Pawns Discarded: How Stabilizing China-US Ties Corners Taipei

The most telling detail in President Xi Jinping's visit to the United States was his expression management.

Xi's Controlled Face

US President Donald Trump gave Xi a reception of exceptionally high protocol. He went personally to Andrews Air Force Base to greet him. It was a courtesy not seen in 62 years and a break with US diplomatic convention.

In the footage, Trump and First Lady Melania stood at the bottom of the airstairs of Xi's special plane, waiting respectfully for Xi and First Lady Peng Liyuan to step off.

The leaders of US allies who had been berated mercilessly by Trump in the Oval Office and left trembling must have had complicated feelings watching that scene.

I paid special attention to Xi Jinping's expression throughout the visit. It stayed relatively solemn. He smiled occasionally, but the smiles were quite restrained. The contrast with other foreign leaders meeting Trump was glaring.

Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi had come to the United States just a few days earlier. Not a single US government official went to the airport to meet her. Yet her expression as she waved at the empty air was 100 times happier than Xi.

I believe this is a form of expression management by Xi.

It takes me back to 2017, after Trump took office. In April that year, President Xi made his first visit to the United States. Trump even specially introduced his granddaughter Arabella, who sang the Chinese song 'Mo Li Hua' (Jasmine Flower) to Xi and recited the 'Three Character Classic' in Mandarin.

It was originally a rather endearing scene. But Xi gave only a very restrained, polite smile and showed no excitement. At the time, I already detected a serious expression on his face. He sensed that China-US relations were not so good, and it seemed to foreshadow the China-US trade war that would start a year later, in 2018.

Now the United States is welcoming Xi's visit with exceptionally high protocol. But China seems to be telling everyone: this is as far as China-US relationship can get. Differences can be managed, no military conflict breaks out, and economic and trade disputes are kept to a minimum. Good enough.

That leaves time. Time for us to focus on the major tasks: developing the country, strengthening the economy, and making breakthroughs in science and technology.

Just Panda Diplomacy

It is entirely consistent with President Xi remarks in his talks with Trump.

Xi said: "We do not need to avoid mentioning competition, but our competition should be a healthy one and should be kept within bounds. It should be a race of catching up with one another, not a wrestle in which one either wins or loses. China and the United States must hold the line of no conflict and no confrontation between us."

"We can certainly find the right path for our two great countries to get along on this planet we both call home. Our two militaries should maintain regular dialogue, and improve mechanisms for crisis communication and prevention. The Thucydides Trap can be overcome"

https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/xw/zyxw/202609/t20260924_12030982.html

Competition is the underlying tone of China-US relations, so no one should expect President Xi's visit to produce any major agreements.

The economic and trade committee Trump mentioned was already raised when he visited China in May. Launching an AI dialogue is indeed a new development, but it is not a big deal.

The stronger signal was Xi's gift of two giant pandas, Ping Ping and Fu Shuang, to Zoo Atlanta. A clear friendly gesture.

It carries little substance, but it can still strengthen friendship between the two peoples.

The American public feels this intuitively.

After President Richard Nixon visited China in 1972, China gave the United States the giant pandas Ling Ling and Hsing-Hsing. But when China-US relations turned extremely poor, the panda gift program stopped.

Now that China has resumed sending pandas to the United States, it is also a courteous reciprocation of Trump's ultra-high-standard welcome ceremony.

What truly deserves attention is the reaction from around the world.

Taiwan Takes the Hardest Hit

First, Taiwan.

Taiwan takes the hardest blow. Xinhua has explicitly stated that China raised the Taiwan issue directly during the two leaders' meeting.

In the past, when President Xi met Joe Biden, or Trump before that, he urged them not to support Taiwan independence, or explained the dangers of Taiwan independence. This time, Xi directly told Trump that he hoped the US would adhere to the "correct position" of opposing Taiwan independence.

Taiwanese media read the move as the mainland raising its bar.

China wants to halt the $14 billion US arms sale to Taiwan. Under this China-US relationship, US arms sales to Taiwan can only remain suspended.

Some people ask me whether war will break out in the Taiwan Strait. I say under Trump's rule, even a formalistic improvement in China-US relations can lead to his support for Taiwan falling sharply.

Last year, when Trump returned to office, three US warships still transited the Taiwan Strait in 2025. This year, the number is zero.

Taiwan has lost US support, and the voice of the Lai Ching-te government has also grown quieter.

Japan: A Pawn Discarded

Second, Japan.

Japan has always been America's pawn in East Asia.

As China-US relations soured in recent years, especially with the Biden-era Quadrilateral Security Dialogue involving the United States, Japan, India and Australia, Japan stepped out to provoke China.

Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi knew President Xi's visit would get high-level treatment. So she moved her trip to the United Nations General Assembly in New York several days earlier, trying to force Trump to meet her first.

In the end, they met for only half an hour. Takaichi beamed from ear to ear, and her expression became a hot topic online in Japan.

If Trump had welcomed Takaichi with the same protocol he rolled out for President Xi, she would probably have to write a book as soon as she got home.

But reality is clear: Japan has become a discarded pawn.

Under Trump's new Monroe Doctrine, he will shift America's focus back to the Western Hemisphere. Japan's only role is to invest heavily in the United States or buy more American arms.

If you want to oppose China, go do it yourself.

Europe's Offside Trap

Third, Europe.

Europe finds itself in an extremely awkward spot.

France's Le Monde said on September 23 that China now has the upper hand. The paper pointed out that under current trends, China's global trade surplus is expected to exceed one trillion US dollars for the second consecutive year.

When China and the United States held an artificial intelligence dialogue, European media noticed one thing: only China could sit at that table and negotiate with the United States.

Now Europe is imitating the United States. It is vowing to invoke "Section 301" tariffs on China to balance the China-Europe trade deficit.

Even the mighty United States launched a tariff war against China last year. It came away battered and bruised.

Europe played the fool by following the United States in opposing China. Now it has fallen into an offside trap.

The Bigger Opening

President Xi's visit to the United States this time was a show. But the global situation is tilting in a direction more favorable to our country.

That situation is creating a peaceful space for us. We can use that space to work hard for the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation.

Lo Wing Hung

Bastille Commentary

** 博客文章文責自負,不代表本公司立場 **

Two national security cases have recently wrapped up in quick succession.

On Thursday (10 September), two members of the "Hong Kong Democratic Independence Union" were sentenced to three years, and three years and two months in prison respectively. Both had pleaded guilty to "conspiracy to commit secession" under the Hong Kong National Security Law.

Then today (11 September), sentence was passed in the "incitement to subversion" case against the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China (the Alliance). Albert Ho Chun-yan, who pleaded guilty, was jailed for five years and two months.

The two defendants who pleaded not guilty, Lee Cheuk-yan and Chow Hang-tung, were jailed for seven years and seven years and three months respectively. 

The judge made it clear in sentencing why the Alliance case fell into the "serious circumstances" category. The case did not involve violence or any concrete method put forward by the defendants for "ending one-party rule."

But society was in turmoil at the time of the offence.

The defendants' activities continued for a full 14 months after the National Security Law came into force. Those activities were citywide in scope and attracted widespread attention.

The defendants believed that what they advocated might be unlawful, yet persisted regardless. The offending was premeditated.

The trials and tribulations Hong Kong has weathered since the handover amount to one giant political experiment. Every kind of political proposition has been put to the test, and we have seen the results.

Had these cases arisen in the early days after the handover, the verdicts might have read very differently to some.

Two young men aged 25 to 27, jailed for more than three years over a "nation-building union" that looked doomed to fail, might have seemed like the court making a mountain out of a molehill.

The same goes for the Alliance. Had its standing committee members been prosecuted in those early days, some might have felt they were merely chanting slogans to promote democracy. Perfectly harmless, undeserving of arrest and imprisonment.

But after more than two decades of development, we can now see with total clarity what these incendiary political activities can achieve. 

From the mass march against Article 23 legislation in 2003, to the illegal Occupy Central movement in 2014, to the all-out riots of 2019, unlawful activities escalated step by step until violent protests spun completely out of control.

The breaking point came on 11 November 2019 with the Ma On Shan incident, in which a man was set on fire. An utterly depraved manifestation of violent lawbreaking. 

The perpetrators believed they held the truth in their hands. They doused an unarmed civilian in flammable liquid and set him alight, intending to burn him to death. His only fault was trying to stop rioters vandalizing the MTR station.

Political violence had reached a point of no return, spiraling beyond control.

At the core of the Alliance stood the so-called traditional pan-democrats. They claimed to be promoting democracy in Hong Kong and the country. Yet they turned a blind eye to the street violence they themselves had incited, at times even tacitly condoning it. 

One need only look at what was exposed during the trial of Jimmy Lai to see this plainly. 

Back then, Lai instructed the senior management of Apple Daily to uphold "no distinction between the peaceful and the valiant".

In other words, they were not to draw a line between themselves and the valiant faction advocating violent struggle. That alone showed that the movement's descent into violence had the backing of big bosses behind the scenes. 

And behind these local opposition bosses stood the political forces of the United States and the West. 

Take Lee Cheuk-yan, a central figure in the Alliance case.

The Hong Kong Confederation of Trade Unions (HKCTU), to which he belonged, relied for years on funding from the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). Beginning in 1994, the HKCTU applied every year for grants from the NED-affiliated American Center for International Labor Solidarity. The cumulative total came to HK$13 million. 

Here was an organization directly funded by a foreign government, running labor and social movements in Hong Kong. Who could believe it thinks independently?

Piece the whole picture together and the through-line becomes complete. Beginning in the late 1980s, in the closing stages of the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union, the CIA set out to overthrow the entire socialist camp led by the Soviet Union. 

China's "June Fourth incident" also occurred against this backdrop.

While China and the United States had not yet fallen out completely, such activities proceeded in the shadows. After the rupture, and especially after Washington launched its trade war against China in 2018, the United States embarked on subversion against China without scruple. 

These were not activities to promote the development of democracy in China. They were subversive operations aimed at toppling state power. 

Consider this: the CIA today openly recruits spies targeting China. That tells you how grave the situation is.

With the Alliance case tried and sentenced, the legal boundary for such acts of subversion has now been clearly drawn. Do not imagine that chanting a few incendiary slogans or setting up some reactionary organizations is harmless. A single spark can start a prairie fire.

Drawing the legal red line is precisely about nipping these subversive activities in the bud.

Lo Wing-hung