0 $
2,500 $
5,000 $
1,020 $

U.S. Violates Its Promises to China; Asserts Authority Over Taiwan

Support SouthFront

U.S. Violates Its Promises to China; Asserts Authority Over Taiwan

Illustrative Image

Written by Eric Zuesse

As Werner Rügemer headlined on 28 November 2021 and truthfully summarized the relevant history, “Taiwan: US deployment area against mainland China — since 1945”. However, despite that fact, America did officially issue a “Joint Communique” with China recognizing and acknowledging not only that Taiwan is a province of China but that for America or its allies or any other nation to challenge that historical fact would be unethical.

The U.S. regime hides this crucial historical fact, in order to hoodwink its masses of suckers into assuming to the exact contrary — that Taiwan isn’t a Chinese province. Here is how they do this:

The CIA-edited and written Wikipedia, which blacklists (blocks from linking to) sites that aren’t CIA-approved, is the first source for most people who become interested in what is officially known as the Shanghai Communique of 1972, or the 27 February 1972 “JOINT COMMUNIQUE BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND CHINA”. That article,


avoids presenting the Communique’s 1,921-word text, but instead provides, in its “Document” section, a mere 428-word very selective, and sometimes misleading, summary of some of the document’s less-important statements, and also fails to provide any link to the document itself, which they are hiding from readers.

The U.S. regime’s Wilson Center does have an article “JOINT COMMUNIQUE BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND CHINA”,


at which only the document’s opening 286 words are shown, while the rest is veiled and the reader must then do additional clicks in order to get to it.

The U.S. State Department’s history site,


does provide the entire 1,921-word document, but under a different title, one that plays down the document’s actual importance, “Joint Statement Following Discussions With Leaders of the People’s Republic of China”.  (If it’s a “Joint Statement,” then whom are the “Leaders of the People’s Republic of China” “jointly” issuing it with — that title for it is not only false, it is plain stupid, not even referring to the U.S, at all.) Consequently, anyone who seeks to find the document under its official and correct title won’t get to see it at the U.S. State Department’s site.

Here are some of the important statements in this document (as shown below that stupid title for it at the State Department’s site):

With these principles of international relations in mind the two sides stated that:

            —progress toward the normalization of relations between China and the United States is in the interests of all countries;

            —both wish to reduce the danger of international military conflict;

            —neither should seek hegemony in the Asia–Pacific region and each is opposed to efforts by any other country or group of countries to establish such hegemony; and

            —neither is prepared to negotiate on behalf of any third party or to enter into agreements or understandings with the other directed at other states.

Both sides are of the view that it would be against the interests of the peoples of the world for any major country to collude with another against other countries, or for major countries to divide up the world into spheres of interest. …

The U.S. side declared: The United States acknowledges that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China. The United States Government does not challenge that position. It reaffirms its interest in a peaceful settlement of the Taiwan question by the Chinese themselves. With this prospect in mind, it affirms the ultimate objective of the withdrawal of all U.S. forces and military installations from Taiwan. In the meantime, it will progressively reduce its forces and military installations on Taiwan as the tension in the area diminishes.

The Wikipedia article’s 428-word summary of the “Document” did include parts of the paragraph which started “The U.S. side declared,” but the summary closed by alleging that the document “did not explicitly endorse the People’s Republic of China as the whole of China. Kissinger described the move as ‘constructive ambiguity,’ which would continue to hinder efforts for complete normalization.” How that passage — or especially the entire document — could have been stated with less “ambiguity” regarding “the People’s Republic of China as the whole of China” wasn’t addressed. In fact, the statement that “all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China” includes asserting that the Taiwanese people “maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China.” So: the U.S. did agree with that, even signed to it in 1972. If the U.S. refuses to agree with it now, then what was the U.S. agreeing to in that Communique, and under what circumstances does the Communique become null and void for either of the two agreeing Parties to it? When does it stop being binding? Perhaps the document should have added something like “The U.S. Government will never try to break off pieces of China.” But maybe if that were to have been added to it, then the U.S. regime wouldn’t have signed to anything with China. Is the U.S. regime really that Hitlerian? Is this what is ‘ambiguous’ about the document?

In fact, the affirmation that, “The United States Government does not challenge that position. It reaffirms its interest in a peaceful settlement of the Taiwan question by the Chinese themselves. With this prospect in mind, it affirms the ultimate objective of the withdrawal of all U.S. forces and military installations from Taiwan.” is now routinely being violated by the U.S. regime. Here’s an example:

One of the leading U.S. billionaires-funded think tanks, the Center for a New American Security (CNAS), was co-founded by Kurt Campbell, who is Joe Biden’s “Asia co-ordinator” or “Asia Tsar” with the official title of “National Security Council Coordinator for the Indo-Pacific.” The other co-founder is Michèle Flournoy, who also co-founded with the current Secretary of State Antony Blinken, WestExec Advisors, which firm’s client-list is secret but generally assumed to be top investors in firms such as Lockheed Martin. That advisory firm’s activities are also secret.

Perhaps nothing is more profitable than trading on inside information regarding corporations whose main, if not only, sales are to the U.S. Government and its allied governments. Trading on inside information needs to be secret in order to be non-prosecutable. The clients of WestExec Advisors might be extraordinarily successful investors, because they’ve hired people who have ‘the right’ contacts in the federal bureaucracy and so know where your ‘national security’ tax-dollars are likeliest to be spent next.

CNAS issued, in October 2021, “The Poison Frog Strategy: Preventing a Chinese Fait Accompli Against Taiwanese Islands”. It was written as-if the Shanghai Communique hadn’t prohibited this. The presumption there was instead that America and Taiwan would have so much raised the heat against China’s not being picked apart, so as for China to have militarily responded in order to hold itself together; and, then, a stage, “MOVE 2,” would be reached, in which:

The Taiwan and U.S. teams engaged in more direct communication, which aided the U.S. team in framing the crisis. By Move 2, the U.S. team had accepted that using military force to retake Dongsha would be too escalatory and might disrupt the formation of any counter-China coalition. Accordingly, the team reframed the takeover of Dongsha as an opportunity to expose Chinese belligerence and to encourage states to join together to balance against China’s aggressive behavior. The U.S. team’s decision to place U.S. military forces on Taiwan during Move 1 became a key driver for the rest of the game.


By Move 3, both the U.S. and Taiwan teams were in difficult positions. The U.S. team did not want to let Chinese aggression go unpunished, both for the sake of Taiwan and within the context of the broader regional competition. At the same time, the U.S. team wanted to show its partners and allies that it was a responsible power capable of negotiating and avoiding all-out war. The Taiwan team was caught in an escalating great-power crisis that threatened to pull Taiwan into a war that it was trying to avoid. The Taiwan team had to balance its relationships and policies with the United States and China while simultaneously spearheading de-escalation. And in the early part of the game, before communication between the United States and Taiwan teams improved, the Taiwan team had, unbeknownst to the U.S. team, set up a back channel with the China team. At the same time the back-channel negotiations were ongoing, the U.S. team was still, in fact, considering additional escalatory action against the China team. …

Toward the end of the game, the U.S. and Taiwan teams’ main strategy was to isolate China diplomatically and economically and garner enough international backing among allies and partners to make that isolation painful. To this end, the Taiwan team focused on pulling in some of its regional partners, such as Japan, while the U.S. team reached out to its NATO allies.9 To avoid unwanted escalation or permanent effects, the U.S. and Taiwan teams limited their offensive military operations to non-kinetic and reversible actions such as cyberattacks and electronic warfare.

Under “Key Takeaways and Policy Recommendations” is:

Given the inherent difficulty of defending small, distant offshore islands like Dongsha, Taiwan and the United States should strive to turn them into what the players called “poison frogs.” This approach would make Chinese attempts to seize these islands so militarily, economically, and politically painful from the outset that the costs of coercion or aggression would be greater than the benefits.

The U.S. regime’s having in 1972 committed itself to there being only “a peaceful settlement of the Taiwan question by the Chinese themselves” has somehow now become a license for the U.S. regime to provoke “Chinese attempts to seize these islands” and yet to cause — by America’s constant further provocations and lying — this to be “so militarily, economically, and politically painful from the outset that the costs of coercion or aggression would be greater than the benefits.”

In other words: the U.S. regime expects to portray China as being the aggressor, and the U.S. regime as being the defender — but, actually, of what? It would be the defender of breaking off a piece of China to add it to the U.S. regime’s allies, against an ‘aggressive’ China that opposes America’s violating its own, and China’s, 1972 Joint Shanghai Communique — which prohibits that.

On May 19th, The Hill, one of the U.S. regime’s many propaganda-mouthpieces, headlined “China warns of dangerous situation developing ahead of Biden Asia trip”, and opened:

China warned the U.S. that President Biden’s visit to East Asia this week could put their relations in “serious jeopardy” if officials play the “Taiwan card” during the trip.

In a phone call with national security adviser Jake Sullivan, China’s top diplomat Yang Jiechi warned the U.S. against speaking out on the independent sovereignty of Taiwan, a self-ruling democratic island in the Indo-Pacific that China claims is historically part of the mainland and should be under Beijing’s control.

China doesn’t claim that Taiwan “is historically part of the mainland and should be under Beijing’s control,” but that, just like Hawaii is NOT a part of “the mainland” but IS “under U.S. control,” and NOT “a self-ruling” nation, Taiwan is NOT a part of “the mainland” but IS (not ‘should be’, but IS) under China’s control, and NOT “a self-ruling” nation. Just as there is no “independent sovereignty of Hawaii,” there also is no “independent sovereignty of Taiwan.” How many lies were in that opening? (And this doesn’t even bring in the fact that whereas Hawaii is way offshore of America’s mainland, Taiwan is very close to China’s mainland.)

And how long will the U.S. regime’s constant lying continue to be treated as if that’s acceptable to anything other than yet another dangerously tyrannical regime — a U.S. ally, perhaps?


Support SouthFront


Notify of
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
10 Dead Generals

Russia kissing China ass evey day.


Who doesn’t kiss the ass of the powerful with money?




Start Earning $250 Per Day By Using A Work From Home System That Has Helped Thousands Of People Just Like You! Learn open this ↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓ site and just visit home and other….. more here………. HighPay1.com

Last edited 4 months ago by Lisa
Roger Dodger

Seems like you’ll be eating it.


No,usa licking chinas boots more like it,You kiss soros ass,right up the core you cia/nazo whore!


An Internet troll is someone who enters an online discussion and posts comments designed to upset or disrupt the conversation. “Dark Tetrad” personality traits include narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy, and sadism. -psychology today

AzovNazhits, from hero to zero

Well what do you expect from the bandits who flip the flops anytime they wish and readily stab anybody who gets across its evil ways. US outlaws.


That is the JewSA’s Kol Nidre strategy.


China has violated so many deals and often it appears they didn’t even have any intention of following through on their promises that their word isn’t worth anything. Yet they complain when the US takes a different view on an issue than they did 50 years ago (in some nonbinding “communique”), which had already been rolled back significantly by congress a long time ago (the US has something called democracy not a dictatorship). China just acts like a spoiled child.


You are delusional thus suffer from severe over complexed lgbtq mental disorder,you pathedic kweer! Poor keithy,you are into the small pox syndrome i’m afraid you poofs needs to tighten your belts too!

Peter Jennings

It’s probably best that one doesn’t rely on Wikipedia. They are not the go to place for accurate info. The dummies will be fine as they are usually busy looking for sources to support their own prejudices. Those who want more than fairy tales look elsewhere.

WestExec have got where they are because their activities are protected. Corporate shysterism sits in on every american policy made, foreign and domestic. If the company were run like a real company, the cronyism would already have sunk it long ago.

The US is rapidly approaching a totalitarian state where justice and honour doesn’t really exist. Agreements and promises become void the moment the US leave the negotiation table. Continue to do that over decades and decades and your country will be relegated to become the arsehole of the world who’s word can never be trusted. US integrity has been sold on so many times that its now dirty, ragged and torn. It kinda reminds me of another ruthless, lying, regime but i can’t quite put my finger on it. :)

The US are going to have a job convincing the region to side with them after the millions and millions of tons of bombs they have dropped all over the region in the past. Japan are beholden to the US because that’s how they keep their pension scam running. If it wasn’t for their hyperinflation, the Japanese people would starve and america would watch it starve whilst blaming China. Japan can also be cut off from any oil if they don’t toe the US shyster line, like they were in 1941.

Japan could become another target because of out-of-date thinking by the western shyster class. Ukraine is already starting to learn that lesson.


WIKI is monitored in TEL AVIV by Mossad etc. Info is deleted or changed all the time. Not a good source of info.


America is run by Jews. And Jews are the global troublemakers (Kolomoisky, Zelensky, Soros, Nuland, Blinken to name a few). So if the Jews bad mouth China, we know what side to take.

Klaus meier

Ist doch völlig klar und Staatsdoktrin der US Staatsterroristen zu lügen, betrügen, rauben, überfallen. Verträge nur so lange wie sie nutzen, dann brechen. Vorher Partner hintergehen und heimlich Vertrag brechen. Beispiele en Masse seit Staatsgründung.

Last edited 4 months ago by Klaus meier

US just looking for trouble everywhere


Ambiguity means the govt in Taiwan may be recognised as the legit govt of China. No separation implied.


Delusional,typical soros mental illess syndrome,too bad commys gonna eat you impotent nazis alive!


“The Russian side reaffirms its support for the One-China principle, confirms that Taiwan is an inalienable part of China, and opposes any forms of independence of Taiwan.”


Publishing Zuesse’s communist agitprop doesn’t enhance Southfront’s credibility. He can’t even get his dates right, the division of China didn’t take place until 1949. Nationalist China was the US ally in WW2, certain procommunists in the US betrayed them, as Marshall bragged, ‘I have disarmed Chiang with the stroke of a pen.’ Mao was more interested in fighting the Nationalists than the Japanese. Both the communists on the mainland and the Nationalists on Taiwan consider themselves the legitimate government of China and want unification on those terms. The joint communique does not seem to address this question, which is the ambiguity Zuesse overlooks. And then to say that the US asserts authority on the basis of a war game is bs, of course. I have supported Southfront in the past, but after reading this blatant communist propaganda am certainly disinclined to continue. Putin claims to have rejected communism, and that the Bolsheviks were traitors to Russia. Certainly the communists were, and are, traitors to China.


Murika is suckin’ wind. Now that they’ve lost the UE, they are on their way to losing Taiwan. Neo-con wankers.


Curiously, wikipedia map about the military operations in Donbass are outdated from May 7.


They, China and Russia must have each others back or the would be taken over eventually on it’s own. However, together they are a powerhouse that the US and NATO realize their goose is cooked.


For direct reference of ass kissing 💋 😘 look no further than Natostan.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x