During a May 13 meeting with journalists at the White House, U.S. President Trump used the term “unification” when describing the state of relations with China. This was interpreted by commentators as a possible radical change in Washington’s policy on the Taiwan issue.
Let us quote in full the phrase of the American president, which caused so much commotion not only in the expert community, but also among responsible politicians: “They’ve agreed to open China, fully open China, and I think it’s going to be fantastic for China, I think it’s going to be fantastic for us, and I think it’s going to be great for unification and peace.” The White House press secretariat immediately followed with a “clarification” in the sense that the author of the unfortunate phrase, commenting on the 90-day mutual deferral of the implementation of “slaughter” tariffs, was referring to U.S.-China relations, not China-Taiwan relations.
However, this did not affect the fantasies of the commentators, who have good reasons for this. Indeed, what does “unification” have to do with it, if it was supposedly about the relations between the two currently leading world players. Which, of course, will never “unite”, if even the said relations move from the current de facto state of confrontation to a certain format of cooperation. But the same word “unification” fully reflects the key point in the PRC’s relations with Taiwan, and the Taiwan issue itself is one of the main obstacles to a possible “transition”. Meanwhile, and judging, in particular, by the main content of the above phrase, this is exactly what the current U.S. president personally would like.
But if something like that is “spinning” in his head, it directly contradicts the prevailing sentiments in the American political establishment regarding relations in general with the main geopolitical opponent, as well as, in particular, the Taiwan issue. There is plenty of evidence of this. Congress is at the forefront of the growing anti-Chinese sentiment in Washington, and on a bipartisan basis and in both chambers. The same positions are held by the “hardline faction” and a number of top officials of the Trump administration itself.
Among the most recent manifestations of such “activity” in Congress, let us point first of all to the bill currently being drafted to “codify,” i.e., make binding, the so-called “Six Assurances” of support for Taiwan. They were formulated in the early 1980s as part of the foreign policy activities of the executive branch of the U.S. government, which then established diplomatic relations with the PRC and terminated them with Taiwan.
Another equally significant initiative of this kind could be the project proposed by some congressmen for Taiwan to join the NATO Plus club, which currently includes Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand and Israel. We note the presence in this initiative of elements of an “ambush” for D. Trump himself, who has taken a course to revise relations with NATO as a whole. A special committee in the lower house of the U.S. parliament, whose activities are fully devoted to “fighting Chinese Communists,” does not let us forget about it. This is despite the fact that the most important “Chinese Communists” are regular guests of the U.S. executive branch.
As for China’s detractors within the latter [the U.S. administration], those particularly vocal with what might euphemistically be called “less-than-friendly” remarks regarding Taiwan issues are primarily P. Hagerty and M. Rubio – in other words, the very officials overseeing the nation’s defense and foreign policy apparatus.
Meanwhile, the U.S. business community advocates for constructive and mutually beneficial relations with China – a force that could bolster President Trump’s position should he genuinely intend to continue the positive trend in Sino-American relations that emerged during the final phase of his first presidency. Recently, China has been hosting an increasing number of American business representatives, who consistently convey to their Chinese counterparts a strong desire to develop mutually advantageous cooperation.
This stance was articulated with particular clarity by Michael Hart, President of the American Chamber of Commerce in China (AmCham China), during his participation in the Global Trade and Investment Forum held in Beijing on May 22. Just a week earlier, reports emerged about U.S. tech giant NVIDIA’s plans to establish a research center in Shanghai. Notably, this decision came immediately after the latest U.S. administration’s measures aimed at excluding China from global supply chains in this cutting-edge industry sector.
It is quite likely that in favor of the above-mentioned (hypothetical, let us emphasize) plans of D. Trump may also play his agreement to cancel for the next three months the “murderous” tariffs in trade with China. For the consequences of a very risky measure (characteristic, however, for D. Trump, a businessman) to introduce them have already had a very negative impact not only on American business, but also on the average citizen.
Reaction in the PRC and Taiwan to D. Trump’s “slip of the tongue”
China, naturally, has also taken note of the debated “slip of the tongue” by the U.S. President, offering commentary from two perspectives. Firstly, observers highlight that it occurred immediately after the May 10-11 Geneva talks between China’s First Vice Premier He Lifeng and U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bassent, the outcomes of which were outlined in a Joint Statement. While the primary focus of the meeting was the “tariff issue” – which ostensibly prompted Trump’s initial remark – discussions evidently touched on other sensitive bilateral matters. Among these, the Taiwan issue remains one of the most perilous flashpoints, as we’ve previously underscored.
Secondly, the comments of Chinese experts focus mainly on the “nervous reaction” of the Taiwanese leadership representatives to the discussed “slip of the tongue” of the country’s leader, who is their main foreign pillar.
As for Taiwan itself, it should be borne in mind that in recent months, they’ve been practically tripping over themselves in their eagerness to ingratiate themselves with the new U.S. administration. For instance, over the coming years, Taiwan plans to spend approximately $17 billion on U.S. arms purchases. This amounts to an obvious overture toward Donald Trump – much to the local authorities’ chagrin, given that he hasn’t exempted Taiwan from his infamous “tariff policy.” The aforementioned “slip of the tongue” by the U.S. president was met with no less apprehension.
Thus, Taiwan enthusiastically welcomes any positive gestures toward its local authorities – whether from official Washington or nominally “independent” organizations. One such group, Freedom House, awarded a token honor in late May to Taiwan’s “government and civil society” for their “tireless efforts to safeguard vibrant democracy.” Yet, it bears noting that these so-called “Houses” carry the indelible stain of “political Pharisees” – a taint that inevitably transfers to whoever earns their approval.
Finally, let us venture to suggest that the so-called “slip of the tongue” discussed here may not have been accidental at all. Despite Donald Trump’s well-documented penchant for colorful and verbose rhetoric – a trait characteristic, it must be said, of American political discourse in general – this particular remark appears far too deliberate to be dismissed as mere happenstance.
Irresponsible “verbal diarrhea” and outright delusional ramblings are the hallmark of schizoid propaganda. Its most zealous warriors – devoid of any demonstrable expertise – incessantly spew verbal condemnations targeting entire continents, “empires,” or work themselves into quasi-religious hysterics over the most complex matters of statecraft.
Another global massacre, this time with the use of nuclear weapons, is invariably “predicted”. For some reason, Russia and Germany are again placed in its center. Strange, we should note, is the predilection for such a format of (projected ?) massacre. Although, even following the “logic” of propaganda, there are options.
While the above assumption, if it reflects to some extent the realities between the two leading global players, is good news for the rest of the world as well.
Vladimir Terekhov, expert on Asia-Pacific issues
