One of the bizarre things about American politics is how multiple policies that nobody particularly likes add up to a single policy that many will fight to the death to defend. The most obvious example of that is Social Security retirement, a combination of stipends that are too small with a payroll tax onerous to both workers and businesses, adding up to a program that is the third rail of American politics.
Another is the U. S. policy with respect to the People’s Republic of China on the mainland and the Republic of China in Taiwan.
Recently Donald Trump was in the news (as usual), this time over a phone conversation with the president of Taiwan. Old China hands were up in arms. Whether their concern was about the policy implications or the invasion of their turf is hard to say but the call rocked the long-established “One China Policy” boat from the U. S. side of the skiff.
The idea that there is only one China has been a staple both on the mainland and of Kuomintang Taiwan for very nearly the last 70 years. They just disagree over whether the People’s Republic of China or the Republic of China (Taiwan) is China’s legitimate government, a substantial sticking point.
When Richard Nixon began his rapprochement with the PRC, he neither accepted nor reject the “One China Policy”. He just conceded that it was the PRC’s official policy as part of the cost of opening negotiations.
Jimmy Carter broke off relations with the ROC unilaterally in 1979, without the support of Congress. That was within his power as president but what is done by presidential fiat may be undone by presidential fiat. And that’s pretty much where the matter stands.
All of the foregoing ignores a critical question: what should our policy with respect to China be? One China or two? If one, which is the legitimate China? Or do we care?
I don’t have an answer to these questions and, honestly, don’t even have an opinion. In that I suspect I’m like most Americans.
Whatever the answer I suspect we should be prepared for some major changes in U. S. policy. It looks like the negotiations are re-opening.
Russel Mead’s take is probably the best one I’ve read. For my part, I cannot understand why the U.S. would care that much about Taiwan, it’s possibly one of the only frozen Cold War conflicts that keeping frozen is the best outcome. Mead argues the move signals change — moving away from an Asian policy involving economics and human rights, and one solely involving regional security concerns.
First, it is possible that President-elect Trump is trying to wear down the overwrought anti-Trump elite establishment by inauguration. If so, President Trump would be left with a group of exhausted raving lunatics. I doubt it, but it could be intentional.
Second, with Trump, days seem like months, and months seem like decades. Last year seems like a lifetime. Does anybody recall what he did six months ago? The Sen. McCain incident seems like it was back in the Bush era (Elder or Younger, take your pick).
The man is like the energizer bunny. If he does start a war, I would hate to be any country involved. He could be an ally or enemy, and it could change from day-to-day.
For those of you all who keep waiting for him to fail, I would suggest you get used to him. He did not get to where he is by bumbling his way there. President Obama never had the spectacular fail that the Republicans were salivating over, and I predict that President Trump is not going to deliver the deathblow to the Obama legacy.
If so, President Trump would be left with a group of exhausted raving lunatics.
There’s always crystal meth!
LOL, I love the idea of David Frum and Paul Krugman wandering around looking for a fix at some dive donut stand, missing most of their teeth. This is going to be the best Presidency of my lifetime!
@Icepick
There’s always crystal meth!
With the border wall, deported criminal illegals, importation taxes, and reduced regulations, the local biker gangs should be able to start up the old meth labs again, and the meth heads should be able to easily be able to purchase Sudafed.
Besides getting the local economy thriving, many bikers will beat the crap out of the hippies.
Might be an even better analysis of Trump’s call:
https://twitter.com/TomoNewsUS/status/805574874051641344
(warning link starts video; some cartoon violence)
Main points from Mead’s piece:
“The Obama pivot involved a trade deal that excluded China, a human rights emphasis calculated to isolate it politically, and a small military presence carefully calculated not to antagonize it. Trump is dropping the effort to marginalize China economically, dropping Obama’s human rights emphasis as counterproductive, and stepping up the effort to deter China with strong military forces and close cooperation with like minded states in the security field.
“This may or may not work in Asia, but there is one truth here that needs to be acknowledged: the Obama pivot had already begun to fall apart. TPP was politically unsustainable at home, and the human rights policies of the Obama administration, however noble philosophically, were increasingly unsustainable in an Asia where the power of democratic ideology is on the wane. Thailand, Burma, the Philippines, Malaysia and Indonesia all seem to be moving away from western democratic ideas; that is regrettable for many reasons, but if one believes that China’s power needs to be balanced with a collection of regional allies, one must build coalitions with the Asia one has.”
http://www.the-american-interest.com/2016/12/04/what-the-taiwan-call-means/
I still haven’t decided if Trump is stupid but lucky or crazy like a fox. I can see it both ways with this incident.
Thank you Dave for obliging with a post about Trump calling Tsai. You make excellent points about policy inertia, and the ambiguity about “One China”.
The current American policy on China and Taiwan rests on assumptions from when Nixon reoriented policy in the 1970’s. The assumptions were,
(1) Previous previous policy failed with Asia being unstable and the US having fought poorly in Korea, Vietnam.Â
(2) Mainland China is a lesser threat then the Soviet Union and both China and the US have a stronger interest in weakening the Soviet Union then each in working with the Soviet Union.
(3) Mainland China is a 3rd world country, so any commerce with it, won’t meaningfully hurt the US, and needs to be encouraged as an investment in the future
(4) Taiwan is also a backwater, with no American core interests involved.
(5) Most people in Taiwan still view themselves as “Chinese”
The change in policy succeeded, especially in (1), (2), (3). Asia has not had a big war since, the Soviet Union dissolved, and China moved out of poverty. The problem now is that all the assumptions aren’t true anymore, and the US has not reassessed policy, instead trying to fine tune. The Chinese have reassessed policy and the result is a failing passive-aggressive relationship that in my opinion, is headed for disaster on its current course.
So a reassessment is needed, and looking from an American view, it should start with these observations
(1) Current policy is failing and Asia is being destabilized by (mostly) intentional actions of the Mainland Chinese. Mostly obvious in the South China sea, but also in Taiwan, South Korea and Japan
(2) The Soviet Union is gone and China sees no shared interest in weakening Russia.
(3) China is a great power and has legitimate interests
(4) The scale of unbalanced trade policy with China is hurting the US economy, from wrecking the industrial midwest, to overheating West Coast house prices
(5) The US has core interests in Taiwan, because TSMC is based there. TSMC is the dominant company that manufactures the CPU inside the IPhone and GPU’s. If China were to take TSMC by force, it would be a technological Pearl Harbor for the US.
(6) People in Taiwan no longer mostly identity as “Chinese” but now identity as “Taiwanese”
Taiwan is to China is some ways like Ukraine is to Russia. The US should always prioritize relations with China over Taiwan. Taiwan will always have to account for Mainland China’s interests, but unlike Ukraine, while Taiwan has such advanced tech, the US won’t let Taiwan be run over.
I’ll end on a pessimisstic note that even if changes are needed, its doubtful Trump has the skills to negotiate them to US advantage. The Chinese government are master negotiators, they know how to weaken opposite negotiators by the use of the divisions in democratic society (eg Taiwan), humiliation (e.g. kowtow, or Thatcher’s negotations over Hong Kong), how to make promises they don’t intend to keep (WTO), or straight out bullying. They also have the advantage of knowing US thinking through our open media while they keep their thinking private.
North Korea is the only country consistently does well vs the Chinese at negotiations, and they did it by threatening Beijing to flood China with millions of refugees, a nuclear holocaust, and then US troops at the China-Korean border!
I’ll end with a positive note. Many of the observations I made sound overly negative about China — but I think another reassessment will be needed in 15 years. That’s when the generation that protested at Tiananmen will be in power, and from personal interaction, they have a different view from the generation before.
That’s an excellent comment, CuriousOnlooker. I can’t add a lot other than that China’s relationship with Taiwan is complicated. Culturally, China has been distancing itself from Taiwan. One small example: China uses the simplified orthography; Taiwan uses the traditional orthography. That’s the one I learned but, well, I studied Chinese a long time ago.
The enormous Chinese submarine fleet (nearing three times the size of ours) is clearly directed at Taiwan. As recently as a half dozen years ago there was a hot debate over what the outcome would be if China were to attempt an invasion of Taiwan and there were genuine military experts who thought that Taiwan could hold its own. I haven’t heard that argued lately.
To add to the complexity, a number of China’s largest companies are subcontractors (or even subsidiaries) of Taiwanese companies. The economic web tying the mainland to Taiwan is very tangled.
Your remarks about the generational issues governing China are significant, too. The present leadership came of age during the Cultural Revolution. I strongly suspect they’re of a very different stamp not only than the revolutionary generation that preceded them but of the post-Cultural Revolution group that will follow them.