Taiwan: internal divisions as tensions rise

 Written by: (Contributed) on 10 August 2025

 

Political controversy between the two major parties in Taiwan has carried all the hallmarks of classic US-led Cold War rivalries. The ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), which managed to form a minority government following presidential elections last year, has recently attempted to challenge the main opposition nationalist Kuomintang (KMT). 

Constitutional attempts by the DPP to deal with the political stalemate, however, have to date failed to achieve objectives in a spectacular fashion and defeat. A further DPP-led round is, nevertheless, scheduled for late August, where another smaller group of KMT politicians will be targeted.

A recent DPP political initiative to oust 24 KMT M.P.s failed and has led to a heightening of tensions between the two major parties. (1) The electorate voted against the DPP move to overcome the stalemate: the DPP is, at present, faced with holding a minority government with 51 seats, while the rival KMT hold 52 seats. Neither party has overall control of the Taiwanese parliament; the DPP require at least six further seats at present held by the KMT to form a majority government.

Behind the scenes, however, a classic US-led Cold War scenario is being played-out. The DPP, being in line with pro-independence positions, is strongly backed by the US, the Pentagon, the US military industrial complex: the relationship is along lines of a puppet-master pulling strings over a puppet which dances and sings when required. The KMT retains a more conciliatory position toward China, and is, therefore, subject to US-led scrutiny.

The Taiwan Straits remains one of the potential flashpoints for US-China diplomatic hostilities; the Cold War is being played-out across a narrow strip of water separating China with Taiwan. The US also has a large presence in Taiwan, while officially and diplomatically recognising China, in line with the One China policy.

It is no surprise, therefore, to find the DPP regularly launching witch-hunts against the KMT, with allegations of pro-China espionage. They note, for example, that China 'has frequent contacts with the main opposition national party', implying connivance and influence with China's front organisations. (2) Another piece of supposed investigative journalism recently conducted on behalf of the DPP alleged that China had control of more than 5,000 spies in Taiwan. (3) It was designed to serve a deeper purpose than mere newsprint for casual readership.

Taiwan's spy agencies are based in the National Security Bureau (NSB), based in the Yang Ming Mountain district of Taipei. Its main focus is monitoring China. Its six divisions include: International Intelligence, China – Internal Security, Strategic Intelligence Analysis, Technological Intelligence, Telecommunications Security. (4) It permeates all level of Taiwanese society. The NSB is also authorised to 'integrate, co-ordinate and support national security-related intelligence operations conducted by various functional services within the intelligence and law enforcement community. Effectively it can act as a Joint Intelligence Organisation'. (5)

There remains little ambiguity about which foreign intelligence services the NSB retains strong links with.

The US State Department has about five hundred intelligence personnel based in Taipei; they are officially noted as being on 'temporary leave' from their employer. (6) They, nevertheless, conduct Cold War operations for the Pentagon, and push Taiwanese diplomacy into the wider Indo-Pacific region through the DPP-led New Southbound Policy. (7)

Washington is currently conducting a review 'of its military deployments worldwide – the expectation is it will lead to drawdowns in Europe'. (8) With the official position stated by Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth while addressing the Senate Armed Forces committee in June, that 'Beijing is preparing for war in the Indo-Pacific and the US is laser focused on strengthening deterrence across the region', there would appear little ambiguity about into which region the Pentagon is planning to deploy further personnel. (9)

In fact, it has been noted that 'Trump's view, also conveyed by Hegseth, is that the US is shifting its global priorities away from Europe and NATO to the American continental homeland and the Indo-Pacific region'. (10) Once it takes place, the strategic importance of Taiwan will be correspondingly enhanced still further.

The US intelligence presence in Taiwan is also directly linked to military arms sales and defence budgets. While the budgets vary with different US presidential administrations, they remain very large indeed when viewed with the geographical size of Taiwan.

                                               US ARMS SALES TO TAIWAN

                                                     1977-81  -  $548.7 million
                                                     1981-89  -  $1579.64
                                                     1989-93  -  $6847
                                                     1993-01  -  $17,070.6
                                                     2001-09  -  $29,938
                                                     2009-17  -  $14,070
                                                     2017-21  -  $18,047.86
                                                     2021-25  -  $7,727.4          
                                                Grand Total = $83,159.2 million     (11)

It is interesting to note, therefore, the recent heightening of political rivalries taking place in Taiwan took place after the DPP alleged that 'the KMT and its allies … blocked … key legislation, especially the defence budget, and passing controversial changes seen as diminishing the power of the executive and favouring China'. (12) The official statements are invariably timed alongside the circulation of bizarre conspiracy theories on-line which allege the KMT has been hollowed out by the Chinese intelligence services to serve the interests of Beijing.

In effect, the KMT while blocking the Taiwanese defence budget has been held responsible for challenging the US military-industrial complex. And, Taiwanese 'diplomacy', for the US, is big business. It is known, for example, that the US has 'been hoarding missiles for several years to strengthen its position in the Pacific region against China'. (13)

It was no great surprise, therefore, to find the Pentagon, with their compliant Taiwanese personnel, organised a major military exercise immediately prior to the attempt by the DPP to oust KMT M.P.s. The 2025 Annual Han Kuang exercises, run in conjunction with civilian drills, included 22,000 reservists, and were extended to ten days duration. The exercises the previous year were only of five days duration. (14) The 2025 exercises also included extensive simulations which included 'grey zone' provision, composed of tactical manoeuvres falling short of 'real-war scenarios'. (15)  

It is also highly significant to note that US intelligence assessments have predicted China will attempt to invade Taiwan in 2027. Their evidence, however, is not available in the public domain and would appear highly speculative. It, nevertheless, serves the military-industrial agenda, pursued along the lines of preserving the importance of Wall Street.

Despite influence being brought to bear upon the Taiwanese electorate to support the DPP minority government for ousting 24 KMT M.P.s, they voted to reject the plan, signifying a substantial shift has already taken place in popular opinion. It would appear the electorate favour a more conciliatory approach to dealing with China and favour closer relations.

Beijing, meanwhile, refuse to even deal with the DPP.

A statement from DPP Secretary-General Lin Yu-chang clearly reflected their disappointment at not winning the vote. He clarified their position as 'humbly accepting the results … and they had … responsibility to reflect on public sentiments more cautiously and adjust its approach to meet people’s expectations'. (16)  They had misread the electorate.

The next round of the DPP plan, however, is scheduled for 23 August, where they will target a further 7 KMT M.P.s. The influence brought to bear, this time, is that if the DPP plan fails again, the President Lai Ching-te administration will face 'strong resistance within the legislature before elections expected in 2028', the year after US predictions of China's plan to invade. (17) Whether an official presidential statement referring to the 'national direction of resisting communists and protecting Taiwan', carries any credibility with Taiwanese voters this time round remains to be seen. (18)

Is the DPP presidential administration merely clutching at straws to serve 'US interests'?

1.     Taiwan rejects bid to oust pro-China bloc, Australian, 28 July 2025.
2.     Taiwan's spy agency, AP., 12 January 2025.
3.     China might have more than 5,000 spies in Taiwan, Website: 1945 – 1 May 2025.
4.     Taiwan: Espionage, Spies and Secrets, Richard M. Bennett, (London, 2002), pp. 305-06.
5.     Ibid.
6.     Beijing keeps a wary eye on new US Taipei outpost, The Age, 18 June 2018.
7.     Ibid.
8.     Europe hopeful on troop numbers, Australian, 29 July 2025.
9.     US is carved into the landscape, The Weekend Australian, 12-13 July 2025.
10.   Trump's strategic blunders threaten US authority, Australian, 26 February 2025.
11.   Wikipedia: List of US arms sales to Taiwan, which has provided details of each individual arms sale with dates.
12.   Australian, op.cit., 28 July 2025.
13.   Missiles demand lifts US makers, The Weekend Australian, 26-27 July 2025.
14.   Taiwan launches largest drills, Australian, 10 July 2025.
15.   Ibid.
16.   Australian, op.cit., 28 July 2025.
17.   Ibid.
18.   Ibid.

Taiwan and Warmongering by the US

 

Written by: (Contributed) on 9 February 2023

 At the end of January, a memo written by US General Mike Minihan, was obtained by media outlet, NBC News. The contents were a non-classified military intelligence assessment that US and China would be at war within two years: the reasoning was clearly wide of the mark and highly speculative, identifying Taiwan's presidential elections scheduled for 2024 which coincide with similar elections in the US. Problems would arise. The memo then 'told operational commanders to make ready for combat'. (1)

The US has had concerns about 'the growing imbalance of power across the Taiwan Straits', for many years. (2) They fear China may attempt to invade the small island, which is regarded by Beijing as a renegade province. The US, however, is bound to defend Taiwan and is closely linked to the defence and security of the island, although in practical terms has difficulty due to geographical distances and logistics. It has, therefore, increasingly relied on regional allies nearer to Taiwan to make decisive defence and security measures.

The US has also increasingly relied upon regional allies for military intelligence about the rise of China, which has been assessed as a major threat to traditional US hegemonic positions.

Over a decade ago a statement from the US Congressional Research Service noted the Pentagon was 'laying the foundations for a region-wide missile-defence system … relying on … Japan, South Korea and Australia'. (3) The announcement coincided with an official media release from the Pentagon that they were beginning to transform their Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) with 1,600 new 'collectors' in sensitive positions around the world; as the Indo-Pacific has become a major preoccupation for the US, it would not be difficult to establish where many of the assessors reside and are employed. (4)

Later, upgraded US military intelligence facilities included the Indo-Pacific Strategy (IPS) and their General Security of Military Information Agreement (GSOMIA) elevated Japan to become a major hub for 'US interests'. (5) It has been noted the new US-Japan alliance has already become the 'linchpin of Japan's foreign policy'. (6)

The IPS subsequently created a network on lower-level partners, linked to the Quad, which have included Taiwan. (7) A substantial proportion of the nearly five hundred staff based in the American Institute in Taipei, who remain on temporary leave from the US State Department in Washington, are thought to be involved with the GSOMIA. (8)

It is also interesting to note Taipei exists on an arc which includes Guam and Japan, revealing the significance of including Taiwan with the GSOMIA. (9)

And Guam remains a centre for major US regional operations; it is regarded as 'a more preferable lily-pad for US interests', and hub, 'in the event of an invasion', in unspecified locations. (10)

The Minihan intelligence assessment was also timed to coincide with a number of other significant developments.

Last month the US military formally opened Camp Blaz on Guam, with facilities for 5,000 marines transferred from Okinawa to 'disperse and strengthen its forces around the Pacific'. (11) The military base, jointly funded by the US and Japan as part of their new alliance, had a budget allocation of $11.5 billion. (12) The transfer of US marines to Guam is scheduled for next year, coinciding with the presidential elections in both Taiwan and the US. (13)

At the end of January, the US announced it was planning 'increased access to important bases in the Philippines ... utilising Philippine military bases … as they were a more … favourable location to carry out operations … in … Taiwan and the South China Seas'. (14)

A major upgrade for US facilities on the northern Mariana Islands chain at Tinian has included those associated with the use of heavy military aircraft; situated at about 120 kms north-east of Guam, the new facilities were designed for use in a secondary capacity in conjunction with those on Guam. (15)

The US military-industrial complex has clearly been preparing for real-war scenarios in the Indo-Pacific for years, to bolster their declining domestic economic problems and counter the threat China has posed to their traditional hegemonic presence in the region.

Two further important diplomatic factors, however, reveal how deeply flawed the Minihan assessment has been.

China responded immediately with accusations General Minihan was behaving 'recklessly' and was warned about providing a 'self-fulfilling prophecy'. (16) An earlier statement issued by China about the Taiwan Straits included reference to the recent failure by the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) to retain electoral support in local elections at the end of last year. Much of the increased diplomatic hostilities between China and Taiwan date to the election of President Tsai Ing-wen and members of her administration who have openly called for moves toward independence; Tsai Ing-wen's administration is also closely linked to right-wing forces in the US and their allies, particularly those associated with the former Trump administration in the White House.

The DPP, however, has been plagued with numerous scandals including corruption, bribery and nepotism; the ruling party lost large numbers of municipal seats in recent local elections and experienced declining popularity. (17) President Tsai Ing-wen immediately stepped down from the chair of the DPP to distance herself from the ensuing controversy.

Political developments have not gone as the US planned; all signs appear to point to the opposition KMT possibly winning presidential elections next year, if they can maintain the political momentum and transmit support for local issues into national agendas.

The KMT are regarded by China as more favourable to mutually beneficial diplomatic and trade relations and the restoration of the Taipei-Shanghai Forum. (18) If so, the US will be faced with a difficult situation whereby a presidential administration in Taipei will not want US interference with its Cold War diplomatic and trade relations with China.

And the Pentagon, which would appear bitterly politically divided like every other government department in the US, announced officially to world media outlets that, 'General Minihan's analysis was not representative of the department's view on China'. (19)
No reference, however, was provided to whose interests Minihan was thought to serve, although as a former deputy commander of the Indo-Pacific Command during the final part of the former Trump administration he was obviously politically acceptable to those concerned which also included the corporate sector of the military-industrial complex.

1.     China says general's call on war in 2025 'reckless', Australian, 31 January 2023.
2.     See: US seeks new Asia defences,  The Wall Street Journal, 24-26 August 2012.
3.     Ibid.
4.     Pentagon plays the spy game, The Guardian Weekly (U.K.), 7 December 2012.
5.     The reasons behind Washington's push for GSOMIA., Hankyoreh, 12 November 2019.
6.     US Marines, CNN., 27 January 2023.
7.     Hankyoreh, op.cit., 12 November 2019.
8.     Beijing keeps a wary eye on new US Taipei outpost, Australian, 18 June 2018.
9.     See: Peter Projection, World Map, Actual Size.
10.   Guam won't give up more land, Prism, 4 June 2021; and, New US base on Guam, The Wall Street Journal, 26 January 2023.
11.   US Marines, CNN., 27 January 2023.
12.   2024 transfer of Okinawa marines, The Kyodo News, 9 December 2022.
13.   Ibid.
14.   US is planning, The Republicworld.com, 31 January 2023.
15.   The US Air Force, The National Interest, 12 February 2021.  
16.   Australian, op.cit., 31 January 2023.
17.   See: Taiwan local elections say no to DPP rule, call for peace, The Global Times, 28 November 2022.
18.   Ibid.
19.   China warns: stop meddling in Taiwan, Australian, 1 February 2023.

New Ambassador To The USA Kevin Rudd Supports Taiwan Military Build-Up

(Photo: Kevin Rudd on Flickr Creative Commons)

 Written by: Ned K. on 29 December 2022

Kevin Rudd has recently been appointed Australian Ambassador to the USA. He is already based in the USA in his role as President of the Asia Society Policy Institute in New York. Prime Minister Albanese was a Rudd supporter during the Rudd/Gillard battle for the position of Prime Minister in Labor's previous period as federal government.

Rudd was called upon by the mass media for his views on world events, particularly events involving China, after he left the parliamentary scene. 

What can we expect from Kevin Rudd in his new role regarding advice he may provide to Prime Minister Albanese on the rivalry between the USA and China?

A recent Letter to The Editor from Kevin Rudd that appeared in the Adelaide Advertiser on Wednesday 28 December may give us an indication of what lies ahead.

In August this year Rudd had commented on Nancy Pelosi's visit to Taiwan which he described as "unwise" at the time. A Murdoch Press-owned Advertiser Editorial on 12 August 2022 labelled Rudd's position as "appeasement" of China.

Rudd replied in the form of a Letter to The Editor, but the Letter only appeared on 28 December following a complaint lodged with the Australian Press Council!

The Letter sets out Rudd's view on how best to assist Taiwan. The Letter says "Taiwan doesn't need more political grandstanding by foreign politicians for its defence.  It needs military upgrades that will make Beijing's generals nervous about the pitfalls of invading. And for Washington and its allies to narrow the military gap as a regional deterrent.  This is not appeasement (towards China), it is deterrence."

Rudd continues, "As someone who has actually lived in Taiwan, that has always been my policy...Was Taiwanese national security better or worse as a result of the Pelosi visit?"

Rudd's words will be music to the ears of the US military industrial complex as his words fit in nicely with the continued weapons build-up in Taiwan and supply of weapons by the USA.

Rudd's Letter to The Editor was written prior to the announcement of his appointment as Australia's Ambassador to the USA.

His position on how to "handle the Taiwan issue" complements AUKUS and the general military build-up in Australia geared for a US war against China rather than for self-defence of Australia.

Kevin Rudd is no friend of the Chinese Government, especially on the issue of Taiwan. For Rudd to refer in his Letter to The Editor to Taiwan's security as "national" in nature will be seen by the Chinese as implying that Taiwan is a nation, rather than a province of China.

So Rudd may, like Pelosi, have "poked the bear"!  Using the term "national" in reference to Taiwan is also muddying the stated Australian Government policy that there is only one nation of China whose government is in Beijing, not Taipei!

To safeguard the interests of the Australian people and indeed the people of Taiwan, both Rudd and the Albanese Government should declare that Australia opposes military build-up of the USA in Taiwan and that the Australian Government will not be involved in any war between the USA and China.

 

People of China’s Taiwan Province Have Endured Many Years of Struggle Against Western Colonialism and Japanese Militarism.

 Written by: Ned K. on 12 August 2022

The growing rivalry between USA and China has thrown the spotlight on the island of Taiwan in recent weeks. The Australian Government and the "Opposition" led by Peter Dutton have been competing to show who has the greater allegiance to the USA in this big power rivalry.

Foreign Minister Penny Wong initially leads the charge by "pointing the finger" at China's reaction to Pelosi's visit to Taiwan. This is soon followed by Wong and Acting Prime Minister calling for de-escalation between China and the USA over Taiwan.
 
Peter Dutton tries to outdo Penny Wong by calling Taiwan an "independent country" and then a few days later having to back track on that as his master the USA does not officially recognize Taiwan as an independent country and neither did his own Party when in government in Australia!

The Chinese Ambassador to Australia then comes out at the National Press Club and says China will take back the province of Taiwan by any means necessary but that China wants to "reset" the relationship between China and Australia.

Relationship between People of Mainland China and Island of Taiwan Goes Back A Long Way

Meanwhile the people of Taiwan continue their daily lives as do the people on mainland China. There is a strong historical link between the two.

Both have been subjected to exploitation of western colonial/imperial powers over hundreds of years.

Taiwan's Indigenous peoples have lived in Taiwan for the last 15,000 years. They are Malayo Polynesian with a strong migratory history extending from Madagascar to Easter Island to New Zealand in the south Pacific. Their languages belong to the Austronesian linguistic family. 

There are 14 separate Indigenous groups in Taiwan and in 2010 the total population of all 14 groups was estimated to be about 512,700 people, approximately 2% of the population of Taiwan. They lived as hunter gatherers and self-sufficient farmers. Three indigenous groups, Amis, Paiwan and Atayal account for 70% of the total indigenous population of the island.

In 1542 the Portuguese colonialists "discovered" the island and called it Ilha Formosa which means "Beautiful Island"

However, it was the Dutch colonialists through the Dutch East India Company in 1624 that changed the then Formosa for ever. The Dutch set up a base in the southeast of the island and built a trading port. They tried to force the Indigenous people to work for them on large cash crops for sale and exports but the Indigenous people resisted this.

So the colonial Dutch rulers offered tax breaks and free land (on Indigenous land!) to Chinese from Fujian province initially from the mainland. 

The Dutch colonialists saw an opportunity for cheap labour as thousands of Chinese wanted to flee from the invading Manchu armies from the north.

The Dutch military pledged protection of the Chinese from assaults by the indigenous people on the island. (See: How Taiwan Became Chinese by Tonio Andrada, 2007).

So, Taiwan effectively became a Chinese settlement under Dutch rule. In a short space of time thousands came from the mainland to the island looking for a better life due to the invasion of China at the time by the Manchus.
The Dutch colonialists got their pound of flesh from the Chinese farmers who settled in Taiwan through imposition of taxes, tolls and licenses.

This exploitation of the Chinese by the Dutch led to a Chinese merchant Prince Zheng Chenggong's army sweeping the Dutch off the island in 1642.

In 1683 the Qing empire of mainland China tool control of Taiwan.

In 1885 Taiwan was declared a province of the Qing dynasty of China but in 1895 the island became subjected to aggression from Japanese imperialism. Under the Treaty of Shimonoseki, the Qing dynasty ceded Taiwan to Japan with Japan occupying Taiwan until 1943.

In 1943 under the Cairo Declaration between the KMT-led Republic of China (ROC) government on mainland China, the USA and UK, Taiwan came under the rule of the ROC. 

In 1945 the ROC became a founding member of the United Nations and when the Chinese Communist-led Peoples Liberation Army defeated the KMT in 1949, the KMT under Chiang Kai-shek fled under US protection.

In 1971 the ROC withdrew from the United Nations and due to the overwhelming power of the People's Republic of China, the One China Policy of both the USA and Australia emerged. In 1979 diplomatic ties between the ROC and the USA ceased.

Since the 1970s the working people of Taiwan including the Indigenous peoples have lived honest, hard-working lives and they are the people who actually built through their mental and physical labour the manufacturing and telecommunications industries that modernised the economy on their island home.

However, their historical ties with mainland China remain strong as are their economic ties.
In 2010 41.8 % of Taiwan's exports went to mainland China. 15% of Taiwan's imports come from mainland China.

 US Imperialism Main Danger of People of Taiwan

Since the 1620s western powers and Japanese militarism have exploited both the Indigenous people of Taiwan and the Chinese people of Taiwan who comprise 98% of the population.

In one way, the Chinese Taiwanese and the non-Indigenous people of Australia have something in common. Both are settler societies but also both have been menaced by western imperial powers over the last few hundred years.  Both the Taiwanese people and Australian people face the same principle imperialist aggressor, the USA, at the moment. 

Both Australian and Taiwanese people have a common interest in seeing a withdrawal of US military forces from Australia and the western Pacific region which includes the island of Taiwan. 

Withdrawal of US forces from the western Pacific area is the greatest hope of a peaceful reunification of the province of Taiwan with the People's Republic of China and in the best interests of people in Australia.

Pelosi's reckless visit to Taiwan also threatens Australia

 Written by: B. Bill on 8 August 2022

You might be inclined to look at Pelosi’s interference in internal Chinese issues by speaking in Taipei as simply a desperate display of arrogance and self importance by a politician on the way out. This couldn’t be more wrong.

It is part of an intricate strategy to raise tension with China by the career warmongers in Biden and Pelosi that currently direct US imperialism. The endgame of this strategy is catastrophic war. We don’t know how far away this war is, but one thing is for certain.

That certainty is that if this war were to break out while we are as blindly subservient to US foreign policy as we have been since WW2, be it tomorrow, be it in 40 years time, it is Australia who is going to be feeling China’s wrath the most devastatingly.

In allowing our country to be used as the staging ground for Pine Gap and other US military installations that make us the number one intelligence asset the US has in watching China, we have made ourselves a legitimate target for devastating attack the second war breaks out.

Being the US’ ‘deputy sheriff’ in the Pacific means that our military will be sent in as the very first wave to be slaughtered by Chinese forces. If you think Gallipoli was bloody, this will be Gallipoli on a 100x scale.

We gain NOTHING from our military ’alliance’ with US Imperialism. The ‘security’ it provides us from China is a crock and is only needed because we aid and abet US imperialism in the Pacific, facing China.

The minute we establish ourselves as a nation with a completely neutral, peaceful and independent foreign policy the ‘need’ for any of the ‘protection’ disappears. I really hope you have a think about how vital it is and the urgency with which we need to act. Your children’s future depends on it. Pulling out of AUKUS is the way to start.

 

Australian Government Stance on Taiwan is Par for its Pro-USA Course

Written by: Ned K. on 7 August 2022

The Pelosi visit to Taiwan, the Chinese government response and Australian Government response are worth thinking about for a few minutes at least!

From One China Policy To ‘What Is Next?’

A lot has changed since the Whitlam Labor Government showed the USA the way by establishing diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China (PRC) in the early 1970s. 

The establishment of diplomatic relations with the PRC led Australia to the One-China policy whereby the sole government of China, including the province of Taiwan, was the government in Beijing of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).

The Nixon government in the USA followed the same path soon after. 

However, the USA never ceased its economic and military support for the reactionary Chiang Kai-shek KMT led Republic of China (ROC) government set up when Chiang Kai-shek and his clique fled to Taiwan in 1949. The ROC claimed to be the government for not only Taiwan but the Chinese mainland as well, ignoring the fact of the KMT's defeat by the CCP and the Peoples Liberation Army and the founding of the Peoples Republic of China (RPC) on 1 October 1949.

During the war between the reactionary so-called "nationalist" forces of the KMT and the CCP from 1945-49, the USA backed the KMT and its setting up of a government in the island province of China, Taiwan. Chiang Kai-shek as leader of the KMT in December 1948 ordered the KMT's Central Bank to transport US $500 million worth of gold, silver and foreign currency to Taipei. The KMT also transferred many trained and experienced professionals to Taiwan when the KMT (and their USA backers) could see the writing on the wall that the CCP and the Peoples Liberation Army were going to win the war against imperialism and its supporters in China. The exodus of capital to Taiwan was a deliberate attempt by the KMT to sabotage what was already a mainland economy damaged by years of imperialist plunder and war.

The Australian Governments from 1949 up to the election of the Whitlam Government went along with the position of the USA regarding Taiwan by failing to recognize the PRC.

Every Labor and Liberal Government since the Whitlam Government has played the USA game of One-China policy but in practice recognizing Taiwan as an independent state rather than as a province of the Peoples Republic of China.

Australian Government Economic Ties With Taiwan

A brief look at the actual government to government relations between Australia and the Republic of China government in Taiwan and the economic relations between Australia and Taiwan shows that the Australian Government's One China policy is paper thin.

The Australian Government has a "representative office" in Taipei and the ROC has a "representative office" in Australia called the Taipei Economic and Cultural Office" (TECO).

In 2020 trade between Australia and Taiwan was $16.1 billion, placing trade with Taiwan as the twelfth largest trade between Australia and another regional identity.

Australia exports coal, iron ore, natural gas, aluminium, copper, agricultural and forestry products direct to Taiwan.

Taiwanese exports to Australia in 2020 were worth $5.1 billion and included refined petroleum, telecommunication equipment, motor cycles and bicycles.

Taiwanese investment in Australia in 2020 was $15.6 billion, an increase of 50.9 % year on year, mainly in the resource and banking sectors.

There are 9 Taiwanese banks in Australia, more than from any other economy. 

In April 2019 the Fortescue Metals Group-led Iron Bridge project  included Taiwan's Formosa Steel investment, the largest single investment in Australia, worth $1.2 billion.

Australian exports to Taiwan include tourism and education. Prior to restrictions of Covid 19, 20,000 students from Taiwan came to Australia in 2019 to study and 194,610 Taiwanese visitors came to Australia on short term tourist related visas.

Peaceful Reunification of Province of Taiwan and Peoples Republic of China  Less Likely

For decades the PRC has said it wants peaceful reunification, even at one stage saying Taiwan would maintain its own standing army! 

As China has moved further away from the socialist road and as the USA has become more provocative towards China as China has grown to rival the USA on the world stage, the likelihood of peaceful reunification have become more unlikely.

Australia Needs An Independent Foreign Policy

In a war between the PRC and Taiwan's ROC backed by the USA, it is predictable that the Australian Government will support the latter without hesitation. This will be due to the Australian Government's subservience to the USA ideologically, politically, militarily and economically and to maintain its economic relations with Taiwan as outlined above. The main reason the Australian Government maintains the facade of its One-China policy is that the Peoples Republic of China has become such a major export destination for Australia's mineral wealth, particularly iron ore. 

The current Australian Government's position of silence towards the USA's Pelosi’s provocative visit to Taiwan and the Australian Government's subsequent loud opposition to China's reaction to the Pelosi visit to Taiwan would have got a round of applause from the Pentagon and the White House. 

There are rich lessons here for the Australian people. The people have just elected a "Left wing" led Albanese Labor Government with a "Left wing" Foreign Affairs Minister in Penny Wong. The result finds the Australian people being led deeper into the firing line of a looming war between the USA and China. 

Millions of people in Australia have come to Australia to escape wars, oppression and abject poverty from all parts of the globe. The last thing they want is a government leading them in to an imperialist led war. Albanese Government will be short lived unless it charts a course independent from the USA and any other big powers.

  

ASPI: Speaking for the US on Taiwan

 Written by: (Contributed) on 14 May 2021

Early this year an intelligence assessment about Taiwan was declassified, immediately after the inauguration of the Biden presidential administration. Details contained in the assessment were highly incriminating; providing evidence that the timing of the release of the report was not a coincidence.

The intelligence assessment soon came to dominate a great deal of political and military discourse in Australian mainstream media.

Subsequent revelations about Australian Government foreign policy provision have also thrown light upon shortcomings in the corridors of power in Canberra with their slavish adherence to US-led diplomacy, while not recognising the legacy of problems created by the Trump administration.

Other relevant information, for example, was also conveniently side-lined in an attempt to avoid serious analysis of US corporate interests and Taiwan.

In early February the Australian Defence Department released an intelligence assessment warning that China may 'attempt to take over Taiwan using all means short of war as early as 2024'. (1) The assessment had apparently been given to the Morrison Coalition government the previous May although it remained classified as a standard procedure. It suggested a likely trigger for China to focus attention upon Taiwan was the possible election of a pro-independence presidential administration in forthcoming elections scheduled for 2024. The assessment stated that while 'a conventional military invasion of Taiwan is unlikely …  Beijing is … likely to pursue a protracted and intensive campaign using all means short of war to force the Taiwanese leadership to start negotiating'. (2)

The intelligence assessment stated, in conclusion, 'it would be a strategic nightmare for Australia, South Korea and the US'. (3)

The release of the report took place shortly after the inauguration of the Biden presidential administration and the controversial events on Capitol Hill. It is also important to note Taiwan was a foreign policy preoccupation with the Trump administration: arms sales were dramatically increased to Taipei during the 2017-20 period and President Tsai Ing-wen was made a welcome guest by the Trump administration in the US. The near five hundred US personnel hosted by the Taiwanese government in the American Institute in Taipei who are on temporary leave from the US State Department, likewise, appear to be a front-line part of US-led diplomatic and intelligence hostilities toward China. (4)

Within days of the release of the intelligence assessment the issue of Taiwan became a high priority in mainstream Australia media outlets and has continued to remain a dominant feature of foreign policy coverage to date. The pro-Taiwan lobby would appear to have considerable support in Australia, on behalf of their US-backers.

Those who had received favourable treatment under the Trump administration would appear fearful of losing patronage with the incoming Biden administration.

All, however, is not what it would appear at first glance; other related information was not included in standard media coverage due to political chicanery in Canberra.

ASPI: Australians Serving Predatory Imperialism

A recent parliamentary submission to the Senate inquiry into foreign policy saw a senior Australian academic condemn right-wing think-tanks such as the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) for monopolising advisory positions in Canberra and elsewhere. (5) It was alleged 'the non-university foreign policy sector did not face the same academic rigour as the Go8 and the Morrison government should prevent low-quality research from non-university analysts influencing global policy too much'. (6)

The ASPI, as an influential lobby organisation, has an interesting history; it is not difficult to establish their political credentials and lineage. The ASPI was created by John Howard while he was Prime Minister in 2001, and formed part of a larger package of right-wing policies which were also included undermining the tertiary education system. Its first director was Hugh White a former intelligence official with the Defence Department and Office of National Assessments, revealing a classic tool of class and state power. It is part funded by the Australian Government together with the US State Department. A total of 17 per cent of its annual budget is also derived from foreign governments, including Taiwan, together with the major military contracting corporations and organisations. (7)

Those who pay the piper, obviously call the tune; they expect an endless stream of intelligence assessments to serve US-led foreign policy and defence and security considerations in the present Cold War with China.

Taiwan and the struggle for micro-chip domination

A recent ASPI report about Taiwan is, therefore, an interesting read in the given context.

The report, by Michael Shoebridge, suggested the US was determined to defend Taiwan for four listed reasons: the geography of the island as a strategic part of US foreign policy, the principle of bourgeois democracy whereby it could be used to promote a certain type of political structure, its unique role in semi-conductor manufacturing, and the maintenance of traditional hegemonic positions. (8) It is perhaps the third factor which is the most important for US foreign policy; the other three factors merely rest upon primary economic considerations.

Taiwan is one of the world's biggest producers of micro-chips; two chip foundries, Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) and United Microelectronic Corp (UMC), produce more than forty per cent of the global microprocessor market. (9) A third plant is also being constructed to manufacture 3 nanometre (nm) chips which have the potential to be at least 70 per cent faster than existing chips, pushing Taiwan to potentially grab an even larger section of lucrative global markets.

A great deal of the present conflict between the US and China revolves around ready access to higher levels of technology; the US fears China gaining better access to micro-chips.

The existing shortage of micro-chips has largely been created by the Trump administration banning Huawei from many western telecommunications systems. Huawei, realising they were being forced from western markets, went on a spending spree to accumulate as many as five billion micro-chips for their own manufacturing enterprises. (10) The legacy of short-term thinking by the Trump administration now hangs like a mill-stone upon successive generations.

In conclusion, the US now also face a major problem with foreign policy toward Taiwan. Corporate matters have merged with defence and security considerations; it has already been noted the advanced micro-chip nodes require tens of billions of dollars of investment and it was regarded as more cost-efficient to out-source key parts of the process to Taiwan.
(11) It is not difficult to find evidence: in fact, an official media release noted US analysts have already urged Intel to not bother arranging production of 7 nm micro-chips in their western plans and to out-source production to Taiwan. (12)

An estimated US$50 billion of the Biden administration's massive US$2.3 trillion infra-structure plan, furthermore, is specifically planned for US semi-conductor manufacturing, mostly in Taiwan. (13) An announcement TSMC have also planned to invest US$100 billion in micro-chip manufacturing over the next three years is further evidence of the enhanced position of Taiwan for US regional foreign policy.

The Australian Defence Department intelligence assessment about Taiwan, released earlier this year, was a furphy; the real cause of rising diplomatic tensions over Taiwan is primarily concerned with economic considerations and micro-chip production. Forthcoming presidential elections scheduled for 2024, while a consideration, are less important for establishing the true colours of the bigger corporate picture. The ASPI and their cronies, however, obscured information about economic matters in an attempt to provide another picture.

The fact that Australia has now been drawn into US-led Taiwan planning and the defence of US corporate interests has raised serious questions about what we are likely to expect in coming years with real-war scenarios in the name of 'US interests':

                                         We need an independent foreign policy!

1.     Takeover of Taiwan by China 'likely', Australian, 9 February 2021.
2.     Ibid.
3.     Ibid.
4.     Beijing keeps a wary eye on new US Taipei outpost, Australian, 18 June 2018.  
5.     Uni take a swipe at think tanks, Australian, 5 May 2021.
6.     Ibid.
7.     See Wikipedia: Australian Strategic Policy Institute, 2018-19 annual report; and,
        ASPI website, Funding, 2019-20.
8.     Thinking the unthinkable, The Weekend Australian, 8-9 May 2021.
9.     Why we should worry about the microchip crisis, Australian, 3 May 2021.
10.   Ibid.
11.   Taiwan key to chip war, Australian, 31 March 2021.
12.   Ibid.
13.   Chip shortage powers Big Tech profit as economies recover from Covid, Australian, 9 April 2021.

 

War clouds over the Taiwan Straits

 Written by: (Contributed) on 29 December 2020

A major diplomatic stand-off between the United States and China over the Taiwan Straits immediately prior to Xmas during the dying days of the Trump administration reveals the narrow waterway might become a future theatre of war.

It will be interesting, therefore, to note future Cold War positions taken by the incoming Biden administration and their likely effect upon Australia and Japan, which have both been drawn ever closer to US-led diplomatic positions and likely 'real-war scenarios' during the period of the Trump administration.

In the period leading to Xmas celebrations the US navy sailed the USS Mustin, a guided missile destroyer, through the Taiwan Straits, the water-way which has effectively divided mainland China with Taiwan since 1949, is only 130 kms at its narrowest, with an average width of 180 kms dividing the two landmasses. It is one of the most politically sensitive areas of the region; China has always regarded Taiwan as merely a renegade province since its establishment as Formosa in 1949. The position has been contested by Taiwanese governments in recent years with some demands for full independence.

The rise of China as a dominant regional player and second-biggest economy in the world has altered the traditional balance of forces across the sensitive northern part of the South China Seas; in recent years, for example, US military concerns have been raised about the 'growing imbalance of power across the Taiwan Strait'. (1)

During the past four years of the Trump administration diplomatic tensions and hostilities have soared over the Straits; the issue of Taiwan was raised during the initial Trump presidential election campaign and subsequently followed with a dramatic increase in defence spending to the tune of $17 billion US arms sales to Taiwan during the period of the administration. (2)

Behind the scenes there have been a number of important considerations, which include the Trump administration using Taiwan as a major part of their regional policy due to its close proximity to China.

While the US switched their diplomatic allegiance to China in 1979, they have always retained strong commitments toward Taiwan, often at a clandestine level. The present American Institute in Taipei, for example, has an estimated five hundred US diplomatic staff ostensibly on temporary leave from the State Department in Washington. (3) Meanwhile, their hosts in the administration of President Tsai Ing-wen, are 'increasingly being invited to regional dialogues on the Indo-Pacific organised by think tanks'. (4)

The ruling presidential administration in Taipei, which was re-elected earlier in the year, has been responsible for two policy commitments which run counter to traditional positions: raising questions about eventual independence for Taiwan and the implementation of a New Southbound Policy with the aim of establishing 'deeper ties with South-east Asian neighbours and beyond'. (5) Taiwan's foreign policy has also provided the Tsai Ing-wen administration with increased access into US-led nerve-centres of power and decision-making.

It has not proved particularly difficult to find examples of the role of Taiwan within US-led decision-making and implementation of more aggressive foreign policy options toward China.

Some of those involved in recent opposition protests in Hong Kong have been linked to Taiwan. The recent arrests of a group of opposition activists attempting to flee Hong Kong in a speed-boat were heading for Taiwan, where the Tsai Ing-wen administration has 'quietly turned a blind eye to residents turning up without proper visas or paperwork'. (6)

The Trump administration arms deals with Taiwan have also coincided with increased demands for independence from within the ruling administration, raising questions about whether they were undertaken as part of a planned and concerted diplomatic push; an official US Defence Department publication, The Indo-Pacific Strategy Report, June 2019, actually referred to Taiwan as a country. (7) The stated position runs counter to established UN protocol.

It is also important to note Taiwan remains a central consideration with Island Chain Theory (ICT), a classic Cold War type model and relic of the previous period which has been revamped by US military planners to restrict regional access and egress by China and their naval and maritime fleets in recent years; the three chains all use US strategically-placed landmasses. Taiwan, for example, is central to the first chain which runs from the Kuril Islands, through the Philippines to Borneo. The second has included Guam, a US territory. The third, has included Hawaii, the US regional command centre for the Indo-Pacific.

Recent US-led Cold War regional diplomatic positions have increasingly made use of ICT: when the Chinese Shandong aircraft carrier sailed through the Taiwan Straits a few days after the USS Mustin, diplomatic tensions soared; China was viewed as entering into a sensitive area of ICT.

The fact the USS Mustin was the twelfth such US-led naval presence in the Taiwan Straits during 2020, while the Shandong was the only Chinese naval presence during the same time period, has revealed just how aggressive US-led diplomatic positions have been during the past year. (8) The Trump administration has had no intention of accommodating China. Statements by the Trump administration over the wider South China Seas and so-called 'freedom of navigation' manoeuvres and exercises have been deliberately ambiguous; they have been, for all intents and purposes, examples of military engagement with China, falling into the grey zone of operations just short of real-war scenarios. (9)

The diplomatic position has rested upon earlier initiatives.

US regional foreign policy toward Taiwan has included 'strategic ambiguity … which … has guided US policy on Taiwan for decades'. (10) While the US remains formally committed with defence agreements to defend Taiwan, in reality they require other regional allies to maintain the position. The US requires military facilities in the Indo-Pacific region itself, for rapid deployment, if required. The Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI), a US agent of influence, proclaims that while 'Washington would provide military support   ... they would ... expect Japan and Australia to be involved'. (11)

Both Japan and Australia are regional hubs for 'US interests' linked directly into US-led military planning; they have, therefore, been placed into a difficult position in recent years. They are linked directly into a triangular diplomatic network with the US based on real-time surveillance with Pentagon-based military planning for regional operations.

The Trump administration has been responsible for pushing Taiwanese independence and attempting to alter the status quo. (12) China has not stood idly by, but countered many of the demands.

It remains, therefore, important to note the forthcoming position taken by the Biden administration, which will be likely to have considerable bearing upon Australia. It has been suggested the incoming Biden administration may seek a return to traditional US diplomatic positions and the status quo. (13) Whilst this may mean a less erratic and provocative stance, Biden is expected to be stronger and more direct in trying to stop China’s expanding influence. 
                               

We, therefore, need an independent foreign policy!

1.     U.S. seeks new Asia defences, The Wall Street Journal, 24-26 August 2012.
2.     Biden will speak softer but act stronger on Taiwan, foreignpolicy.com (FP), 10 November 2020.
3.     Beijing keeps a wary eye on new US Taipei outpost, Australian, 18 June 2018.
4.     Ibid.
5.     Ibid.
6.     'Speedboat fugitives' to face trial, The Weekend Australian, 26-27 December 2020.
7.     Taiwan Flashpoint, The Lowy Institute, 25 February 2020.
8.     Chinese carrier enters Strait, Australian, 23 December 2020.
9.     How will reckless adventurism in Taiwan Straits expose Trump administration, CGTN, 21 December 2020.     
10.   FP., op.cit., 10 November 2020.
11.   2021 the year of the wolf warrior at the door, Statement from the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, Australian, 23 December 2020.
12.   FP., op.cit., 10 November 2020.
13.   Ibid.