survival and protect its people. Thirdly, the use of force would need to be kept to a minimum.
All that being said, it is welcome. The more pressure on the PRC regarding its intentions against Taiwan, the higher the risk for any such action and as such…more deterrence.
The ground is shifting slightly over the last few weeks, which makes it worth keeping an eye on.
The latest phone call between Chinese President Xi Jinping and U.S. President Donald Trump did more than reaffirm Beijing’s long-standing positions. It quietly introduced a linguistic shift in how China speaks about Taiwan
…
In the official Chinese-language version of the readout, Xi stated: “Taiwan’s return to China is an integral part of the post-war international order.” At first glance, the sentence appears to simply invoke historical memory. But to anyone familiar with Beijing’s established discourse on Taiwan, the phrasing represents a significant departure.
Traditionally, Beijing has not framed Taiwan as part of a completed post-World War II territorial settlement. Instead, Taiwan has been positioned as the unresolved legacy of the Chinese civil war and the unfinished task of “national reunification.” In this narrative, Taiwan belongs to a domestic sphere of sovereignty – not to the international community’s management of the post-1945 order.
…
“China” is presented as a single, continuous political actor across time, retroactively merging the Republic of China (ROC)’s wartime role into the People’s Republic of China (PRC)’s present-day claim. Grammatically, the “return” is expressed as a present-tense fact within the international order, while WWII cooperation is depicted as a completed past. Taiwan’s status is simultaneously framed as finished and unfinished: finished in history, yet unfinished in sovereignty.
It is worth reminding everyone that this is about a lot more than Taiwan. China is an ancient culture with centuries of issues to address, especially the last couple of hundred years, which in their historical reference, is recent history.
Roy Ngerng’s graphic is a helpful reference.
I might like to see what happens if Japan builds nukes. For self-defense, naturally. Not for anything as impolite as forcing China to behave itself in its neighborhood.
And hey, while we're talking about international friendship and bonhomie, I hear Cam Ranh Bay has some nice pierside facilities. Imagine an Amphibious Ready Group docked there for an extended port visit with our Vietnamese friends. The opportunities for tourism are just peachy.
At this point, I think the State Department should threaten to redesignate the American Institute in Taiwan (that being the Not an Embassy) to being either a Consulate-General with the same status as the Consulate General in Hong Kong or a Legation. Of course, they'd probably go catatonic at the idea, but it's a nice feeling idea.