Number of the day

9.1% 

That’s how much this year’s Black Friday online US sales grew compared to last year, according to Adobe Analytics. It could be a sign of a more robust US economy than expected, or maybe it’s jittery consumers deferring their purchases in hopes of a discount?

The leader doth protest too much

There are three guaranteed ways to get yelled at online: i) examining whether Die Hard belongs in the Christmas movie section, ii) examining whether pineapple belongs on pizza, and iii) examining whether Taiwan belongs to China.

The answer to both i) and ii) is clearly yes, but join us for iii) as we don some industrial-strength earmuffs and take a quick look at Beijing's legal arguments over Taiwan.

But first, why? Two reasons:

• first, Taiwan is now often (with the South China Sea) cited as the flashpoint that could end history’s longest stint without great-power war since Caesar; and

• second, while a top court already reviewed the South China Sea claims (turns out you can’t draw nine dashes on a map then declare it all yours), most Taiwan coverage only meekly notes China sees the democracy as a renegade province.

So given the stakes (WWIII?) it makes sense to ask… is Taiwan a renegade province?

Beyond the former Qing dynasty’s two centuries of evolving control before ceding Taiwan to an aggressive Imperial Japan in 1895, Beijing’s modern legal claims often start with…

1. UN resolution 2758 (1971)

This was when a majority of the international community voted to recognise Beijing (not Taiwan) as "the only legitimate representative of China to the United Nations". The text, however, says nada about Taiwan belonging to China. Then there’s…

2. Your own 'One China' policy

Most of the world now has some kind of 'One China' policy, and (including for the US) it's broadly similar to that UN vote above: ie, recognising Beijing as the sole representative of China, rather than endorsing Beijing's claim that Taiwan belongs to China.

This gets into Suits territory, but most capitals explicitly stop at just 'noting' or 'acknowledging' China’s territorial claims, rather than affirming or endorsing them.

And let’s not forget…

3. The Cairo (1943) and Potsdam (1945) declarations

Issued by FDR/Truman, Churchill, and Chiang (China's pre-communist ruler), these wartime statements said Japan should surrender Taiwan to Chiang's own Republic of China (which still runs Taiwan today). The three allies said nothing about handing Taiwan to today's People's Republic of China, which didn't yet exist, though some argue the intent automatically transfers to whoever's running the mainland.

It's also worth noting that these kinds of political statements (the Cairo one was a press release) can't legally transfer turf — that needs a formal treaty, which came later when Japan formally gave up Taiwan via the 1952 San Francisco Peace Treaty, in a text that’s silent on who should actually take over (Chiang was already in control there for years).

And finally, sitting right under our noses, let’s look at…

4. Taiwan's own claims

Taiwan technically still calls itself the Republic of China, and its founding 1947 constitution still technically (if implausibly) claims China's entire mainland (ditto China’s constitution re Taiwan) — it's one of many unresolved wounds from China's civil war.

But whereas Taiwan's democratic transition saw it abandon any pretence to ruling China, the mainland has instead doubled down on its Taiwan claims as its power has grown.

So why doesn't Taiwan just change its name and ditch its claims over the mainland? Beijing has made clear it’d see this as a declaration of independence, justifying an invasion.

Fun times. Anyway, you can add a million caveats to the above, but hopefully while hitting pause on your annual Christmas viewing of Die Hard to take a bite out of your ham n’ pineapple pizza, you can see that China’s legal case isn’t necessarily a slam dunk.

Intrigue’s Take

Diplomacy often thrives in this kind of intentional vagueness or constructive ambiguity, and things don’t get much more vague or ambiguous than when it comes to Taiwan.

Indeed, while leaders and diplomats will have clinked celebratory flutes over their studied silence in 1952 and 1971, or their careful wording to tip-toe around One China, it’s all precisely what’s brought us to today’s dilemma: a thriving democracy emerging out of the ambiguity, only to find itself sitting in the shadow of a giant who sees no ambiguity at all.

Meanwhile, elsewhere…

Extra Intrigue

🤣 Your weekly roundup of the world’s lighter news

• Police have charged an LA man for stopping a freeway to record a music video.

• A Singapore-based firm has halted sales of its AI-enhanced teddy bear (?) after it started giving advice on where to find knives.

• Italian authorities are investigating a man for dressing up as his late mother in an attempt to claim her pension.

• Air India has forgotten it owned a Boeing 737.

• And a leading cryptology firm has had to cancel its own leadership ballot after losing the encryption key it needs to unlock the results.

Embassy of the day

Sometimes diplomacy is about volunteering to rep the ambassador at some random national day, then learning the hard way (standing at the bar) it’s a dry event.

But other times diplomacy is about making cuts, as in Finland’s new announcement that it’s shuttering its embassies in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Myanmar.

Why? The Finns mention “changes in the countries’ political situation and their limited commercial and economic relations”. And sure, it’s unclear how much Koskenkorva or Harvia you can sell in Taliban-run Afghanistan or junta-run Myanmar.

But the review’s stated aim is also to redirect resources to “strategically important” destinations which, as it turns out, means the US energy capital of Houston for now.

Today’s poll

Yesterday’s poll: Do you think Ukraine and Russia will accept a peace plan before the end of the year?

🕊️ Yes, there's too much pressure (13%)
🔥 No, they're still too far apart (86%)
✍️ Other (write in!) (1%)

Your two cents:

• 🔥 G.M: “Positions are irreductible. Russia wants annexation, Ukraine seeks autonomy.”

• 🕊️ C.O.T.E: “Ukraine has finally realized it can't win and they will need to make concessions in order to go forward. Likewise, Russia would like to expand its footprint on the world stage, but can't join the big players again without settling the war.”

• ✍️ G.C: “Regardless of whether either side accepts a peace plan, Russia will never obey any limits the peace plan puts on it. The war won't really end until either Ukraine doesn't exist or Putin is dead.”