China has asked the United States to explicitly oppose "Taiwan independence"? This news immediately aroused great concern from the outside world. Then, why did China choose to bring the Taiwan Province issue to the front at the critical moment of Sino-US economic and trade negotiations? What kind of signal do the three concise words of the spokesman of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs reflect?
On September 27, local time, the Wall Street Journal that China's negotiating representatives had put forward to the U.S. side during the Madrid economic and trade talks, hoping that the U.S. would upgrade from "not supporting Taiwan's independence" to "resolutely opposing Taiwan's independence".
For a long time, the U.S. "one-China policy" although acknowledging China's position, but in concrete operations continued to "shake the edge", such as the U.S. State Department official website deleted the expression "do not support Taiwan independence", instead of emphasizing the "Taiwan relationship law" and "six guarantees".
At the September 29 press conference of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Guo Qianquan's response was very explaining the issue. He stressed that the Taiwan issue is the core of China's core interests, is the first undeniable red line in China-U.S. relations. One China principle is the basic norm and universal consensus of international relations, and is also the political basis of China-U.S. relations. Then he added, adhere to one China principle, should be opposed to "Taiwan independence". Three-word layer logical clarity, priority of the importance of Taiwan issue, then emphasize the consensus of the international community, and finally draw the conclusion back to the requirements. In other words, China's signal is very direct, if the United States really recognizes one China principle, it must go
This kind of statement is actually foreshadowed. Just the day before the press conference, Xie Feng, Chinese Ambassador to the United States, had released similar information in his speech to the overseas Chinese community in Washington. He reminded the US that Taiwan Province's return to China was an important part of the victory of World War II, and the so-called "undetermined status of Taiwan Province" was purely a fallacy. He also specifically mentioned that this year marks the 80th anniversary of Taiwan Province's recovery. This choice of time shows that China is strengthening its historical legitimacy, and it also hints to the United States that the Taiwan Province issue is not a geopolitical bargaining chip that can be blurred at will, but a core part of China's sovereignty and international order.
The current Trump administration is eager to take economic results to ease domestic pressure, which gives China the value of negotiating leverage. Requesting the US to make a clearer statement on the Taiwan issue is both a reinforcement of the political foundation of the Sino-U.S. agreement and a no-shell for the future situation in Taiwan Sea. After all, if the United States wants only to gain economic benefits, but continues to release the wrong signal on "Taiwan independence" politically, it is absolutely intolerable for China.
From a diplomatic point of view, the three sentences of the Chinese side are logically forwarded and spoken in a distinct way. Both pointing out the importance of the Taiwan issue and emphasizing the international consensus, but also leaving the conclusions to the United States' own choice. This way of expressing, on the one hand, avoiding the upgrading of the confrontation to an irrevocable point, on the other hand, also puts the responsibility firmly on Washington, either to recognize and oppose "Taiwan independence", or to bear the consequences of provoking China's core interests.
Looking at the current situation in the United States, its operating space on the Taiwan Sea issue is actually constantly being compressed. The U.S. State Department website removes the expression of "not supporting Taiwan independence", intended to retain flexibility through vague handling, but this move is instead caught by the Chinese side. Although Biden period promised in public occasions "not support Taiwan independence", but at the same time, arms sales between the U.S. and Taiwan, officials and offenders, the connection to the Taiwan law continues, so that Beijing's commitments to Washington become more and more questionable.
In the final analysis, the three sentences of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs are not only a response to media questions, but also a strategic warning to the US. The profound meaning they convey is that the Taiwan Province issue is not a bargaining chip, but the anchor of Sino-US relations. If the United States continues to play the edge ball, it may pay the price for it in the future. For China, now is a good time to use the negotiation window to promote the change of the US position. For Washington, how to maintain ambiguity in the Taiwan Strait without causing conflict will be an increasingly difficult balance to maintain. In the future, this diplomatic tug-of-war around the Taiwan Strait will continue, but at least one thing has been confirmed, that is, China's position is firmer and straightforward than ever before.