Taiwan, the expert: “‘A China’ was a strategic mistake”

Berkofsky (Ispi): “Now a storm in a glass of water, Beijing would not be able to invade the island and its most important markets are the US and Europe”

A “strategic mistake” made many years ago. Now a “storm in a glass of water” in a “poisoned diplomatic climate that was poisoned before” Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan. He talks about it with Adnkronos Axel Berkofsky, professor at the University of Pavia and Co-Head of the Asia Center of ISPI, convinced that China is only “making noise” because it “has no interests” and “would not be able to invade Taiwan “, around which the maxi military maneuvers continue, and that it is time for the US to abandon the so-called” strategic ambiguity “, which” perhaps ambiguity is no longer “.

“The West should never have recognized the ‘one China’ formula”, the “one China” policy on which Beijing insists, arguing that Taiwan is a “rebel province”, says Berkofsky, speaking of a “strategic mistake. committed 50 years ago “. The island, he points out, is “a country, an independent, autonomous entity”, with “an economy, a foreign policy, a president, a premier” and a “clear message” was needed that “should have come from our governments. “.

And looking in depth, according to Berkofsky, it matters little if China has announced its intention to suspend dialogue and cooperation mechanisms with the US “in response” to Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan because, he notes, for example, “China has stopped the dialogue. on the climate with the US, but China would never have concluded anything with the States on this issue “.

The Chinese propaganda plays after Pelosi’s visit to Taipei, which – he says – “was not an act of containment”. “The Chinese propaganda claims it was a very serious crisis, that the US has threatened the geopolitical balance, while those who are launching missiles, those who are making noise and threatening are only China”, he observes, inviting people to “look forward” after the ” response “announced yesterday by Beijing. An escalation between military activity and what “is not just rhetoric”, but a “childish” level of language by an Asian giant that “has not yet understood how international politics is done”. Perhaps, she points out, “also to please the hawks inside China who were asking for a military response”.

And Berkofsky invites us to consider an “addiction that is not one-sided”. “China is an important partner for the West, there is a European dependence on China – he observes – but there is also a huge dependence” on the part of the Asian giant. Because “the most important market for China is not Russia, Brazil or Venezuela, but above all the USA and Europe”. And therefore, he says, China “will continue to make noise for a few more days, but then it will calm down because it is a country, an economy and we are twenty-seven plus the United States”.

Also for this reason it is even more “important”, according to Berkofsky, “to send the signal that China is a dictatorship that is changing the territorial status quo in Asia”, which “has been militarily threatening Taiwan for years, challenging the territorial status quo in the sea. Eastern Chinese with Japan “. “For many years – he concludes – we have pretended to be able to engage with dictatorships and let’s see how it worked with Russia”.