As this post is being written House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is in Taiwan. Not coincidentally, Tom Friedman devoted today’s New York Times column to criticizing her visit:
I have a lot of respect for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. But if she does go ahead with a visit to Taiwan this week, against President Biden’s wishes, she will be doing something that is utterly reckless, dangerous and irresponsible.
Nothing good will come of it. Taiwan will not be more secure or more prosperous as a result of this purely symbolic visit, and a lot of bad things could happen. These include a Chinese military response that could result in the U.S. being plunged into indirect conflicts with a nuclear-armed Russia and a nuclear-armed China at the same time.
And if you think our European allies — who are facing an existential war with Russia over Ukraine — will join us if there is U.S. conflict with China over Taiwan, triggered by this unnecessary visit, you are badly misreading the world.
His basic criticisms are:
- We should be courting China rather than antagonizing the Chinese. Pelosi’s junket antagonizes the Chinese.
- The war in Ukraine is not over. It is not even stable. Why take the risk of a two-front war?
- Pelosi’s visit provides President Xi with an opportunity to wag the dog and a Chinese attack on Taiwan now rather than when it is even better prepared is not in our interests.
My own view is that the House has no Constitutional role in foreign policy and the mere fact of the trip is creating foreign policy. The Senate’s Constitutional role in foreign policy is limited to advice and consent. Presidents have been too lax for too many years about Congressmen creating foreign policy.
Update
At 1945 James Holmes gives some pretty sage contributions to the subject:
Nancy Pelosi did not need to go to Taiwan. But having publicly broached the possibility of alighting in Taipei during her tour of Asian capitals, she must go. Otherwise, the U.S. House speaker will appear to have quailed before the bombast issuing from Chinese Communist Party (CCP) officialdom since the news broke that she might visit President Tsai Ing-wen.
Pelosi would lose face were she to relent now. And America would lose face not just with China, but with allies and friends, by association. Its standing in the Indo-Pacific would suffer.
but I don’t think that he takes the position in which Beijing finds itself seriously:
Which is doubtless what Beijing wants to bring about through its huffing, puffing diplomacy. Never forget that the CCP regards peacetime diplomacy as war carried on through other means. The party wages “three warfares†on a neverending, 24/7/365 cycle, striving to shape the political and strategic environment in its favor through psychological, media, and legal means. It hopes bluster will deter the speaker from carrying through with her plans. One party-affiliated reporter, Hu Xijin, has even tried to define the visit an “invasion†of China, and espoused the use of violent force should U.S. fighters escort her plane to Taiwanese airspace.
And indeed, in recent months, the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) has displayed an increasing penchant for deploying violence to help Beijing get its way.
This whole affair may become a case of both the United States and the Chinese placing themselves into corners from which it’s hard to extricate themselves. Sort of double-reverse jiu jitsu. This is how great powers oops themselves into war.
Meh. US politicians go there pretty often already. If Xi wanted an excuse he could have used any of those other trips. The mere fact of the other trips could also be seen as foreign policy f you want.
Oh, and you should be happy. The Biden admin approved the first small nuke plant.
https://www.utilitydive.com/news/nrc-certifies-nuscale-small-modular-reactor-design-SMR-nuclear-us/628519/?utm_source=join1440&utm_medium=email
Steve
I think it’s irresponsible, and the timing is particularly bad.
The combination of the circumstances leading to, and the war itself, in Ukraine, combined with this visit could very well convince the Chinese that our promises of a “One China” policy are merely words. Like Russia and Ukraine, the Chinese could reasonably conclude that we intend to ensure that Taiwan remains independent and even allied with the US. The Chinese probably do not think this visit is a coincidence when considering Biden’s statement two months ago that the US would go to war to defend Taiwan.
This may not be the final straw, but it seems obvious this promotes the idea, increasingly common in many circles in China, that forced reunification is inevitable.
The problem is that Taiwan, unlike Ukraine, has real strategic importance. Furthermore, supplying Taiwan with weapons as we do with Ukraine is logistically much more difficult. Finally, a war with a country and nation with an economy that is as large or larger than ours is something we haven’t done in a very long time and is certainly something we’ve never done with a nuclear-armed power before.
I do not think the American people understand the stakes here
The last time a House Speaker visited Taiwan was 25 years ago and Gingrich shouldn’t have done it then. Conditions have changed in 25 years. Back then China’s GDP (PPP) was about a third ours. Now it’s around parity.
Then we should stop having our Senators and Congress people visit. The Speaker position changes when the party loses, like they will this year, but there is a pretty steady stream of our leaders visiting the place. I have a hard time believing that a short timer speaker visiting is actually that much different than a senior Senator or Congressperson.
Steve
The speaker is third in the line of presidential succession and has largely unchecked power on what comes to the floor of the House. The House controls the budget. House Speaker is arguably the most powerful individual in the U. S. government.
“I have a hard time believing that a short timer speaker visiting is actually that much different than a senior Senator or Congressperson.”
Well, the Chinese don’t seem to agree with you. China is treating this as a “big fucking deal” to quote a certain famous person.
And it’s important to note that this doesn’t exist in isolation but is a pattern of increased US engagement, more frequent visitation by current and former officials, and efforts by members of Congress to increase diplomatic recognition of Taiwan.
So Dave, what exactly does the House pass that goes into law anymore? You are talking about the Speakers of Christmas Past.
Steve
The Reagan strike group sailing towards Taiwan is being accompanied by a big deck Marine amphibious assault ship carrying at least one squadron of F-35B’s.
Both of China’s carrier strike groups are also being deployed to Taiwan. They are backed up by China’s land-based aircraft and missiles.
The next move is up to China. In the Cuban Missile Crisis, there were sane leaders in both the US and USSR. Let’s hope Xi can provide a solution to this crisis. The Biden administration, whoever they are, can’t.
And accidents happen.
Besides the Russo-Ukrainian war, the US is also stirring the Kosovo-Serbian pot. And Israel is threatening to attack Iran.
And there is Kim. The joker in the deck.
I agree with @Andy.
Since manufacturing plants depend upon semiconductors, they are needed to produce bombs, bullets, and boots. Hopefully, somebody still knows how to build a “dumb factory” to produce “dumb bombs”.
The easiest way for China to takeover Taiwan is through a “color revolution”.
I think these: (Dave and Andy) are both correct.
“My own view is that the House has no Constitutional role in foreign policy and the mere fact of the trip is creating foreign policy.”
“I think it’s irresponsible, and the timing is particularly bad.”
I think steve grossly misreads the issue of a Speaker vs a run of the mill congress critter.
In any event, I think the real issue hasn’t been addressed. Why go now? The whole thing seems a clown show. I’m to understand that the Speaker and the White House don’t talk? About something like this? And then the visit news was leaked. Now you are screwed – you gotta go. Sounds like a Pelosi camp leak to me.
So why? Methinks Democrats need something to point to for the mid-terms. And of course Hunter is in the news. What a great time to show the antt-Chinese bonafides?
Think that too conspiratorial? Well, then you have to assume the Admin and the Speaker are as buffoonish as they appears.
Here is a few questions and observations.
1. Why the supposition that Pelosi is acting independently vs being willing participant in a policy aim that Biden could disclaim responsibility for its consequence?
Pelosi is in the same party as Biden, has advocated the administrations aims with barely a gap between the two, and the trip has been rumored/planned since March, indicating planning that would involve the administration.
2. How it plays in Chinese politics?
Having it occur just prior to the pivotal CCP Congress where Xi is seeking a precedent breaking 3rd term along with a complete reshuffle of the standing committee / politburo is a great unknown.
3. Don’t assume what happened in Ukraine is what happens in Taiwan.
It should be understood if hostilities break out in the Taiwan strait; it will very likely result in direct hostilities between the Peoples Liberation Army and the US Navy. I haven’t heard of a simulation where the US managed to stay out of formal hostilities and keep it as a proxy war.
4. In some sense; the direction the relationship is heading is quite dangerous. The forces that reconciled China and US (the USSR and trade) are actually dividing the two sides. Without that; I don’t see what incentive for both sides to peacefully agree to disagree on the issue of Taiwan.
5. I am not sure what is in the water these days — but this continues a trend of provocative risk taking in foreign policy. Some bipartisan examples include —
– Recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.
– Killing Solameini
– Arming Ukraine and signing defense cooperation agreements pre March 2022
None of these have resulted in direct blowback and only Ukraine resulted in indirect (albeit heavy) blowback. At some point; that streak will end…
Last year the House passed nearly 10,000 bills each one of which needed the speaker’s approval to move forward.
CuriousOnlooker:
1. IMO it’s more likely that Biden is taking the lead from Pelosi rather than the other way around.
2. That is the question, isn’t it? I don’t see how the Chinese can not act.
3. I have no idea what would transpire in a Chinese attack on Taiwan and I doubt anyone else does, either.
4. It’s what I mean by “oopsing into a war”.
I would just add that historical examples of bad risk-reward decisions abound when it comes to war and peace. And very often, this is because the risk of action is very frequently deemed to be less than the risk of inaction which incentivizes going to war in order to prevent future outcome. It’s the way our species is wired. Just some examples off the top of my head:
– Japan attacking the US in 1941
– Russia attacking Ukraine
– The US attacking Iraq
– Vietnam
– US Civil War
– Every case of “preventative” war.
Andy, with respect to your other examples we don’t know a great deal about the internal deliberations that led up to the conflict but we do regarding Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor. Dissidents within the ruling regime warned them of what would happen. They did it anyway.
In other words there was a “war” faction and a “no war” faction. The “no war” faction lost the argument and the war faction lost everything.
To your list I would add the attacks on 9/11. I’m not sure whether Bin Laden and his inner circle underestimated the U. S. response or the effectiveness of the attacks. Possibly both. Would they have proceeded had they known?
Isn’t President Tsai Ing-wen female?
Isn’t there a female contender for the next Chinese President?
What does Speaker Pelosis visit and image say to over 50% of the worlds population?
Perhaps Putin needs a female contender?
1) For Japan I think that the war faction wanted to go to war and they were mostly looking for an excuse.
2) There are some who think that Bin Laden actually wanted us to respond by overreacting and invading Afghanistan so he got what he wanted.
3) Xi has stayed in power and been pretty popular, I think (and this holds true for his predecessors), largely based upon the steady economic growth of the country. Taiwan makes an outsized number fo the world’s states of the art semiconductors. War there risks significant economic damage. I mostly expect posturing, but if they do decide to engage in some sort fo military action then I think it was pretty much inevitable and they were just looking for an excuse.
Steve
I had never heard that Bin Laden wanted us to invade Afghanistan. I had heard that he wanted us to overreact and retaliate against Saudi Arabia which he could use as a cry to rally all Muslims against us.
Will look for the interview, and it is always possible I am misremembering, but bin Laden was part of the mujahideen effort in Afghanistan that takes credit for the Russians leaving. The plan was to lure us to Afghanistan and then bleed us dry like they did to the Russians. Seemed somewhat believable since fighting the last war is so common. I think he actually may have been a true believer so doubt he would want to risk damage to Mecca.
Steve