Trump’s attempt to swap Taiwan for Iran with China failed

The main visible result of Trump’s visit to China is that the US president spent almost nine hours with the Chinese leader – a truly significant amount of time, giving them time to discuss a wide range of issues and problems.

Biden once boasted that he had spent several dozen hours with Xi Jinping, more than any other foreign leader. Trump now had the opportunity to get to know Xi Jinping better, spending even more time with him than during his first visit to Beijing in November 2017.

What did they discuss?

Of course, first and foremost is the bilateral relationship, which Beijing has called not only the most important but also the most complex in the world – a new and very remarkable formulation.

China wants “healthy competition,” not confrontation and roller coasters — and praised Trump for reaching an agreement with Xi Jinping to “build a relationship of constructive strategic stability.”

Taiwan and Iran – the two most important issues of the negotiations and the Thucydides trap

Yes, the Chinese even claim that he proposed it himself. But his claims that he and Xi Jinping can always find solutions, even when difficulties arise, and that the relations between the two countries generally have a fantastic future, do not correspond to reality.

Take Taiwan and Iran – the two most important issues of the negotiations. China, unexpectedly, put Taiwan as a priority, essentially demanding a commitment from the United States not to try to play the Taiwan card against Beijing.

The most notable event of the visit was Xi Jinping’s statement: he hopes that the United States and China can overcome the Thucydides trap, that is, avoid a situation in which the incumbent’s fear of a rising rival makes war between them inevitable.

For Beijing, the message is clear: Washington must stop playing with fire (seeing China as a threat and trying to weaken it) and demonstrate a willingness to renounce provocations to Taiwan.

Taiwan will bring peace or conflict

Xi Jinping has stated bluntly and publicly that everything depends on the Taiwan issue: “If it is properly resolved, relations between the two countries will be able to maintain stability. Otherwise, the two states will confront or even conflict.”

So what did Trump propose?

Nothing. Literally nothing. As he told the press after the visit: “Xi Jinping asked me if we would protect them. I said I wouldn’t talk about it.”

So Trump chose to exploit strategic ambiguity, but for China, the Taiwan issue is a cornerstone, as it underpins the entire edifice of relations with America.

The US president’s refusal to answer a direct question means that the United States wants to retain the option to play the Taiwan card, which makes it impossible to stabilize US-China relations – that is, the aforementioned “constructive strategic stability.” (for more information on this issue please read the analysis titled “Why doesn’t Trump want Taiwan to move towards formal independence from China?“).

Commenting on the outcome of Trump’s visit, the Chinese Foreign Minister not only spoke at length about the importance of peaceful coexistence between the two countries, but further explained China’s expectations of the US on the Taiwan issue:

“Maintaining peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait is the most important common denominator for both sides. A prerequisite for achieving this is the inadmissibility of supporting or tolerating Taiwan independence, as Taiwan independence and peace in the Taiwan Strait are incompatible.” The minister added that Beijing hopes that the US will take concrete steps to achieve this.

And it is clear what he means…

Washington must stop arms sales to Taiwan (approved by Congress in December). That is the bare minimum, but Trump has no intention of doing so yet: when asked directly, he said he may or may not do so, but for now he wants China to calm down.

So is Xi Jinping overly enthusiastic and hyperactive about Taiwan? If the White House really believes this, it is a fundamental mistake with far-reaching consequences.

China has not put the Taiwan issue at the center of its bilateral agenda for no reason: it wants to secure a clear commitment from the United States not to obstruct reunification.

Not because it is already on the agenda, but because the increasing unpredictability of the United States and the weakening of its global position could lead Washington to play the Taiwan card.

At the same time, China has no intention of making any compromises on the Taiwan issue, making the idea, which is being actively discussed in the US before the visit, completely absurd.

The strange exchange

Trump could supposedly “trade Taiwan for Iran”: promising not to supply weapons to the island in exchange for China’s help in opening the Strait of Hormuz to Iran.

So, Xi Jinping would supposedly help Trump get out of the vacuum he had dug himself into – in exchange for a completely temporary halt to arms supplies to the US-dependent island?

Trump claims to have a very good understanding with Xi Jinping on Iran: China does not want Iran to acquire nuclear weapons and opposes imposing tolls on the Sea of ​​Hormuz. But these are just empty words.

In reality, China has absolutely no interest in either the strategic defeat and weakening of Iran or the United States exiting the conflict with Tehran with minimal geopolitical losses.

On the contrary, the problems that Trump’s adventure with Iran has created for the United States, both in the Middle East and globally, will be exploited by Beijing to strengthen its own regional and global positions. And this will be one of the important topics of discussion between Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin during the Russian president’s visit to Beijing on May 20.

About the author

The Liberal Globe is an independent online magazine that provides carefully selected varieties of stories. Our authoritative insight opinions, analyses, researches are reflected in the sections which are both thematic and geographical. We do not attach ourselves to any political party. Our political agenda is liberal in the classical sense. We continue to advocate bold policies in favour of individual freedoms, even if that means we must oppose the will and the majority view, even if these positions that we express may be unpleasant and unbearable for the majority.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *