CHINA PERSPECTIVE

Beijing, May 21, 2026. The announcement of a phone call between Donald Trump and Taiwanese President Lai Ching-te sparked a strong reaction from Chinese authorities, who denounce a blatant contradiction with verbal commitments made by Washington during the recent state visit to Beijing. This direct contact would be the first between an incumbent US president and a Taiwanese leader since 1979, when the United States broke off official diplomatic relations with Taipei to recognize the People's Republic of China.

For Beijing, the sequence of events is particularly revealing. Trump had declared, on the sidelines of his state visit, that he did not support Taiwan's independence - a formula that the Taiwan Affairs Office had hailed as a positive signal. However, in a few days, Washington not only approved a $14 billion arms sale to Taiwan but is now preparing a direct presidential call that, in Beijing's eyes, undermines the principle of one China.

The Taiwan Affairs Office hardened its tone on Wednesday after Lai's anniversary speech, which marked his two years in power. Spokesman Chen Binhua accused the Taiwanese leader of delivering a speech full of 'lies and deceit, hostility and confrontation.' Lai, according to Beijing, 'stubbornly adhered to the erroneous stance of Taiwan's independence' and promoted what China calls 'sovereign independence' and 'mutual non-subordination.' Chen Binhua called him 'a destroyer of peace in the strait' and a 'troublemaker.'

In his speech, Lai wanted to present his administration as firm but measured in the face of continental pressures - a framing that Beijing rejects as a communication maneuver aimed at masking a separatist policy. The fact that Trump seemed to implicitly validate this stance by agreeing to talk to him reinforces the Chinese reading of a Taiwan encouraged by Washington to persist in what Beijing considers a dangerous line.

The economic aspect aggravates the resentment. Taiwan is the fourth-largest trading partner of the United States. Beijing sees in this reality a lever that Washington uses to justify its continued engagement with the island, while refusing to assume the diplomatic consequences of such proximity.