(Title: Ri Yue Tan Tian | Sino-U.S. Leaders’ Meeting in Peru Shakes Taiwan, Making It Clear to All Sectors that Lai Qingde’s “Reliance on the U.S. for Independence” Is a Dead End)
On November 16, local time, the leaders of China and the United States met in Lima, the capital of Peru. This was the last meeting between the two leaders during President Biden’s tenure and the first after the U.S. elections, attracting global attention. Tan Zhu noticed that as soon as the news of the meeting was announced, major media outlets within the island quickly reported on it, with images of the two leaders shaking hands and talking flooding the island’s social media.
The media within the island, as usual, focused on detailed reporting of President Xi Jinping’s elaboration on the principled position on the Taiwan issue during the meeting: “Taiwan independence” separatist acts are incompatible with peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait. If the U.S. wants to maintain peace in the Taiwan Strait, the key is to recognize the “Taiwan independence” nature of Lai Qingde and the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) authorities, handle the Taiwan issue with great caution, clearly oppose “Taiwan independence,” and support China’s peaceful reunification.
The Taiwanese media also reported that the U.S. reiterated its commitment to the one-China policy and not supporting “Taiwan independence,” among other things, and focused on reporting the U.S.’s first statement that it “will not use the Taiwan issue to compete with China.”
Multiple experts from both sides of the Taiwan Strait told Tan Zhu in interviews that the mainland’s position on the Taiwan issue is consistent and clear. During this meeting, China once again emphasized that the four red lines, including the Taiwan issue, are not to be challenged, with a clear attitude. The Sino-U.S. leaders’ meeting in Peru drew another red line, giving a stern warning to the “Taiwan independence” forces, making it clearer to the people within the island that Lai Qingde’s “reliance on the U.S. for independence” is a dead end.
Directly naming and deterring “Taiwan independence” separatist forces
Tan Zhu found that this time, when elucidating the policy position on the Taiwan issue, China explicitly named the leader of Taiwan’s DPP authorities for the first time.
Wang Shushen, deputy director and researcher at the Institute of Taiwan Studies of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, told Tan Zhu that Lai Qingde had long been identified by the Taiwan Affairs Office as a “Taiwan independence worker” and a “peace destructor.” The purpose of naming him this time was to clearly point out the harmfulness of Lai’s “Taiwan independence” route to the U.S.
Wang Fan, president of the China Foreign Affairs University and vice president of the China Association for International Relations, further pointed out that the reason for naming him at this time was to warn against the dangerous tendencies of “Taiwan independence,” in case the U.S. government enters a transition period and Lai Qingde and the “Taiwan independence” forces misinterpret the situation, thinking that “there will be more opportunities,” and thus willfully provoke and escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait. China hopes that the U.S. will be more vigilant and not send wrong signals to the “Taiwan independence” forces.
Tan Zhu noticed that “naming Lai Qingde” shocked the public opinion within the island. For several days, the media continued to follow up with reports, using phrases such as “very dangerous,” “very strong words,” and “severe situation” for analysis and interpretation.
Xiao Xucen, executive director of the Ma Ying-jeou Foundation, believed that this was a very rare and important signal. Naming him is equivalent to qualifying Lai Qingde and setting the tone for future cross-strait relations, which cannot be ignored.
Kou Jianwen, a professor at National Taiwan University, pointed out that these words clearly conveyed the mainland’s prediction of the future direction of cross-strait relations under the DPP: complete distrust in Lai Qingde, positioning Lai as someone who will move towards substantial “Taiwan independence.”
TVBS News and other media quoted scholars’ views, stating that criticizing and condemning Lai Qingde’s “Taiwan independence” ideology by name is certainly very strong, showing that the mainland has had no illusions about the Lai Qingde authorities from the beginning. If Lai Qingde and the DPP continue to misjudge the situation, causing cross-strait relations to become more confrontational, the situation in the Taiwan Strait will be very severe.
Public opinion within the island generally noted that the DPP authorities were very nervous about being “named” and tried various methods to obfuscate and confuse the issue, obviously “panicking.”
Clear red lines: “Reliance on the U.S. for Independence” is doomed to fail
During this meeting, China reiterated the four red lines, including the Taiwan issue. In Wang Shushen’s view, this conveyed China’s consistent and firm position on the Taiwan issue: firmly opposing “Taiwan independence” separatism and external interference, with no room for compromise. Anyone or any force that challenges China’s bottom line will be firmly counteracted. During the interviews, experts mentioned Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan in 2022.
Tan Zhu reviewed the reports at that time and found that China had clearly warned beforehand: “The will of the people cannot be violated, and those who play with fire will get burnt. We hope the U.S. sees this clearly.” After Pelosi insisted on visiting Taiwan, China’s Taiwan region, despite strong opposition and solemn representations from China, the Eastern Theater Command organized troops to conduct practical military exercises around the Taiwan Island; the Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced eight countermeasures, including canceling three exchange activities between the Chinese and U.S. militaries… A series of “combination punches” firmly and effectively counteracted the collusion between the U.S. and Taiwan.
Illustration of the Eastern Theater Command’s exercise area in August 2022
Experts analyzed to Tan Zhu that during the Sino-U.S. leaders’ meeting in Bali in November of that year, President Biden expanded the “four no’s and one not” he had just proposed in March of that year to “five no’s and four not’s,” which included not supporting “Taiwan independence,” not supporting “two Chinas” or “one China, one Taiwan.” An important reason for this change was that the U.S. recognized China’s firm determination to defend its national sovereignty and territorial integrity, and that the red line could not be challenged.
Zheng Youping, a professor at National Taipei University, said that President Biden’s emphasis on “the unchanging one-China policy of the United States” during the Sino-U.S. leaders’ meeting in Peru showed that before stepping down, he deeply understood that Sino-U.S. relations could not regress due to the Taiwan issue. He also hoped that after the new U.S. government takes office, the Taiwan issue will not become a catalyst or trigger for the deterioration of Sino-U.S. relations, so he reiterated the U.S.’s firm position of not supporting “Taiwan independence.”
The editorial of Taiwan’s China Times further pointed out that the so-called “reliance on the U.S. for independence” is only the DPP’s wishful thinking. The current U.S. government and the majority of public opinion are opposed to “Taiwan independence.” The U.S. does not want to be involved in cross-strait conflicts and is not willing to pay the war price for “Taiwan independence.” It is even clearer to the U.S. president-elect that “Taiwan independence” will certainly provoke war and require the U.S. to pay a heavy price, which does not align with the cost-benefit principle, so it will never be supported.
“Taiwan independence” is a dead end, and outsiders are unreliable. The DPP authorities “rely on the U.S. for independence,” but external forces are worried about their reckless actions. Finally, Tan Zhu wants to say that Lai Qingde and the DPP authorities, who have been named, must carefully consider the weight of the sentence “Taiwan independence separatist acts are incompatible with peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait.” Daring to cross the red line will only lead to self-destruction.