Wednesday, 19 November 2025

China - Japan imbroglio: "The best outcome for China, Taiwan, the Globe, is the status quo" | Peter Forsythe

"The best outcome for China, Taiwan, the Globe, is the status quo"


Herewith a self-criticism.

I only just learned that there's a Sino-Japanese brouhaha. And I'm told it's serious. Just the latest one (I muse), but "it's serious!", I'm assured. 

Here's the thing. This would not have happened a few years ago. I would not have not known about this latest brouhaha. Because of newspapers. 

All my adult life I got hard copy newspapers, made out of actual paper. Here in Hong Kong it was the International Herald Tribune, the New York Times and the South China Morning Post, delivered to my front door every crack of dawn.

I'd come down for breakfast and luxuriate over an actual physical paper. It was a wonderful routine. 

What it meant was, one could know what was what in the world by the time of one's bus. At least the headlines. And in many cases, the story of the day in some detail. 

Then, over time, I let the hard copy subs lapse. As did most of the world. I did so a bit later than most -- the last one I finished just last year -- but finish the hard copy subscriptions I did. 

What I did was to take the digital version of all these. That means an App. But whereas there's only the paper newspaper in the morning, there's many Apps on one's phone. AI tells me that the average person has 60 to 80 Apps on their phone. I checked mine just now: I have 93! Yikes. 

So it's easy to forget. And since I -- we -- no longer watch the news on telly either, there's only what you get on the App if you go to the App. And sometimes I forget. I aim to look at my South China Morning Post App each day. After all, I do live in China, the Hong Kong part of it. But somehow haven't opened it for a week. I've been otherwise engaged with YouTube or doctors' visits. 

And so I've missed the story of the Japanese Prime Minister, the new one Sanae Takaichi, making a statement that made Beijing melt down in fury. I get told that by some OR's and that I ought to be incensed myself. And scared. 

Having looked into it now, I'm not incensed. And I'm not scared. 

Though for sure, this was avoidable and a mistake (I think) by the Japan PM, the newbie Sanae Takaichi. 

My basic thought about the situation is simple:

The best situation for China, Taiwan and the world is the status quo. We want things to just stay as they are. That's the best for all countries involved and for the world. 

Any war by China against Taiwan would be a regional and a global disaster. Even if China had a victory in landing on the island and taking over, it would be very much a Pyrrhic victory: with the costs way more than the benefits. 

With the status quo we have all the benefits of trade, investment, cross-border tourism and investment, with none of the costs. Taiwan is de facto independent, without the hassles of fighting for a de jure independence. The rest of the world trades with both, just fine. That's the way things are, and that's the best way things could ever be. Per Beatles: "Let it Be". 

I have long thought that the status quo was the best for China-Taiwan. Going back to my time in China in 1976, and my first visit to Taiwan in the same year. I learned of China's position on it. Pretty quickly I thought: this is something best left to be the proverbial can kicked down the proverbial road. Forever. 

Because it's very nice peace. As we have now. Or very awful war. Which would be disastrous. 

I've also said so on this blog over the years. Some examples below what I'm about to say.

Which, cleaned and tidied up, is this: 

"The best outcome for China, Taiwan, the Globe, is the status quo".
It has held for decades. It delivers prosperity to both sides of the Strait and prevents a catastrophic war that nobody could win cleanly. Beijing gains leverage by constant threats without paying the immense cost of actually firing a shot. 
Taipei preserves its democracy and its de facto independence. 
Washington keeps its policy of strategic ambiguity, which has deterred invasion while avoiding provocation. 
Everyone understands the rules. Everyone benefits from not breaking them.
That delicate balance is why no responsible leader should speak openly about Taiwan independence, and equally why no leader should spell out in public exactly what would trigger military support for Taipei. Strategic ambiguity works precisely because it is ambiguous. It forces Beijing to consider the worst-case scenario without giving it a clear casus belli.
Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s explicit linkage of a Taiwan contingency to Japan’s “survival-threatening situation” therefore broke a long-standing taboo. Her remarks were factually grounded in Japan’s 2015 security legislation, but stating them so plainly from the prime minister’s office was unnecessary and unwise. It handed Beijing a gift.
One could attribute it to inexperience – Takaichi has been in office less than a month. A more seasoned leader would have left the interpretation to staff officers and think-tank scholars. China, for its part, could simply have ignored the statement or filed a routine protest. Instead it chose maximum escalation: summoning the ambassador, military exercises, and a full-throated propaganda offensive.
That reaction was entirely predictable. On Weibo and WeChat (I get daily summaries) the response has been ferocious – wave after wave of virulent anti-Japanese hatred, calls for boycotts, historical grievances dredged up yet again, and wall-to-wall praise for the government’s “firm stand”. This is the standard playbook. Every external hint that Taiwan might not be unconditionally Chinese becomes an instant domestic rallying point. Which strengthens the Communist Party. the CCP does not need to invade Taiwan to profit from the Taiwan issue; it only needs the issue itself.
Meantime, the United States – the one power whose response actually matters – has remained remarkably calm. Neither President Trump nor Secretary of State Marco Rubio has amplified the controversy. Washington understands the game and has chosen not to play.
My guess: Beijing will not launch a war over a single Japanese prime ministerial statement. It will not invade Taiwan because of it. Nor should it. The noise will die down in a week or two, the patrols will return to their normal rhythm and the status quo – that quietly successful arrangement – will still be the least bad option for everyone. Cross fingers.

The lesson is simple: keep quiet, keep cool, and let ambiguity do its essential work. 

Here endeth the lesson.

===========================

Some references I've made to China-Taiwan status quo in the posts on this blog:

What did the Occupy Central leader think it would achieve by meeting Shih Ming-teh [the former chairman of the pro-independence Democratic Progressive Party in Taiwan]? It's simply not worth getting Beijing riled and suspicious. 
It strikes me as dangerous and boneheaded for the demonstrators to storm Legco (HK's parliament) vandalise the interior and especially to fly British flags. Crazy, silly, juvenile, counterproductive and dangerous. The same for calls for Taiwan "independence". 
If there is war over Taiwan it will only be because Beijing starts it. Taiwan just needs to stand pat, to keep saying “the status quo is best”. Because it is. And not call for “Independence”. Don’t do that. Don’t tweak the dragon’s tail.
Anyhow: let's hope Warburg and I are right. The status quo is the most attractive, for sure. We hope that China, Beijing, also sees that it is.
-
Labels: , , ,