Taiwan: has the US really "played with fire"?

The media tell us of an Indo-Pacific in turmoil after the visit "I'm going-I'm not going-I'm going" of the speaker of the US House in Taiwan.

Now, even without having particular sympathy for Nancy Pelosi, it cannot be denied that the Indo-Pacific had been anything but "peaceful" for years and not only in relation to the Taiwan problem (which dates back to 1949), but in relation to multiple factors, among which the most significant are perhaps the rampant Chinese imperialism, the geopolitical and economic contrast between the USA and China and related areas of influence (because yes, whatever the beautiful souls think , zones of influence exist and have their weight) and North Korean tantrums. Fundamentally, these factors can be summarized in one: The Indo-Pacific is now the center of gravity of world maritime trade and the US and China are fiercely competing for control (the defense of civil rights in Taiwan is essentially a weapon of this power struggle).

There is no doubt that even if Beijing considers the island-state its "province" perhaps a bit rebellious and has announced to regain total control by 2049 (or a century after Chiang Kai-Shek's nationalists barricaded themselves in thriving former Portuguese colony of Formosa, a decidedly symbolic date, and not tomorrow morning) Taiwan has never recognized the People's Republic of China, it considers itself the only legitimate heir of the Celestial Empire and has the right to self-determination (even if this "right" for us "Western Democrats" only applies to alternating current, as well as that of territorial integrity¹, i.e. only when their conjugation results in favor of the countries in the sphere of influence of our partners or in any case against our opponents or competitors).

After the questionable blame game “Good cop-bad cop"Between Biden and Pelosi (a curtain that true or false it could only have further compromised the already shaky credibility of POTUS² in the Asian quadrant), it is difficult to believe that the Speaker's move contributed to the stability of the region and the security of Taiwan.

It is true that the US needs to re-establish its credible role in the Indo-Pacific and reassure the nations of the region who fear more and more the arrogance and the growing Chinese expansion, also materialized by the "Belt & Road Initiative" ( what we Italians call "the new Silk Road").

The Chinese expansion³ in the Indo-Pacific it is particularly evident today and also represents the basis for the increasingly rampant expansion of Beijing on the African continent.

In 2017, the US revitalized the QUAD (Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, originally created to manage post-tsunami aid in 2005) with Australia, India and Japan. Moreover, the initiative was little more than formal. A real multilateral approach to confrontation with China would require Washington to be able to involve the ASEAN countries (Association of South East Asian Nations) in its favor. However, many of these, while aware of the Chinese threat, are now economically too dependent on Beijing and too fearful of its economic (or even military) retaliation to support the US.

Both Russia and China have recently launched a "purchasing campaign" in the region which seems to leave Washington increasingly restricted room for maneuver. On the other hand, these countries are well aware that China is on their doorstep and is ready to act with determination and regardless of international law. In this regard, it was also seen what their position was regarding the condemnation of the Russian aggression against Ukraine. In the Indo-Pacific, sanctions against Russia have only been adopted by Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand and Taiwan.

From this point of view, Taiwan can represent a symbol. That is, the message that Washington may want to send to the countries of the region would seem to be: “Do not give up your values ​​and do not fear Beijing's arrogance, we will know how to defend you”. On the other hand, reassurances in this sense are indispensable in an area of ​​the world which, even if it had forgotten the hasty abandonment of Saigon almost half a century ago, has certainly not forgotten the passivity of the USA on the occasion of the very severe Chinese repressions in Hong Kong. of the summer two years ago or the brancaleonesco abandonment of Kabul last summer! And some may wonder if that against Taiwan could be this year's "betrayal".

In this context, Pelosi's visit may want to underline the US determination to defend their Ally (which, moreover, in accordance with real-politik and the principle of "one China" not even Washington has ever recognized as an independent state, but these compromises are inevitable to which, in the real world, one must reluctantly succumb).

Therefore, the ideal reasons behind the trip of the speaker of the Chamber are understandable in theory, but the historical moment may not have been the most appropriate.

The Russian-American confrontation in Ukraine and the start of a parallel economic war by the US and the EU against Russia is also producing as a side effect (I don't know if planned or not) demarcation of the world into two camps: those who do not trade with Russia and those who trade with Russia (which does not necessarily mean being “pro-Putin”, but just not wanting to join a hetero-direct trade war).

Economically, the former side has its center of gravity in the G7, while the latter appears to have its center of gravity in a BRICS.⁴, which is acquiring new followers on all continents.

Strong element (geo-politically and economically) of this second side is obviously China.
China would be, in the opinion of the writer, the only power able to carry out a mediation in relation to the Ukrainian crisis, truly negotiating between the US and Russia (which are the two strategic contenders of this crisis). Erdogan's ability to negotiate is limited and basically the "Sultan" seems to exploit his arbitration role only to get green lights now from Washington now from Moscow to pursue exclusively Turkish geopolitical objectives in the perspective of his neo-Ottoman vision.

Perhaps, if one were to try to get help from China for a solution to the Ukrainian crisis, it would not be the most opportune moment to wave the classic "red cloth" about Taiwan. Especially at this time when relations between the US and China seem to have reached the lowest point since, almost fifty years ago, with Nixon there was the recognition of the People's Republic of China.

Especially since Xi-Jingping, who famously aims for his third term as general secretary and even to be proclaimed "leader of the people" (the XX Congress of the Chinese Communist Party should give him a green light on this in the next autumn), cannot afford to show himself weak at this moment and will likely be induced to adopt reactions far stronger than those that Pelosi's trip would have provoked at other times.

The doubt remains that the US really has an interest in China, even if it were available (and at the moment it would not seem), to fulfill such a mediating role that it would be in the interest of a rapid solution to the crisis (the writer does not believe that the US would appreciate such mediation).

However, an even more marked alignment of Beijing alongside Moscow in relation to the Ukrainian crisis is now foreseeable.

The decision of the lightning visit at this time and having made public a difference of opinion in this regard between Biden and Pelosi could, however, also find reasons for the US domestic electoral calculation.

The elections of mid-term, which will be held on November 8, the predictions for the Democrats are not particularly rosy also in relation to the loss of popularity of President Biden. It may be in the interest of the Democrats to draw attention to a charismatic and important figure in the party (which is undoubtedly Nancy Pelosi), outside the Biden administration (therefore not co-responsible for its management of foreign policy) to regain support for the Democrats of that side. of the electorate who considers the foreign policy of the current administration to be too low-willed and too prudent. In this context, it would explain why the difference of opinion between Biden and Pelosi was unexpectedly made public.

We hope that this is not the case and that the superpower that the "Western world" looks at is not willing to jeopardize the stability of the planet for vile electoral calculations (even if some experiences of the last decades may not comfort us in this hope).

Marking the point of principle, as Nancy Pelosi did, is often indispensable while paying the inevitable consequences.

In the event of an escalation of the crisis between China and Taiwan, however, the first consequences would be to the detriment of Taiwan. China would not need bombers or landing forces, it would be enough to apply the "economic war" to the island-state, blocking exports to Taiwan of raw materials essential to its technologically advanced production (semi-conductors, but not only) or possibly blocking exports by sea. The first effects in this sense are already manifesting.

In the event of a military escalation, in relation to Taiwan, the US should intervene directly and not through an “intermediary”.

As many analysts rightly point out, China is on a military-technological level it is not yet able to win a war confrontation with the USA. Quite right. Moreover, neither were the Viet-Cong or the Afghan "insurgents". The point, however, could be how many casualties for Taiwan can Washington endure without having to compromise and how many can Beijing endure? I fear that the comparison is not very reassuring for us Westerners.

From this point of view, while being motivated by high ideals, does it make sense to exacerbate an international crisis at a time already of great tension and, probably, without a prospect of how to manage this crisis in the long term?

Remember that in the event of an unfavorable trend for the Democrats in the next elections of mid-term (a possibility that today cannot be excluded) President Biden would become what the Americans call a "lame duck" and would have many difficulties in imposing a political line of firmness in foreign policy, as would be necessary in view of the serious crisis in relations with both China than with Russia.

Perhaps, as the Spartan leader Lysander said, "when the lion's skin is not enough, it is appropriate to wear that of the fox "⁵

Nancy Pelosi's recent visit to Taiwan reminds me of another sentence: "many enemies, much honor" and we know how it ended up for those who wanted to make it a motto of their foreign policy.