After Friday’s “hysteria” about President-elect Donald Trump having “blundered” in having a phone call with Taiwan’s president, officials with his incoming government are revealing that the plan was no accident, and had been planned for a long time.
Officials claimed “months of discussion” on the matter, with Trump intending the phone call, the first since President Jimmy Carter cut diplomatic ties with Taiwan in 1979, as a deliberately provocative move that sought to underscore his intention to break with tradition.
US relations, and ultimately lack thereof, with Taiwan are a long and complicated story, starting with the Sino-American Mutual Defense Treaty of 1955, in which the US government recognized the Taiwan-based “Republic of China” (ROC) as the rightful government of mainland China as well as Taiwan, and pledging continued support for them.
The ROC retained this status, and indeed China’s position at the UN Security Council, and the US had no ties with the Chinese government (PRC) until Richard Nixon’s 1972 visit to China. In 1978, China announced the “united front” policy with the US, which aligned them against the Soviet Union, supporting US operations in Afghanistan, and attacking Vietnam. Eager to reward the PRC for this move, President Carter cut ties with Taiwan’s ROC outright.
Since then, US-Taiwan relations have been very complicated, with no official diplomatic ties. Congress passed the Taiwan Relations Act in 1979 which continued military support for Taiwan against China, paradoxically while the US continues to not actually recognize Taiwan as a government.
The US State Department established the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) in 1979, which attempted to circumvent the lack of diplomatic ties by running embassy and consular services through the AIT. The US treats the AIT director as an ambassador for all intents and purposes, and it’s staffed by State Department employees, while retaining the flimsy pretext of not being an embassy.
When US-China relations began growing and Taiwan relations were put in this weird state of limbo, the US did not stop or even slow arms shipments to them, and in 1982 President Reagan unveiled the “Six Assurances,” which vowed that the US would never recognize China’s sovereignty over Taiwan or alter the terms of the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act. The Six Assurances have been endorsed by every president since, with US officials repeatedly committing America to directly intervene militarily to keep China from taking over Taiwan.
While many feared a huge backlash from the move, with Sen. Chris Murphy (D – CT) saying of the phone call “that’s how wars start,” the Chinese reaction appears to be of little practical meaning. China’s Foreign Ministry lodged a complaint, and urged the US to be more cautious in the future about Taiwan, but ultimately US-China relations don’t look to change in any serious way over the call.
As Arte Johnson used to say, “Very interesting. But stupid.” I’m glad Trump is challenging the two-faced status quo.
“After Friday’s “hysteria” about President-elect Donald Trump having “blundered” in having a phone call with Taiwan’s president, officials with his incoming government are revealing that the plan was no accident, and had been planned for a long time.”
More likely that this is reactive spin, taking the view that being criticised for active confrontationalism is better than being criticised for even minor and perfectly understandable incompetence. But no way of knowing for sure.
“While many feared a huge backlash from the move, with Sen. Chris Murphy (D – CT) saying of the phone call “that’s how wars start,” the Chinese reaction appears to be of little practical meaning. China’s Foreign Ministry lodged a complaint, and urged the US to be more cautious in the future about Taiwan, but ultimately US-China relations don’t look to change in any serious way over the call.”
I don’t know why anyone would take the views of the likes of Murphy seriously, after his destructive warmongering buffoonery with John McCain in Kiev, but regardless this is a pretty foolish way to look at it. Basically taking an absurd overstatement of the potential Chinese reaction and using it as a kind of straw man to say “oh well, it’s alright because that didn’t happen”.
Trump’s action left China with a choice of response – blow the matter up if they want to start out relations with the new US regime on a confrontational footing and “test Trump’s mettle” or downplay it and wait for a suitable time to respond on a matter that’s diplomatically inconvenient for the US. Needless to say, when the Chinese do retaliate, US apologists will bitch and moan about China’s action being some kind of “unprovoked” slight, but that’s the US’s general modus operandi.
Regardless, there will most likely be a cost to the US and to Taiwan for this, but it will come at a time of China’s choosing.
Trump might think blowing up anti-Chinese rhetoric is a good negotiating tactic, and I’ve no doubt whatsoever that many of his advisers are more than happy to encourage that idea, knowing that in strategic matters often such rhetoric can create realities that make a deal impracticable in the future, therefore setting up the confrontation that serves their lobby objectives.
“Regardless, there will most likely be a cost to the US and to Taiwan for this, but it will come at a time of China’s choosing.”
Exactly. It’s guaranteed. They do not forget this stuff.
I’m finding the analysis of events here has taken a marked decline, which I attribute to the hopes people are placing in Trump.
“the hopes people are placing in Trump”
I think it’s reasonable to “wait and see”, to some extent.
“but ultimately US-China relations don’t look to change in any serious way over the call”
Is it just about the call itself?. Trump’s advisors include those who are against the One China policy. How much influence will they have? And Trump has repeatedly made noises regarding high tariffs that would lead to a real trade war (and the unintended consequences of that?) . Are those just noises?
I’m finding a trend on this website to make accommodations to defend Trump which might be very misplaced.
He’s starting to use almost belligerent rhetoric towards China that would be harshly criticized by the writers here if they were used against Russia.
“I’m finding a trend on this website to make accommodations to defend Trump which might be very misplaced.
He’s starting to use almost belligerent rhetoric towards China that would be harshly criticized by the writers here if they were used against Russia.”
As I noted below, it’s reasonable to adopt something of a “wait and see” approach to the incoming regime’s foreign policies. I’m a Trump supporter myself, albeit from a foreigner’s perspective, and I have little doubt that almost whatever Trump does on foreign policy it will probably be better than what Clinton would have done, but I do recognise that there is a real risk of US policy lurching directly from stupidity on Russia to stupidity on Iran, and quite possibly China as well.
Some of Trump’s personnel picks (Mattis, Pompeo, Flynn) are concerning in this regard.
Trump of course has domestic policy issues with China (on trade), and that’s one reason I suggested below that he might think it’s useful to start out belligerent in order to improve the terms of an ultimate renegotiated Grand Bargain he might seek to forge with China. It’s not impossible, after all “Nixon went to China”, but it strikes me as pretty risky given the general background and the nefarious ulterior motives of many of those likely encouraging him down that path.
Hillary was always a risk to get us into a war with Russia. Trump was always a risk to get us into a war with China.
He was never a peacenick, even though some people thought his non-hostility toward Russia made him one. He just has a different war in mind.
We did slow arms sales to Taiwan. That’s why Taiwan had to buy naval frigats from France, and our fighter aircraft sales to Taiwan have always been a generation or two behind the top-of-the-line aircraft we sell to others.
It’s about time the President(elect) tells the warmongering bureaucrats at the State Department and other agencies, who’s in charge of foreign policy.
This could be the beginning of Trump’s own Pivot to Asia, which should be considered a big deal and a possible threat to world peace or what’s left of it.
I don’t think anyone has really grasped what Trump is up to here. This is not making a statement of a change in policy and then working towards implementing that policy. This is kicking a hornets nest because you like kicking hornet’s nests.
Trump seems to have poked the Chinese simply to demonstrate that he can. And I believe what we can look forward to is that he will will pocket this subdued response and keep kicking until he provokes a real one. Why would he do that? Because for him, this is fun.
The model is not some standard-bearer of new ideas. The model is the Joker. Trump wants to see the world burn. Because it’s fun. If it’s not the Chinese, it’ll be someone else he deliberately, and pointlessly, kicks in the teeth. He’s going to keep doing it because he can. Because for him, showing he’s the top dog, that he can break any rules he chooses, is fun.
Send American ships to sit a few kilometers from those islands the Chinese are building? Blow Iranian speedboats out of the water in the Persian Gulf? Shoot down Russian planes that get too close to American ships in the Black Sea?
I think we can count on it.