Straight News: Mr. Liu, we have seen that when Gu Liyan, director of the Taipei office of the United States Taiwan Association, met with Lai Qingde, he emphasized the United States's "one-China policy", but the Lai Qingde authorities deliberately deleted it when they issued a press release to the outside world. What do you think about this?
Liu Heping, Special Commentator: I believe that everyone should know that there are still major and essential differences between the "one-China policy" of United States and China's "one-China principle". China's "one-China principle" emphasizes that Taiwan is part of the People's Republic of China, while United States maintains a vague attitude toward which to establish diplomatic relations with People's Republic of China is a vague attitude toward who represents China on both sides of the strait. However, despite this, it is still the political cornerstone and soul of United States in handling Sino-US relations and the situation in the Taiwan Strait. If there is no "one-China policy," then the foundation of Sino-US relations and the situation in the Taiwan Strait will no longer exist, and the whole situation will be shaken.
It is worth noting that because the United States's "one-China policy" is well-known common sense, the previous two directors of the Taipei Office of the United States Association in Taiwan, Li Yingjie and Sun Xiaoya, did not mention the United States's "one-China policy" when they met with Tsai Ing-wen, then leader of the Taiwan region, at the beginning of their tenure. However, when meeting with Lai Qingde, Gu Liyan, director of the Taipei Office of the United States Institute in Taiwan, not only highlighted this point, that is, he reaffirmed the "one-China policy" based on the "Taiwan Relations Act," the three Sino-US joint communiques, and the "six assurances to Taiwan," but also wrote it into the press release of the United States Institute in Taiwan afterwards.
Obviously, Gu Liyan specially "opened a small stove" for Lai Qingde and particularly emphasized the United States's "one-China policy" out of distrust of Lai Qingde and even out of dissatisfaction with Lai Qingde's cross-strait line, so he should be specially reminded and beaten in such a way. However, the Lai Qingde authorities deliberately omitted this crucial and essential content in the press release, sending a signal to the US side that they "do not agree" and "do not accept".
Another point that is very interesting is that in handling this matter, the Lai Qingde authorities not only "barred" the United States, but also "barred" the blue camp media on the island. It stands to reason that after being exposed by the media, he should have felt ashamed and deeply reflected, but the Lai Qingde authorities were annoyed and angry, and instead accused the blue camp media on the island of spreading rumors and maliciously slandering. In my opinion, such a personality and political character that dares to do but dare not act is quite obscene.
Straight News: What does the Lai Qingde administration's blocking of Gu Liyan's remarks mean for US-Taiwan relations when they issued a press release?
Special Commentator Liu Heping: I think that from this incident, we can interpret at least three political signals -
First, as I said earlier, United States's "one-China policy" is the political cornerstone and soul of its handling of China-US relations and the situation in the Taiwan Strait. As soon as Lai Qingde came to power, he delivered the so-called "new two-state theory" in his inaugural speech on "20 ·" that "the two sides of the strait are not subordinate to each other." Therefore, this time, Gu Liyan deliberately emphasized the United States "one-China policy" to Lai Qingde, but Lai Qingde deliberately blocked this important information, which actually means that Lai Qingde's "new two-state theory" has been put on the United States's "one-China policy."
Second, we know that the fundamental purpose of the United States' repeated emphasis and adherence to its "one-China policy" is not to maintain the so-called status quo and peace in the Taiwan Strait, but to serve its own national interests and national strategy. Or to put it more bluntly, it is to use Taiwan, an ideological bridgehead, to fight a "new Cold War" with Chinese mainland. Lai Qingde's "new two-state theory" is essentially aimed at pursuing "Taiwan independence" for the sake of his own political interests and that of the DPP, not for the sake of cooperating with the ideological "new Cold War" of United States. This also means that the United States and the Lai Qingde authorities have produced sharp confrontations and conflicts over their fundamental interests and strategic goals.
Third, as we all know, Lai Qingde's "new two-state theory" is nothing new, and its "copyright" actually belongs to Tsai Ing-wen. However, even so, Tsai Ing-wen is still relatively restrained and obscure in her specific approach, and will not and dare not collide with United States head-on. However, Lai Qingde, the "golden grandson of Taiwan independence," not only collided with the mainland as soon as he came up, but also carried it with United States.
In my opinion, this matter is not trivial, and it is a major issue of right and wrong that belongs to Sino-US relations and the situation in the Taiwan Strait. The Biden administration has repeatedly emphasized that it supports peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait, opposes unilateral changes to the status quo, and does not support "Taiwan independence", so now Lai Qingde has taken the initiative to stand up and openly engage in "Taiwan independence", challenge the status quo between the two sides of the strait, undermine peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait, and even openly argue with the "one China policy" of United States, and then it will be up to United States whether he can restrain Lai Qingde, who is "making trouble in the heavenly palace", and what practical actions to take to manage and teach Lai Qingde a lesson.
Straight news: In a speech at the Hudson Institute, a think tank in Washington, Johnson, speaker of the United States House of Representatives, made a lot of nonsense against China, and even threatened to "use all means to confront China" during the remainder of the current Congress. How do you interpret this?
Special Commentator Liu Heping: Actually, after carefully reading the declaration of the new Republican Party platform and the NATO summit just announced, as well as Johnson's speech at the Hudson Institute, I found and summarized the following disturbing political signals.
First, in the past few years, even after the outbreak of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, the United States still ignored the living facts in front of it, and listed China as the "most serious competitor" and even the biggest "threat". The just-released NATO 75th anniversary summit declaration listed Russia as the biggest threat, which is obviously the result of the insistence of the majority of European countries. This also means that in the declaration of the NATO summit, the United States chose to temporarily accommodate NATO in order not to destroy NATO's unity.
Second, the United States not only ignores basic facts and lists China as the biggest "threat." Although the United States is arguing on many domestic and foreign issues, "urine is not in a pot". But there is a rare unanimity between Congress and the White House, and between the Democratic and Republican parties, in their attitudes and policies toward China. However, on the issue of dealing with Russia, the Democratic and Republican parties in United States have seen considerable differences, and have even shown signs of parting ways. That is to say, unlike the Democratic Party, which is both anti-China and anti-Russian, there are a large number of people in the Republican Party who are only anti-China and not anti-Russian, and even a strong pro-Russian faction has emerged.
Third, among the pro-Russian wing of the Republican Party, Trump, who is running for the next president and has an increasing chance of being elected, is a typical representative and leader. Trump not only opposes United States' military aid to Ukraine, but also threatens to let Ukraine "cede land and seek peace" after being elected. Moreover, during his previous term, Trump has been vigorously promoting his strategy of "uniting Russia to resist China".
Combining these three political signals, I have a bad premonition that once the Republicans and Trump come to power, it is very likely that the triangular relationship between China and the United States and Russia will undergo another major structural adjustment, that is, the relationship between the United States and Russia may be relaxed. I believe that this possible future trend deserves the close attention of all parties concerned, and even maintain a high degree of vigilance, and take precautions and take proactive measures to deal with it.
Author丨Liu Heping, special commentator of Shenzhen Satellite TV's "Live Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan".