Reprinted from RT
China President Xi Jinping and Taiwan President Ma Ying jeou
(Image by What's Trending Now) Permission Details DMCA
The latest example took place last week during a meeting between Mr. Xi and Mr. Ma [Chinese President Xi Jinping and Taiwanese President Ma Ying-jeou] -- at the Shangri-La in Singapore. It was the first face-to-face between the two Chinas since the late 1940s, when they split after the civil war.
Sorry, not two Chinas; actually "One China," two nations -- or "one country, two systems," following the concept elaborated by the "Little Helmsman" Deng Xiaoping applying to Hong Kong and also, ultimately, Taiwan.
So Xi and Ma called each other a neutral "Mister." They shook hands over a neutral background (neither red nor blue, but orange). They split the bill at the -- excellent -- Shang Palace restaurant. They clinched no agreements. Above all, they talked.
Xi as usual stole the show with his soft power panache. "We are brothers connected by flesh, even if our bones are broken." Or what about, "We are a family whose blood is thicker than water."
Xi, after solidifying his power in Beijing like no one since Deng, essentially wants Taiwan to follow the 1992 Consensus -- which was brokered, by the way, in Hong Kong -- that says there is only "One China."
Of course each player, the motherland and Taiwan, have their own interpretations of exactly what "One China" means. So we're always forced back to subtle Chinese symbolism. What matters is the concept of the same nation -- although being governed in completely different patterns for 66 years now.
The Kuomintang -- currently in power in Taiwan -- may be upstaged in the next elections in January by the opposition Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) led by Ms. Tsai Ing-wen, which is way more pro-independence. For Beijing, independence is anathema.
So in the end they could not possibly close a deal on China's unification. For the near future, it will depend on how Xi will seduce Taiwan voters. Sixty-seven percent of them are in favor of Xi also meeting with the next President, in case it's Ms. Tsai. So even if still technically at war, they seem to be on their way towards discussing the possibilities of national unity.
The bottom line: the complex cross-strait puzzle is a Chinese affair to be solved by diplomacy. Not by Pentagon gunboat diplomacy.
I want my humanitarian imperialism!
Meanwhile, on the other side of the (Pacific) pond, we were witnessing the same old story, which I describe as the Pentagon's Empire of Whining. Blame all possible evils on China, of course. And blame it on Russia. After all, both Russia and China, not to mention their strategic partnership, are qualified as major threats in the latest US military doctrine.
Those were the days when MI6 in London harbored top intellectual firepower. So credit goes to former MI6 agent Alastair Crooke for concisely formulating why the US military establishment is so paralyzed by wrath.
Of course they need money. Lots of money. For that, they need "threats." What's better than the specter of China-Russia double trouble? That's a much more profitable -- and credible - blockbuster than GWOT (Global War on Terror).
And yet Ukraine and Syria have graphically shown, especially to the Global South, how a NATO-ruled world is dead. As in we decide what is peace and what is war in our own thumbs-down Coliseum.
Crooke emphasizes how Russia has launched a "sophisticated military campaign in the flash of an eye" -- something that NATO or the US military for that matter are totally incapable of.