China will not allow Taiwan, which has historically been part of China, to break away. This is a permanent red line for China. Some far-sighted people in the US have called for adjusting the US’ Taiwan policy, abolish the Taiwan Relations Act and the “six assurances” to herald a fully normal and healthy bilateral relationship with China, and this should happen sooner rather than later.

The more the U.S. emphasizes “rebalance”, the more we see that the most awkward balance is between White House and Congress, between the Chinese mainland and Taiwan, and between U.S. allies and China. A US House resolution that offers tacit support to Taiwan independence was a strategic error that should be corrected for the sake of all sides.

All indications are that Taiwan’s new leader and the governing apparatus around her are half-hearted about the 1992 Consensus and strengthening cross-Strait relations. Her inaugural speech reflects not American-style candor but Japanese-style victimhood, and does not offer a viable way forward. A period of uncertainty and unpleasant surprises in cross-Strait relations lies ahead.

President Xi’s past remarks that defined the “cultural revolution” as “ten years of havoc should have made some less aggressive in singing the praises of those years. The “cultural revolution” was a historic setback that is no cure for the troubles of today’s China. That populist fantasy would be an insane act of backpedaling.

China’s long history with its concentric cycles of buildup and decay tends to support the notion that the general political outlook is knowable, while the specifics remain indeterminate due to complexity. Nothing short of society-wide endeavor can stem the tide of negative trends and polluting influences. Change, for the better, and for the worse, sets in slowly and incrementally, often beyond immediate perception.

Official media’s belated revisiting of that dark period suggests a policy of putting the memory behind us, but ignoring history opens the door to repeating it.

Tom Watkins reviews the still contested—but often un-discussed—narratives surrounding the causes and reasons for the Cultural Revolution, which began fifty years ago. He mostly disagrees with the assertion that the current regime of Xi Jinping is similar to the conditions that brought about the fervor of revolution not seen since the time of Chairman Mao.

In order to overcome the buildup of strategic mistrust and rivalry, both governments must put aside their suspicions and be open to dialogues, workshops, seminars, and travel groups with the broadest array of participants from business, academic, NGO, scientific, media, and other expert communities that are focused on strategic issues.

Rogier Creemers argues that for global Internet continuity, the West must recognize China has legitimate interests and claims that must be respected, even if the foundational values of its political system are diametrically opposed. Conversely, China must come to terms with the fact that not all rules in the global playing field are sedulous attempts by the U.S. to expand its own power, and that it also must be bound by them in order to maintain global stability and prosperity.

In contrast to Jared McKinney’s recently reviewed “China Dream” by Liu Mingfu, Michael Pilsbury has a China Nightmare. The Dream is for China to become a powerful global leader that assumes its rightful place in the world as a respected and prestigious nation. The Nightmare is that China achieves this and then imposes its values on the world.