Opinion: The future of the China-US-Russia triangle after Pelosi's visit to Taiwan

Since February 24, 2022, the international community's focus was concentrated entirely on the war in Ukraine and the growing Russia – West confrontation. It seemed that nothing could change the situation until the end of hostilities in Ukraine. However, on August 2 and 3, almost everyone’s attention shifted from Ukraine to Taiwan. As the Speaker of the US House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, stated her intention to visit Taiwan, up to half a million people were watching the trajectory of her plane on air flight tracking sites. The negative reaction of China, including the warning of President Xi during his conversation with President Biden that those who played with fire would be perished by it, created hype around this visit. Many were discussing the possibility of Chinese military jets closing the airspace over Taiwan and preventing Pelosi’s plane from landing in Taiwan, while some enthusiasts were even contemplating the possibility of a US-China direct military clash. As Pelosi landed in Taiwan and met with the Taiwanese President, the global social media was full of amateur assessments about the strategic victory of the US and the confirmation of the US global hegemony. However, as the dust settles down, and information noise and manipulation eventually decreases, a more serious assessment is needed to understand the real consequences of this visit.

Pelosi will probably not be re-elected as Speaker after the mid-term elections scheduled for November 2022, and she wanted to effectively end her political career by showing her support for Taiwan and democracy in general.

First of all, it should be noted that this was not the first visit of its kind. Newt Gingrich met with Taiwanese President Lee Teng-hui in Taipei in 1997. To be sure, Gingrich was a Republican Speaker during a Democratic administration, while Pelosi and Biden, in contrast, belong to the same party. However, anyone familiar with the US government system understands that the head of the executive branch has no legal ability to force the Speaker of the House of Representatives to do or not to do something. Yes, Biden and Pelosi are Democrats, but Biden is not the Chairman of the Democratic party, and neither is Pelosi a Vice-Chairwoman who is forced to listen to her boss. Theoretically, Biden could ban the military jet that took Pelosi to Taiwan to fly to the island using his powers as commander-in-chief, but that step would be challenging to explain, especially as in June 2021, three US senators arrived in Taiwan aboard a US Air Force plane. Other American officials visited Taiwan too. For example, the Trump administration in 2020 sent the US Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar to Taipei.

The real reason for China’s resentment was not the fact of Pelosi’s visit, which was not agreed with President Biden. Pelosi will probably not be re-elected as Speaker after the mid-term elections scheduled for November 2022, and she wanted to effectively end her political career by showing her support for Taiwan and democracy in general. Pelosi had very complicated relations with China in the last three decades. Most famously, in 1991, she visited Tiananmen Square and displayed a banner honoring the demonstrators, while the Chinese government has made no secret of its disdain for Pelosi, once labeling her "full of lies and disinformation."

The core reason behind Beijing's complaints is the belief that the United States is moving away from its one-China policy. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo congratulated Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen on her inauguration in 2020, and Secretary of State Antony Blinken publicly referred to Taiwan as a “country.” The Biden administration invited Taiwan to participate in its Summit for Democracy held in December 2021. Given the growing arms sales to Taiwan, Beijing argues that the US violates the third communique on arms sales to Taiwan signed by the US and China in August 1982. Thus, China believes that the chances for the peaceful reunification of Taiwan with China are diminishing due to the shift in US policy. At the same time, according to the Chinese Anti-Secession law adopted in March 2005, Taiwan is part of China, and the Chinese state shall never allow the "Taiwan independence" secessionist forces to make Taiwan secede from China under any name or by any means. According to article 8 of that law, if possibilities for a peaceful reunification are completely exhausted, the Chinese state shall employ non-peaceful means and other necessary measures to protect China's sovereignty and territorial integrity.

The world may end up with the establishment of two rival blocs, while other great powers, such as India and Brazil, will seek to balance between them, thus pushing forward the idea of multi-polarity to succeed a unipolar world order.

For at least a decade, the Chinese army has been preparing to takeover Taiwan militarily. Of course, this does not mean China will start the war in the coming weeks or months. From the Chinese perspective, time is on China’s side, as China will continue to rise while the US passes its peak of power and enters the inevitable path of decline, like any other empire. Thus, if a war over Taiwan is inevitable, it makes no sense to start it now if, in 2030 or 2035, China will be in a much better position to achieve its objective. The war over Taiwan will significantly damage the Chinese economy, potentially throwing back decades of economic achievements; thus, there is no need to do it now, since China still has potential for further growth. However, China will not wait forever. In an official document called “Outline of the 14th Five-year plan (2021-2025) for National Economic and Social Development and Vision 2035 of the People’s Republic of China", there is a particular point on constructing a high-speed railway that will connect Taiwan and the Chinese coastal province of Fujian. That suggests that China should finish the process of return of Taiwan by at least 2035.

Meanwhile, the perception in China that the US has dropped its one-China policy – amidst other growing tensions in US-China relations such as the situation in Xinjiang, Hong Kong and Tibet, and the trade war started by the administration of President Trump – will probably push China closer to Russia. As the war in Ukraine resulted in a complete rupture in Russia – West relations and brought about the US-led Western efforts to isolate Russia from the West, the Kremlin would positively view a closer partnership between Russia and China. The two countries may deepen their defense cooperation and continue their efforts to abandon the US dollar in their bilateral trade, seeking to undermine US global financial hegemony. As discussions on the resumption of the Iranian nuclear talks are very close to failure, Iran may join this partnership, thus creating some loose anti-Western alliance. The world may end up with the establishment of two rival blocs, while other great powers, such as India and Brazil, will seek to balance between them, thus pushing forward the idea of multi-polarity to succeed a unipolar world order.

source: Benyamin Poghosyan is the founder and Chairman of the Centre for Political and Economic Strategic Studies in Yerevan.
photo: Getty Images
 
The views expressed in opinion pieces and commentaries do not necessarily reflect the position of commonspace.eu or its partners.

 

Latest

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

Making peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan was never going to be simple, nor easy, nor quick. It is taking time, writes Dennis Sammut in this Monday Commentary. “There is a sense of realism coming from the leaders of the two countries – President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan and prime minister Nikol Pashinyan of Armenia, that frankly, is necessary and welcome”, he writes. At a time when conflicts are raging all over the world – from Ukraine to the Gulf, from Africa to South Asia, the prospect that Armenia and Azerbaijan had finally, after decades of conflict that left thousands of dead and many more displaced, decided on embarking on a journey of peace was welcomed. Peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan can be top-down up to a point. Both leaders have spent political capital preparing for a peace deal. But both are aware that their people are not ready for peace yet. In fact, in Armenia, most of the elite are negative toward a peace deal with Azerbaijan. Pashinyan needs time to persuade his countryfolk. That is why 2031 is realistic. Ilham Aliyev runs a tighter shop, but he is also not immune to public opinion. Every time someone hits a landmine in Karabakh, which unfortunately happens often, peace comes into question. Which is why Aliyev chooses to sound hardline, more often than not. In pursuing the peace agenda, both Aliyev and Pashinyan need to proceed cautiously. But they are right in making peace the central issue in their agenda. It is the main issue, and the one that will define them in history. So forward, cautiously but resolutely! In pursuing the peace agenda, Aliyev and Pashinyan need to be supported clearly and unambiguously. There are too many people in Baku and Yerevan who are sitting on the sides, waiting. The international community is not doing enough. It is time to be counted. Otherwise, the spoilers will win, and the region will go back to its bad habits. (Click the image to read the full commentary).
Editor's choice
News
European Union and Canada agree on "Alliance for the future" at milestone Montreal summit

European Union and Canada agree on "Alliance for the future" at milestone Montreal summit

António Costa, President of the European Council, and Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, represented the EU at the 21st EU-Canada summit, which took place in Montreal on 29 and 30 October 2026. Prime Minister Mark Carney represented Canada. The summit marked a major milestone in EU-Canada relations, paving the way for an even broader and deeper political partnership. Leaders took stock of progress made since the previous EU-Canada summit and issued a joint statement launching an Alliance for the Future. Building on their longstanding strategic partnership, the alliance aims to deepen cooperation and create a common prosperity and economic security space. This is a moment to act with clarity and ambition. By aligning more closely – economically, technologically and strategically – Canada and the EU are building an Alliance for the Future based on trust and shared values that meets the scale of today's challenges and opportunities and will reinforce the freedom, prosperity and safety our citizens expect and deserve. We are stronger together. Building on their existing Strategic Partnership Agreement, the EU and Canada will deepen political engagement and coordination on shared priorities. Leaders welcomed the increasingly frequent exchanges with Canadian ministers at relevant Council and ministerial meetings. The EU and Canada will build on these exchanges through regular summits, joint ministerial meetings and cooperation committees. The partners will work to define the concept of an ever-closer association of Canada to the EU, short of full membership, by the 2027 EU-Canada summit. (click image to read more)

Popular

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

Last week I visited Baku, Azerbaijan. My visit was relatively short, but very intensive, and had many meetings with stakeholders and colleagues. When I arrived in Baku first time in 1996,  Azerbaijan was a different country: weak, poor, and shaken by defeat in war. For thirty year the Karabakh issue dominated the agenda: the political agenda but also the popular mindset. Now, thirty years later, Azerbaijan has returned to Karabakh, and peace with Armenia is on the horizon. It is a new era for Armenia-Azerbaijan relations, for the South Caucasus, but also for Europe.  But we cannot be complacent: the Peace agreement has been initialed but not signed; borders remain closed; TRIPP is ambitious but remains an idea; and there are spoilers who want to turn the clock back. We must not allow them, and in this Europe and Azerbaijan must work together. Europe’ vanguard organization is the European Union – it is a free union of 27 member states; it is a strong global economic force, and increasingly a diplomatic and military force too. But it remains “work in progress” and can often appear dysfunctional. It often lacks collective and institutional memory. In its dealings with Azerbaijan the EU has made many mistakes – not least opening the delegation here late – in 2008. It sometimes appears condescending. Some utterances from the European Parliament and from some quarters in some member states are not understandable even for me. They irritate the Azerbaijanis, but serve no other purpose But Azerbaijan has also not handled relations with the EU well. It has failed to respond when the hand of friendship reached out; and it confused irritating actions, sometimes by well-meaning people; sometimes by outright spoilers, with strategic action. In short, EU-Azerbaijan relations have suffered from a lack of proper dialogue. This dialogue must be frank, honest and multi-faceted involving different segments of society on both sides.   Is Azerbaijan Europe? When Azerbaijan applied to join the Council of Europe in the 1990s, there were some who opposed, saying this was not Europe. I was one of the people who argued that Armenia and Azerbaijan may be on the periphery of the continent geographically, but were European in essence. Certainly their elites. During the discussion on 4 September in Baku, my friend Farhad Mammedov, mentioned that Azerbaijan is not interested in joining the EU, and was now close to the Central Asian countries in the 5 plus 1 format. Neither things mean that Azerbaijan is not Europe. There are several European countries that are not in the EU, and do not want to be, for example Norway and Switzerland. Iceland has recently voted to stay out of the EU. The UK was a member and left. Europe is bigger than the EU, and the holding of the European Political Community summit in Baku in 2027 proves that. Despite all the rhetoric, I never heard the president of Azerbaijan  saying that Azerbaijan is not Europe, nor have I heard any European president say it either. Not wanting to join the EU and forging close relations with neighbouring regions does not make Azerbaijan any less European. It is only logical that when Europeans talk to Azerbaijan they talk like family. The conversation is often frank. It must also be honest, and Europeans need always to remember this too. A frank, honest and multi-faceted dialogue A frank, honest and multifaceted dialogue will contribute to relations between Azerbaijan and the rest of Europe: it will avoid misperception, which unfortunately is very common on both sides; it will provide a forum where problems can be discussed and resolved, and it will increase mutual trust, so that together common problems can be addressed. (click image to read the full Monday Commentary)
Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

There are two early 20th-century tunes that mark foreign attempts to occupy and “pacify” Yemen. The Scottish tune “The barren rocks of Aden” marks the mobilisation of Highland soldiers, enlisted to be deployed to the Yemeni port of Aden, that in 1837 became the last colony to be incorporated into the British Empire. The tune talks of the harshness of the terrain, but is celebratory, It was even played as a farewell tune to Sir William Luce at the parade in Sharjah celebrating his end as “British Viceroy” in the Middle East in 1966. The second tune is an Anatolian lament. As Ilker Sezer reminded us this weekend, in his weekly feature on “Turkiye Today”, it “mourns the tragic fate of Ottoman soldiers dispatched to the harsh, remote deserts of Yemen during the fall of the empire, young men who marched away from their villages and never returned home. Most of their names, and numbers, were never recorded. Yet, their fate left a mark on the Turkish psyche.” Subsequent invaders have discovered that Yemen is a grave that cannot be overcome by the strength of modern technology, and that whilst Yemeni society is splintered and divided, building a reliable alliance with Yemeni factions is difficult. These are the harsh lessons facing Saudi Arabia, as the Kingdom faces its biggest challenge in its modern history. The leadership of the Kingdom now has to respond decisively. At stake is their very credibility. This is likely to be a long and messy conflict. Saudi military objectives need to be focused: to box in the Houthis rather than destroy them. This is likely to include: (a) regaining territory lost on the Red Sea coast; (b) control over Bab el Mandeb Strait; (c) some kind of cordon sanitaire on the Saudi-Yemeni border; and if things go well (d) the capture of Sanaa. All this would not eliminate the Houthi problem, but it will contain it. In the end the Saudis will have to continue managing Yemen with a mixture of carrot and stick. For the moment, the stick is likely, but the carrot cannot be forgotten either. (click the image to read the Monday Commentary in full)