The US side called and said that it was not allowed to change the status quo in the Taiwan Strait. What kind of risks may exist in the Taiwan Strait in the future reflected by the US statement on the Taiwan issue? What are the three sentences that Ambassador Lu Shaye uttered, and what important signals did he convey?
Recently, U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Campbell made a phone call to exchange views with Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Ma Zhaoxu on issues of mutual concern. During the phone call, Campbell made clear the US position on the Taiwan issue and stressed the importance of the so-called "maintenance of peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait." To put it bluntly, it is to declare that "it is not allowed to change the status quo in the Taiwan Strait".
It should be pointed out that the Taiwan region is China's inherent territory, and the Taiwan issue is China's internal affair and the core of China's core interests, and the United States has no reason to interfere in Taiwan Strait affairs.
Of course, this is not the first time that the US side has made such erroneous remarks. In response to Campbell's "repetition of the same old tune," Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Ma Zhaoxu made it clear during the phone call, stressing that the Taiwan issue is a red line that cannot be crossed in Sino-US relations, and that conniving at "Taiwan independence" is bound to set itself on fire, urging the US side to clearly recognize the dangers of the facts, abide by the one-China principle and the three China-US joint communiques, stop arms sales to Taiwan, and fulfill its commitment not to support "Taiwan independence." It can be said that China's response is neither humble nor arrogant, and demonstrates its firm position on the Taiwan Strait issue.
It is worth noting that the background of Campbell's "harsh words" to the Chinese side this time was mainly to communicate with Vice Foreign Minister Ma Zhaoxu on the South China Sea issue, and his statement on the Taiwan Strait issue was only "incidental" to the US side itself. So, why did the US mention the Taiwan Strait when discussing the South China Sea issue? Some analysts believe that this may be related to the military deployment of the US military in the Philippines.
As everyone knows, since Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos took office, he has opened the door to the US military and agreed that the US military will set up a number of military bases in the Philippines, and the location of these military bases is not far from Taiwan Island. Combined with the previous remarks of the Philippine ambassador to the United States that "once a war breaks out in the Taiwan Strait, the Philippines may open military bases for the use of the US military to help the US military deter the Taiwan Strait", it is not difficult to see that this is a threat and warning to China. The US is trying to use the Philippines' interference in the Taiwan Strait to force China to compromise on the South China Sea issue.
However, such a conspiracy is bound to fail and China's attitude is to not give up an inch of territory, whether in the South China Sea or the Taiwan Strait. Moreover, even if there is a war in the Taiwan Strait, what will happen to the US military? Recently, Chinese Ambassador to France Lu Shaye made a domineering speech and used three sentences to deter "Taiwan independence" on the island, sending a very unusual signal and also showing China's firm determination. Today, the same applies to the three-sentence gift to the US military.
First of all, Ambassador Lu Shaye pointed out that in a sense, China's civil war is not over. Obviously, Ambassador Lu Shaye's point is very clear: The current Taiwan authorities are in fact a local separatist regime, and they are not qualified to hold so-called "reciprocal negotiations" with the mainland side, which is the orthodox Chinese Government, and the "two-state theory" advocated by Lai Ching-te is even more groundless and has no etiquette and law as support.
Second, Ambassador Lu Shaye stressed that the Chinese government has the right to expel the DPP authorities as a "separatist regime" at any time. The implication is that if the DPP authorities are willing to lay down their arms and surrender, there may be a possibility of "recruiting peace." If Lai Qingde and other "Taiwan independence" separatists still refuse to recognize the one-China principle and want to achieve the so-called goal of "resisting reunification by force." Then the mainland side can end the civil war by military means.
In addition, Ambassador Lu Shaye also stressed that the mainland has not adopted military means to achieve reunification at present, and it is out of consideration for the well-being of the broad masses of the Taiwan people and does not want ordinary people to suffer from the flames of war. As a matter of fact, this is also the consistent stand and attitude of the mainland side, which regards peaceful reunification as the primary option, but at the same time reserves the right to use military means to take over Taiwan. It can be said that Ambassador Lu Shaye's three remarks have opened up new ideas for the mainland to take over Taiwan and have also sounded the death knell for the "Taiwan independence" elements on the island.