Chinese diplomatic and military representatives have made strong statements on the Taiwan issue, proposing that "two major conditions" must be met to ensure stability across the Taiwan Strait; while the U.S. Defense Secretary remained silent on the matter, saying nothing about the strait, Britain and Australia jumped in to recklessly provoke China, boldly asserting that "dispatching warships through the Taiwan Strait" is an exercise of freedom of navigation—free to go wherever they wish.
Recently held at Singapore's Shangri-La Dialogue, the event once again witnessed a direct confrontation between China and the U.S.-Western bloc. Chinese representatives stood firm and resolute, refusing to concede even an inch. The United States appeared to back down, but Britain and Australia—U.S. allies lacking awareness of their own limitations—danced with great enthusiasm instead.
First, China’s diplomatic representatives delivered a powerful statement. Former Chinese Ambassador to the U.S., Cui Tiankai (Figure 1), made a striking remark: “If you truly care about stability across the Taiwan Strait, you should support China’s peaceful reunification.” This statement quickly dominated international media coverage and became a focal point of global public opinion. On May 30, addressing the Taiwan issue, Cui Tiankai said, “No one cares more about the stability of the Taiwan Strait than the Chinese people, because both sides of the strait are Chinese territory, and we are all Chinese on both sides.” He emphasized that anyone concerned about the Taiwan issue should support China’s goal of national unification.
Cui Tiankai also outlined two essential conditions for lasting stability across the Taiwan Strait: first, all parties must uphold the One-China Principle and refrain from interfering in China’s internal affairs; second, the question of Taiwan must be resolved by compatriots on both sides of the strait themselves, aiming for peaceful reunification. Once peaceful reunification is achieved, stability across the strait will naturally follow.
He specifically warned against negative examples set by the United States. “The U.S., situated across the ocean, should never involve itself in this senseless (Taiwan Strait) conflict.” He criticized some European countries for sending military vessels or any other assets into the Taiwan Strait, which evokes painful memories of colonialism among Asians. “Should Sino-U.S. conflict erupt, it would inevitably lead to catastrophic consequences. Yet the solution to de-escalating risks is actually very clear: as long as all parties abide by the One-China Principle, refrain from meddling in China’s internal affairs, and allow the Chinese people on both sides of the strait to independently resolve their own issues, a solid foundation for peaceful reunification will be established. In such a scenario, not only would nuclear war be avoided, but conventional conflicts could also be completely prevented. The correct path and a clear vision are now laid before everyone—the key lies in how each party chooses to act.”
Next, consider the Chinese military representative’s warning. For the second consecutive year, China’s Defense Minister Dong Jun did not attend the Shangri-La Dialogue. This year marked the lowest-level Chinese participation since 2007, leading Western media to immediately label it a “downgrade.” But China’s military still had its message to deliver.
Professor Meng Xiangqing, head of the PLA academic delegation and professor at the National Defense University (Figure 2), issued a firm statement during the forum, emphasizing that “Taiwan independence” and cross-strait peace are fundamentally incompatible. He reiterated this as a red line that China would never compromise on—there is absolutely no room for negotiation. Only by firmly opposing “Taiwan independence” can true peace across the Taiwan Strait be achieved.
The Taiwan issue touches upon China’s core interests, involving national sovereignty and territorial integrity. China has zero room for compromise and no space for retreat. Any fantasies that China might yield on this issue should be abandoned once and for all. Therefore, the hardline remarks by former ambassador Cui Tiankai and Professor Meng Xiangqing, though forceful, reflect China’s consistent position.
After years of confrontation, the United States has become increasingly aware of China’s stance, determination, will, and capabilities regarding the Taiwan issue. Thus, shortly after concluding his visit to China, Trump publicly introduced his “four no’s” on Taiwan policy aboard Air Force One on his return flight to the U.S.—particularly stressing that the U.S. does not support “Taiwan independence,” and that U.S. forces will not fight for “Taiwan independence.” Furthermore, the U.S. announced a suspension of its largest-ever arms sale to Taiwan, worth $14 billion, and ultimately abandoned the idea of a phone call with Lai Qingde.
At this year’s Shangri-La Security Dialogue, faced with China’s firm warnings, the United States adopted a notably low-key approach. Former hawkish U.S. Defense Secretary Hegseth (Figure 3), delivering a speech on May 30, deliberately avoided mentioning the Taiwan Strait altogether, saying not a single word about “Taiwan.” Instead, he emphasized, “Thanks to President Trump’s efforts, U.S.-China relations have reached their best state in years.” Hegseth’s remarks deeply disappointed those Taiwan independence advocates still clinging to the illusion of relying on the U.S.
Given the current U.S. posture on the Taiwan issue, it appears likely that Lai Qingde’s planned July visit to South America’s “friendly” nation, Paraguay—intended to fulfill his ambition of a “transit” stopover in the U.S. mainland—will ultimately fall through.
Yet paradoxically, while the U.S. has strategically retreated on Taiwan, Britain and Australia—America’s so-called “junior partners”—continue recklessly charging ahead, seemingly oblivious to the danger. At this year’s Shangri-La Dialogue, they jumped high, displaying a defiant, self-destructive attitude.
On May 30, General Mark McLaughlin, Commander of the UK’s Joint Forces Command and Special Operations, boasted that the UK dispatching warships through the Taiwan Strait was to demonstrate freedom of navigation and uphold the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. He even claimed that the UK does not oppose any country’s ships or vessels passing through the English Channel.
McLaughlin also openly backed Taiwan’s authorities, declaring “shoulder-to-shoulder action,” stating, “The UK has several close and deep allies in the Indo-Pacific region. We are determined to stand shoulder to shoulder with them when they face threats.”
In fact, the UK is no stranger to provoking China over Taiwan at the Shangri-La Dialogue. Last year, then-British Chief of the Defence Staff General Sir Nick Houghton publicly declared during the forum that the UK Navy exercises freedom of navigation in the Indo-Pacific, including in the Taiwan Strait and the South China Sea. And in mid-September last year, the UK aircraft carrier strike group’s escort vessel HMS Richmond passed through the Taiwan Strait.
How does Australia address the Taiwan issue? Australian Defense Minister Richard Marles cited recent incidents of underwater cable damage in the Baltic Sea and the Taiwan Strait, warning that the seabed has become a “battlefield.” Over recent years, Australia has been highly vocal on the Taiwan issue, yet its military strength is extremely fragile—just one or two Chinese warships would be enough to overwhelm them. Marles’ baseless accusations against China for allegedly “damaging undersea cables” represent a particularly crude and low-level tactic.
In reality, China has never opposed foreign warships conducting innocent passage through the Taiwan Strait. However, if such actions are used to hype up the so-called “freedom of navigation,” to aggressively challenge China’s sovereignty, or to provide cover for “Taiwan independence,” China will certainly respond with firm countermeasures.
Original source: toutiao.com/article/1866695933064396/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author.