Written By:
- Date published:
10:03 am, July 15th, 2025 - 35 comments
Categories: China, Diplomacy, exports, Free Trade, jobs, manufacturing, overseas investment, Peace, trade -
Tags:
By Trevor Johnston, originally prepared for the Keith Locke Memorial debate July 3rd 2025.
The 1945 UNESCO constitution states, “since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defenses of peace must be constructed;… ignorance of each other’s ways and lives has been a common cause of that suspicion and mistrust between the peoples of the world,…which have all too often broken into war;”
Our team believes the real threat to peace in our region does not stem from China, but from a “China threat” narrative—promoted by the United States to rally other nations behind its China containment agenda.
China should not be scapegoated for its own success or for pursuing an alternative model of governance.
China’s relationship with New Zealand and the near Pacific is based on economic complementarity, peaceful cooperation, and mutual benefit.
China is by far our largest trading partner.
Two-way trade reached $38 billion in 2024. Chinese direct investment stands at just over $9 billion.
Chinese students made up 35% of international enrolments in 2023.
A quarter of a million Chinese visitors arrived in the past year.
5.6% of New Zealanders identify as being of Chinese heritage.
Around 100,000 New Zealand residents hold Chinese passports, often maintaining close family or commercial ties with China.
The latest Asia New Zealand Foundation survey found 83% of respondents ranked China as important or very important to New Zealand’s future.
All this reflects the collaboration of thousands of New Zealanders and Chinese over many decades. China is not an external “other” to be feared—it is an integral part of New Zealand’s social and economic fabric.
The never-again post-WWII sentiment led to the UN Charter, the Declaration of Human Rights, and the Sustainable Development Goals. Tragically we are now regressing back into great-power rivalry.
Sinophobia is not new. New Zealand’s own record includes the 19th-century poll tax and exclusionary laws targeting Chinese migrants. China suffered exploitation and extortion at the hands of Western powers in China’s century of humiliation and internal decline prior to the founding of the republic in 1912.
China played a key role in resisting Japanese occupation during World War II, but after Mao’s victory in the civil war, the Western bloc quickly reclassified China as an ideological adversary.
Anti-Chinese communist fervor flourished in the Cold War until Nixon’s 1972 visit began diplomatic normalization culminating in the 1979 “One China” policy.
Deng Xiaoping’s economic reforms from 1978 began a long period of economic growth for China and its trading partners. New Zealand played a pioneering role, becoming the first developed country to conclude a WTO agreement with China and signing a Free Trade Agreement in 2008.
Western strategic anxiety about China resurfaced after the 2008 Global Financial Crisis. The 2011 US “Pivot to Asia” marked the start of an overt containment strategy. This hardened under the 1st Trump administration, which branded China a “strategic competitor.”
Today, the $1 trillion US defense budget and force posture is its most bellicose in history. In May this year , US Secretary of Defense Hegseth stated that : “the threat China poses is real, and it could be imminent… If deterrence fails ….we are prepared to fight and win, decisively.”
Despite New Zealand’s history of constructive engagement with China, our defense and security documents now reflect equivalent US, UK, and Australian papers.
Our official stance has shifted from one of neutral cooperation to explicit concern—citing foreign interference, cyber threats, and challenges to the so-called “rules-based order.”
Our vocabulary has changed:“Asia-Pacific” has quietly become “Indo-Pacific,” aligned with US framing. Statements from our Prime Minister’s have evolved from John Key’s dovish China trade enthusiasm, to Christopher Luxon’s description of China as a “strategic competitor” that needed to be “named and shamed.”
In my view, the “China threat” narrative does not originate from New Zealanders’ lived experience, but from the worldview of the US military-industrial complex, its allied think tanks, the policy elites within the US State and Defense departments, and their 5Eyes counterparts.
New Zealand’s state-owned and corporate media have echoed and amplified these narratives. There is little space in mainstream media for counterfactual perspectives or deeper China context. Public attitudes towards China are too easily shaped by unchallenged tropes and propaganda.
The danger of politicized narratives about China is that they obstruct clear understanding, and are instead used to manufacture consent for completely unnecessary conflict.
New Zealand has become an active participant in large-scale military exercises alongside the US and its allies. It has also undertaken aerial surveillance, maritime patrols, and naval transits close to China in the South China Sea and Taiwan Strait.
New Zealand has recently strengthened its defense relationships with Japan, the Philippines, and NATO.
New Zealand is positioning itself as a would-be supplier to the US defense industry. The current $12 billion four-year defense budget includes major investments in helicopters, drones, missiles, and space systems—implicitly preparing for confrontation with China.
China naturally sees these actions as provocative, aligning with US-led containment. It has responded with its own military build-up and tit-for-tat moves—such as the recent PLA Navy transits through the Tasman Sea.
Longstanding US ambition to confront and contain its declared enemies is on full display in Europe and the Middle East today. Likewise, the US military encirclement of China, coupled with aggressive trade and information war tactics, indicates a similar aim to degrade or incapacitate China.
With little public debate and no clear electoral mandate, New Zealand’s absorption of the China threat narrative has crystallized into effective alignment with these US objectives.
Is this good for peace in our region?
Let’s set aside the threat narrative and look at China’s actual stance on international relations.
China consistently advocates for principles of sovereignty, non-interference, and multilateralism.
Its global contributions include major investments in the Global South, peacekeeping deployments, climate finance, and 3,000 Belt and Road projects in 150 countries.
Its advanced manufacturing capabilities offer worldwide access to affordable, high-quality products, industrial commodities, and climate-positive renewable energy technologies.
120 countries count China as their largest trading partner.
According to the 2025 Democracy Perception Index, 79% of countries had a net favorable view of China.
China’s repeatedly stated vision is one of “a shared future for humanity,” grounded in mutual respect and common development.
The current malaise in international relations means lost opportunity and damage to global morale and aspiration.
Excessive militarization and dystopian visions of A1-driven space warfare rob the public of the vision and funds needed to tackle the problems we face, in climate, health, education, and social equity.
Our New Zealand government should reject these warmongering threat narratives and exhaust all diplomatic efforts in pursuit of a positive, peaceful vision for New Zealand’s development, which includes Te Ao Māori perspectives and the aspirations of our Pacific Island neighbors.
China is not a threat to regional peace – but a willing and able partner for Aotearoa New Zealand on a journey to a better future.
Trevor Johnston has a long-time association with Asian and Chinese communities in New Zealand and offshore. He pioneered the manufacture of plant-based protein foods and dairy substitutes within New Zealand along with manufacturing partners from the Chinese and Korean communities. Trevor led the development and operation of The Warehouse Group’s labour and environmental assurance programmes throughout its China and broader Asian supply chains from 2000 until 2024. Trevor has travelled extensively within China, and is familiar with its contemporary and ancient history.
….
Fair enough as far as it goes (not far enough). I'm still onboard the Rewi Alley ethos and support the principle of constructive collaboration wherever feasible. If only Xi would accept the principle of biodiversity being more healthy than monoculture, we'd all get along fine. Dunno why he prefers to copy Putin's imperialism. Not clever.
Treating internal minority groups as 2nd class citizens seems a tad antediluvian these days, and the taint of collusion threatens social contagion at all times, so I admire Trevor's fixation on thinking positively about NZ/China relations whilst empathising with widespread ethical distaste felt by those hostile to the regime.
We can, and should, have strong trade, cultural, and diplomatic relationships with China. But economic cooperation does not require ideological alignment. We can buy their goods without buying their propaganda.
The idea that increasing our defense capability is somehow an act of aggression misunderstands the very nature of sovereign policy. Military preparedness is not militarism. It’s just sensible foreign policy in an uncertain world and the bare minimum for a country that wants to be a reliable, credible partner, and not a passive bystander to global events.
In fact, it’s not military capability that threatens peace. It’s imbalance. Peace is threatened by naivety on one end, which leaves us vulnerable and unprepared, and jingoism on the other, which blinds us to diplomacy and inflames conflict. Between these poles lies strategic responsibility.
That’s where New Zealand should aim to stand.
Let’s be honest about China. This is a country that has been governed by centralised authoritarian rule for nearly 4,500 years. From Qin Shi Huang’s legalist totalitarianism, to Cao Cao’s warlord pragmatism, to the Tang dynasty’s powerful but brutal expansion and Mao's flawed accelerationism, and every regime in between, China has seen its fair share of ruthless rulers and tightly controlled hierarchies.
The current regime is no different. It is not a misunderstood democracy. It is simply the newest iteration of an enduring pattern: top-down rule sustained through surveillance, censorship, and institutional control.
And this is where the “China good” narrative often collapses under its own contradiction. It paints China as both a victim and a rival. Simultaneously a bullied regional power and a misunderstood global giant.
It can’t be both.
I speak fluent Mandarin and Japanese. I’ve studied North Asian history and international relations extensively. I say this not to claim authority, but to make one thing clear: China is not a cartoon villain: but it’s not a benevolent alternative to Western hegemony either.
It is a deeply complex actor. Assertive, strategic, authoritarian, and pragmatic. With its own goals, worldview, and doctrine. It must be treated seriously, not sentimentally.
China is not a passive bystander to US aggression. It is a fully engaged global actor: one that builds artificial islands in contested waters, bankrolls infrastructure across three continents, leverages economic interdependence as soft coercion, and actively shapes alternative digital, trade, and geopolitical orders.
It is not a victim of history. It is a student of it. And increasingly, a master of using it.
Dismissing China’s actions as merely reactive is not anti-imperialism: it’s strategic condescension. It strips China of agency in order to preserve a tidy moral framework where only the West has power, and everyone else is just responding. But international politics is not a morality play.
There is no West. There are only states, alliances, and overlapping interests. None of them monolithic. Washington, Wellington, Canberra, and London disagree constantly: just as Beijing, Tokyo, and Seoul do.
If we’re invoking Enlightenment thinkers, let’s be honest there too: Kant was wrong. Trade, reason, and goodwill do not ensure peace. Naivety is more dangerous than militarism, because it leaves us without options when peace frays. And it will.
So, if we go looking for a moral arc in foreign policy, either in Beijing, Washington, or Wellington, we’re going to be disappointed. Because don’t behave morally. They behave strategically. Sometimes that strategy aligns with our values.
Sometimes it doesn’t. But our job is not to write fan fiction about the future we wish for — it’s to understand the world as it is and prepare accordingly.
New Zealand’s foreign policy should be independent, not innocent. Engaged, not idealised. Grounded in realism, not romanticism.
Peace doesn’t come from trusting narratives. It comes from being prepared when they break down.
That is a really good summation of my position and understanding. Especially about the effect of China long history on its future behaviours. That long level of relatively civilised but highly top-down history is interesting – but not one I want to emulate or to be in a society that does. Just as I don't want the structural instabilities that litter the young American system, or the kleptocracy of the aristocratic Russian system.
I'd also point out that I don't care about ideologies, spheres of influence, or most of the other crap that gets spread about. Most of it is pretty irrelevant waffling in my opinion.
What I care about is New Zealand's place in the world, how we interact with others and where New Zealand sits internally in its society.
That means we have a stake in peaceful trade routes, our EEZ, and our neighbours. We have a stake in a relatively peaceful and stable world.
Which means we get concerned about the causes of wars (like teh concentration camps that the Israelis are planning to build and the extermination facilities that arise out of it) and economic factors that may impact on it.
And..
Exactly. Currently our defence capabilities are unbalanced and too small for the world we are currently facing. We need long-range navy for keeping trade routes open. But we need to secure our EEZ with means that we can build ourselves, and clearly these days after looking at Ukraine, surveillance drones and wide area comms networks over the EEZ are the start of that – capabilities that will take several decades to bukld.
We don’t need others playing games or plundering resources in our backyard
Me neither. I can absolutely accept and respect its necessity given China's historical demographic, climactic, and geographic context. But that doesn't mean we should copy it or hold it up as morally perfect.
Much like how we should understand the CPC regime as a continuation that long historical tradition of centralised authority. Same Tianming, different packaging: with Marx as god-emperor instead of Wudi, and the Party as the heavenly bureaucracy.
The symbols have changed, but the structure remains: legitimacy through order, performance, and ideological mandate.
I wholeheartedly agree. And find it baffling that whenever we try to have a serious, grounded conversation about what capabilities we actually need, some of our fellow leftists leap to accusations of militarism or fascism.
We’re not planning an invasion: we’re asking if we can keep the lights on, the seas safe, and our neighbours confident in a crisis.
Besides, in this economy, guns might just be cheaper than butter.
#thanksfonterra
Not "simultaneously" – thay would be impossible. But China has been a victim ('bullied' by many between ~1840 – the beginning of the 1st opium war – and 1950), and has only recently been described as a (misunderstood?) superpower. I wonder how that sustained 'bullying' by foreign 'powers' has shaped the CCP's and broader Chinese outlook on the world – certainly my father takes a dim view of the Japanese to this day.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_battles_involving_China#Qing_dynasty_(1644%E2%80%931912)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_battles_involving_China#Modern_China
I think that RP's point was that at present there are two strands of thought running simultaneously about China.. To be thoroughly offensive I will personalise them 🙂 …
My general response to both would be to substitute USA for China, and say that exactly the same about our history with them over the last 30 years.
Both interfere in our internal politics. Both smooze politicians and fellow travellers here. Both try to push their view of law and society on to us by funding political actors and bodies (Act, Taxpayers Union, and Frees Speech Union being prime examples – and those paid ubiquitous friendship jaunts to China being obvious examples).
Basically it is the nature of super or even medium powers to try to influence smaller nations. I find both attitudes to be kind of daft (sorry Mike). I just view most external players with suspicion, including Aussie, and concentrate on what are our interests and values.
Thanks lprent for that balanced interpretation – I'm too old to be particularly troubled by what the US and/or China might have in store for little old NZ, and certainly too old to consider leaving. For all the on-going overshoot deterioration here and elsewhere, we don't know how lucky we are, and were.
https://nzhistory.govt.nz/anti-chinese-hysteria-dunedin
I think you've summed up my position more clearly in two sentences than I managed in a few hundred words.
That’s really the heart of it: great power diplomacy isn’t driven by morality or ideology. It’s about self-interest and the relentless struggle for hegemony.
The narratives may shift, but the game remains the same.
The more interesting question, to me, is whether China and the US are sliding into a Thucydidean trap. And if so, where does that leave little old NZ?
We might very well find ourselves in the position of Thebes or Corinth. Caught between two powers that can’t tolerate the other’s dominance, forced to navigate the space between with care and compromise and no small amount of luck.
The Egyptian policy was trade, diplomacy and cultural exchange (thus they used an oversight in Canaan to protect the Phoenician city ports as their trade conduit).
They were undone by being generous hosts (Hyksos), thus saw off the Sea peoples (and thus their Gaza settlement). The Sea Peoples were a result of climate change and disruption to trade.
No, militarism is as dangerous.
Militarism, yes: absolutely dangerous. But that’s different from simply having a military.
One is about wielding power as a default; the other is about possessing the tool.
Militarism is an ideology: one that glorifies force, treats violence as a primary solution, and embeds military logic into civic life.
A military, by contrast, can exist without dominating a society. It can carry immense kinetic power while remaining firmly under democratic control, subject to civilian oversight, and only used sparingly when it is justified, lawful, and accountable.
This is an interesting discussion with direct relevance to American militarism.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/afternoons/audio/2018995525/does-violence-on-the-screen-really-lead-to-violence-off-them
I call bullshit on this point. If that were true, China wouldn’t be supporting Russia, even indirectly, against Ukraine. So, it isn't all cuddles and kisses from China, and China isn't the cute panda it would like to portray itself as.
It’s not about universal principles: it’s about Chinese sovereignty, non-interference in their affairs, and China-led multilateralism of their vassals.
To have an article with that headline…and to not mention Taiwan…?
Really…?
This copies the speaking notes (presumably for the first/opening speaker) for one side of a debate.
To get the best flavour it would be good to get the first speaker's notes countering the proposition. It hops around like a one legged frog as it is.
The fact that it is so one sided (which is the purpose of one side of a formal debate) is the reason why we have T Smithfield and Phillip Ure correctly picking this up with their points. No way would an opening speaker setting the scene mention these points esp Taiwan. Presumably the counter speaker would be covering this or debating them out of contention in later parts of the debate.
Any chance of getting the first speaker Negative's opening points?
I commend the paper we have seen so far. The discipline of a formal debate of an issue and the roles of each of the speakers will usually cover points most succinctly and powerfully, (if not a little biasedly)
Good points, and it reminds us of the deep context of public discourse. Method is traditionally known to be very effective as a comms strategy. I haven't studied rhetoric but have often seen mentions that it involved formal training in ancient Greece and was considered essential to politics at the time. I think guys like Seneca in Rome also recycled the praxis. It would be interesting to know if current pr training also recycles the ancient wisdom component of how to be effective in public life…
Someone should contact Wayne Mapp as he was the Leader for the Negative at that debate and ask if he is willing to post his reply?
Wayne Mapp use to post here until he got banned, which is a shame as he is the only decent Tory.
Would love to see Wayne back and debate on various topics.
Would like to see Trevor reply to the comments made here.
[lprent: Bullshit on the Wayne Mapp assertion. ]
That sounds like a good plan Scud.
TS members are capable of seeing points from both sides and to see a similar level of scholarship, and honed for debate, from the other side would be great.
Wayne Mapp hasn't gotten banned that I remember.
But knock yourself out – find the comment that got him moderated and stopped him commenting. These are his published comments. Moderators are required to put notes on comments that trigger a ban, and they file them on a internal post. Otherwise I moderate the moderators.
In 2019 Wayne had a comment moved from the post to OpenMike because a moderator considered that it was off-topic in the post he made it in. Basically just reading it, he was usurping the moderators role. Dumping it to OpenMike is the usual knuckle rap for that.
He has made multiple comments since then.
Sorry apologies as my memory isn’t that flash hot these days with my injuries & knocks to the head.
He did ok with the defence policy & the budget until he was sacked during Hide's coup because He & Roy refused to cut the Defence Funding under Bill English's & Keys orders.
There are two separate issues.
China and Taiwan.
Taiwan is only independent because of the American fleet in 1949.
It is an area of historic China.
But there is an important strategic asset – a chip maker (only challenged by one in South Korea – they have invested in being important to the West for similar reasons, so they get protection).
China and the South China Sea.
China does not accept international rulings, it is a hegemon.
International
*China wants to remove the USA from the western Pacific, back to Hawaii. It sees that as gaining equality.
*It wants China at the centre of the global economy as the largest market in place of the USA.
*The long navigators (standing star) time view
One (Orions) Belt and Road (where do the men in black stand – given Sirius the hunter's dog will one day be the southern pole star (olden times draconis dragon Orion dog and the Pole Star of the north).
But not till around the year 66,270CE.
All's Black, out of Africa theory (white stars of the planet earth sky).
The Egyptians saw the Sirius star as the bringer of the river flood.
Those of Ur saw the world as Ki, thus mother and Matariki the mother to the west and east of Amaterasu, the one in Asia (just one part of the world).
Will the planet be a habitat for life in 66,270CE or not? And if not, why not?
Nope, there's no good guy or bad guy.
America and China are both threats to the region and are both trying to militarize the region
They both debt trap poor nations.
They both bully and threaten friends and allies and enemies alike.
On multiple occasions they have threatened to tank our economy if we as a sovereign nation exercise our sovereignty.
America has a Looney tune president, China has a Looney tune president who is president for life now.
They both interfere with elections.
Chinas secret deal with cook islands is not the behavior of a friend.
China having secret police in foreign nations that police expats is unacceptable.
Chinas refusal to give Taiwan independence is unacceptable.
Chinas treatment of democracy activists in Hong Kong is terrifying.
Americas treatment of protesters has been scary of late but how does China treat protesters? How does China treat the families of expats who speak out?
How does China treat minorities?
Workers rights in China?
We can trade with China and try to get along but they are not our friend.
both America and China can GTFO and stop militarizing our region
America is family, they are the uncle at Christmas that NZ and Canada get into loud debates with while Australia tries to play peace maker while the UK gets drunk in the corner reminiscing about better days.
We should criticize America when we need to but the idea that China is this benevolent geo political player is absurd.
Not that it matters but it's absurd to bring up 5% of kiws having Chinese ancestry when almost 2/3 kiwis have Anglo ancestry as if having a percentage of citizens from anywhere be it Europe or Asia should change our foreign policy
I'm also not sure if the international student industry is a plus, it puts enormous strain on housing and a lot of the courses are dubious.
Nz's foreign policy shouldn't change.
Friend to all.
I'd like both of them to piss off out of the Pacific.
One of our closest neighbors, Indonesia is going to be the 4th largest economy in the world, we should be getting much closer with them and the rest of the Asean nations
Sure: just the fourth-largest economy in the world, and a country still grappling with entrenched militarism, systemic corruption, fragile democratic institutions, and a, shall we say, “complicated” human rights record in East Timor and West Papua.
Strategic partnership? Maybe.
But let’s not pretend we’re dealing with a morally unblemished actor whose goals and values neatly align with our own.
Well we can't exactly pretend we're morally unblemished either .Incidentally , what are our goals and values?
We can’t pretend we’re morally unblemished. And we shouldn’t. But that doesn’t mean we can’t act with purpose.
At a glance, our foreign policy goals and values should be:
For New Zealand, that choice, however uncomfortable, must ultimately favour alignment with other liberal democracies. Not because they are flawless, but because they are more aligned with our values, our institutions, and our hopes for a rules-based global order.
Yeah well …"should be"…is not exactly a reflection of what is .
The rules based order has broken down..our most powerful ally broke it, and we really didn't have much to say
https://www.waikato.ac.nz/news-events/news/nz-depends-on-the-rules-based-world-trump-is-dismantling-why-the-silence/
Because speaking up would have made us a target for further retaliation, and maybe not doing that while we diversify is a good idea?
Well there you go
Common goals and values eh
With friends like that ….
Did the USA accept secession?
Permanent self governance within China is an option.
The 1897 100 year lease of land from China to Hong Kong expired, the 1997 arrangement only involved Hong Kong having a distinct administration regime until 2047. Then becoming part of China, China is not a democracy.
The Americans promoted democracy in Hong Kong to subvert the deal and exacerbate the contention over Taiwan. Those doing the war-gaming over that know how dumb this was.
Yea some of what you say.. America and China Pacific, yes. However..
You really should actually read some History….before pronouncing on this. Free Timor !
NZ peacekeepers died
Indonesia and Papua…
Well I don’t buy into this “let’s just have a balanced approach to China and the US like they’re roughly the same”.
The 2025 story is that there is boundless opportunity in the Pacific to those who accede to Beijing’s demands, and unmistakable threats to those who dare oppose them. They have a lot more practise at mercantilist force than the US have had recently in the Pacific.
It was in mid-February that China effectively ended any “commonwealth”-type arrangement between New Zealand and the Cook Islands with a series of secret comprehensive deals. Our remaining “realm” countries are Tokelau, Niue, and the Ross Dependency.
It was only a few weeks later that the PLA Navy conducted live-fire drills in the Tasman Sea with no prior notification, forcing us and Australia to re-route more than 50 commercial flights.
The Chinese-flagged hydrographic survey vessel sailed just south of Australia just weeks after the live fire drills, and China’s unveiling of a powerful deep-sea cable cutter reinforced what they can do within the South Pacific. That’s this year. None of it is normal, but it’s trying to soften us up to make it feel normal.
Do we need to be reminded about Kiribati and Solomon Islands switching diplomatic recognition from Taiwan to China in the fall of 2019?
Or the secret security agreement between China and the Solomon Islands in 2022? That deal reflects a remarkably similar playbook by China already seen in Sri Lanka, Cambodia, and Nepal.
New Zealand has tended to be independent in its foreign policy when it’s either far away from us like the Gulf War or symbolic as in anti-nuclear protests … but when it comes to actual joining up in a conflict, which is what it’s coming to, we really do tend to pick a side against growing threat. And we should.
Pragmatists will always make it situational. Is the situation hypothetical or real? There's a threshold to be crossed there. Perception of threat can be paranoia-driven, and folks so inclined are emotionally susceptible, which is why we got Trumpism.
Conflict tends to emerge on the basis of a lack of common interests. China's imperialism in the Pacific is venture capital invested in real estate, in the guise of patronage. What the Brits did so well, we can do better (they think).
Pacifica need patrons with deeper pockets than us – perhaps. That's the economic question underlying the geopolitics. Will govts ask the people there? Like, via referenda? If not, the current leader rules incoming money supply…
One useful tip for criticising foreign or defence policy is to never praise any state. A list of atrocities is always just a few clicks away.
The author of this post has this on his Twitter feed. George Yeo has an impressive grasp of Asian affairs. Long, 1hr+ but fascinating.
"How to get beyond the impasse in China (PRC) and Taiwan (ROC) relations – by reaching for the best potentials and aspirations for both sides, and casting aside the US spoiler hand. An amazing and visionary speech given in Taiwan by former Singaporean FM George Yeo. Set aside for future watch – so much valuable context and hope for the future. If only the world had more states-persons like this"
https://youtu.be/ge91Rg97l1Q?si=mzFDbTPvOKliE0Jq