Should the U.S. reverse its policy on China/Taiwan?

[Stevicus]

Pelosi ends Taiwan visit as furious China conducts combat exercises nearby - UPI.com

Pelosi met with Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen hours earlier and vowed that America's determination to protect democracy in Taiwan "remains ironclad."

"Now more than ever, America's solidarity with Taiwan is crucial," Pelosi said while receiving Taiwan's highest civilian honor, the Order of Propitious Clouds, from Tsai.

"Today, our delegation came to Taiwan to make unequivocally clear: We will not abandon our commitment to Taiwan and we're proud of our enduring friendship," she said.

When the Chinese Communist Revolution ended in 1949, and the government of the People's Republic of China was established on the mainland, the Nationalist Chinese government of Chiang Kai Shek retreated to Taiwan and continued to maintain that they were the true and legitimate government of China. U.S. policy reflected that until the 1970s, when Nixon visited Red China to try to bolster ties and take advantage of the Sino-Soviet split. In order to improve relations with Red China, one condition was that the U.S. had to cease its recognition of Taiwan and recognize the PRC as the true government of China. This raised hackles among anti-communists and was seen by many as the U.S. turning its back on Taiwan.

Now, 50 years later, U.S. policymakers seem to be expressing some measure of regret over decisions made by our government back then.

We didn't do this with South Korea. We didn't suddenly stop recognizing South Korea in favor of North Korea. Nor did we do this with Germany, although we did establish diplomatic relations with East Germany about the same time the reversal on Taiwan/China was taking place (1970s). But that didn't mean we stopped recognizing West Germany.

We also refused to recognize the Communist governments in Vietnam and Cuba for a very long time before finally doing so in 1995 (Vietnam) and 2015 (Cuba). Even then, a lot of people didn't like the fact that our government recognized those Communist regimes and established diplomatic relations.

Has our policy on China been coherent? For more than half a century, the US government touted itself as the "leader of the free world" and defender of capitalism against communism, and yet, when the opportunity for cheap labor and economic gain in China presented itself, they threw their principles and all caution to the four winds and embraced closer trade ties with a communist state. This has benefited China and the position of their government immensely, while the U.S. has faced greater hardship, such as supply chain difficulties, computer chip shortages, as well as severely lagging behind the industrialized world in education, science, technology, industry, and other key areas. This was due to our national leadership being extremely myopic, reckless, and greedy. It was great for the high flyers and quick buck artists, but that was only temporary, and now, we're in a worse situation than we would have been if we had stuck by our principles all along.

Should we close our embassy in Beijing and reopen it in Taipei? Should we have embassies in both countries, or at least try to, even if the PRC doesn't approve? If they don't approve, then it would be totally on them. China is essentially saying that they're still in a state of civil war that supposedly ended more than 70 years ago. Should the U.S. continue to give validation to that peculiar mental state that the Chinese government has been in?

 

[Twilight Hue]

H.R.2479 - 96th Congress (1979-1980): Taiwan Relations Act

Pretty self explanatory.

 

[Stevicus]

H.R.2479 - 96th Congress (1979-1980): Taiwan Relations Act

Pretty self explanatory.

That's what established the current status quo, yes. But the question is, should we maintain that or discontinue it?

 

[Twilight Hue]

That's what established the current status quo, yes. But the question is, should we maintain that or discontinue it?

Maintain it.

 

[Stevicus]

Maintain it.

Keep in mind that the reason this status quo exists in the first place was because our own government gave in to Mao's demands in an attempt to placate the government of Communist China. Our government did much the same in the 1990s even despite the Tiananmen Square massacre. That didn't matter to US policymakers back then; they favored a reckless free trade policy which has severely crippled the US economy in more recent years.

 

[F1fan]

That's what established the current status quo, yes. But the question is, should we maintain that or discontinue it?

China wants our trade business. I think if we want to see the peace the USA should bolster the trade relationship with the condition that Taiwan maintains autonomy. As we see with Russian any invasion will lily hurt their economy and bring on sanctions. China knows the USA relies heavily on their production and trade so it would be a soft pressure deal.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

I guess I voted that I don't really know. I don't think I understand what the policy on china even really is. Everything we use here, everything in this room, says 'made in china.' It's everywhere on goods outside of here as well. The old line of why this is good, has been that all of the trade was supposed to strengthen relations between countries. Probably a similar idea was involved with why trade went on with russia. But as for taiwan, I keep hearing something about either chip manufacturing or rare earth metals or something that goes on there

 

[Stevicus]

China wants our trade business. I think if we want to see the peace the USA should bolster the trade relationship with the condition that Taiwan maintains autonomy. As we see with Russian any invasion will lily hurt their economy and bring on sanctions. China knows the USA relies heavily on their production and trade so it would be a soft pressure deal.

I'm not so sure. Do they really want our trade business? Or was it more a matter of US corporations seeing the opportunity of China's inexpensive and captive labor force, sending US manufacturing jobs to China, and profiting quite nicely out of the deal?

It was great for short-term profit, so the US ruling class favored such policies, but now we're seeing the diminishing returns and the consequences of short-sighted policies rooted in blind greed. In the meantime, China has built up their own economy and become a much more potent adversary to deal with, both geopolitically and militarily.

Clearly, they've gotten what they needed from us, and now they don't need us anymore.

Meanwhile, the US has grown deeper in debt and lags behind the rest of the industrialized world in math and science education - along with many other key indicators. Our economy has faltered, and we're learning the ramifications and downside of placing ourselves in a position where, as you say, we rely heavily on their production and trade.

China and Russia both seem gripped by nationalism these days, and they both have some kind of grudge against the United States. We may have thought that relations were warming at the end of the Cold War - and maybe if we had wiser leadership at that critical juncture, we might not even have most of these problems today. But our leaders chose to act foolishly, and now we have what we have.

In any case, I don't believe Putin or Xi are really that interested in trade, nor do they seem to care much about sanctions. As nationalists, they're ostensibly thinking along a completely different plane of existence. We may be past the point of no return by now.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

• Don't Know / Undecided

I do not know enough to make a determination with any confidence.

 

[F1fan]

I'm not so sure. Do they really want our trade business? Or was it more a matter of US corporations seeing the opportunity of China's inexpensive and captive labor force, sending US manufacturing jobs to China, and profiting quite nicely out of the deal?

Well something is stopping China from invading Taiwan. It's not the Taiwan army. The island nation has only 25 million people. And given how much Chine invests in it's infrastructure and business suggests the trade is crucial to them. Their population is massive and they rely on global demand for products to maintain their status quo.

It was great for short-term profit, so the US ruling class favored such policies, but now we're seeing the diminishing returns and the consequences of short-sighted policies rooted in blind greed. In the meantime, China has built up their own economy and become a much more potent adversary to deal with, both geopolitically and militarily.

Clearly, they've gotten what they needed from us, and now they don't need us anymore.

I suspect that depends on how much the rest of the world relies on their products. The USA is a huge economic source for any nation that makes products.

Meanwhile, the US has grown deeper in debt and lags behind the rest of the industrialized world in math and science education - along with many other key indicators. Our economy has faltered, and we're learning the ramifications and downside of placing ourselves in a position where, as you say, we rely heavily on their production and trade.

The result of republican tax cuts on the wealthy. The wealthy get richer while the average citizens struggles making ends meet with higher prices. The republican plan is a better economy to bolster revenue, and that relies on China exports to a large degree.

China and Russia both seem gripped by nationalism these days, and they both have some kind of grudge against the United States. We may have thought that relations were warming at the end of the Cold War - and maybe if we had wiser leadership at that critical juncture, we might not even have most of these problems today. But our leaders chose to act foolishly, and now we have what we have.

Well the USA has it's compromised position of the human rights issues by both nations. Russia is cut off but not China, and that is because we are too dependent on their imports.

In any case, I don't believe Putin or Xi are really that interested in trade, nor do they seem to care much about sanctions. As nationalists, they're ostensibly thinking along a completely different plane of existence. We may be past the point of no return by now.

Both were clever to build economic relationships that are dependent on them. Europe is trying to find alternatives to energy and that has not led to them being able to cut off trade with Russia. China and the USA knows there is an interdependent relationship, but which nation has the lower bar for human right violations? China. So it we cut off trade they Xi would likely be indifferent to the suffering of the people. The USA would collapse fairly quickly due to lack of available products and inflation. So there is a mutually assured destruction with Russia and China, and keeping the peace with China is in the interest of both them and the USA. That doesn't mean we can't show some diplomatic balls.

 

[Audie]

Maintain it.

That's not the route to a happy ending.

China never ran gunboats in your rivers,
or meddled with your borders.

USA has done dozens of foreign military
interventions, generally for capitalist reasons.

MYOB America!

 

[Twilight Hue]

That's not the route to a happy ending

It is for freedoms.

 

[Audie]

It is for freedoms.

Freedoms. Always.
GWB - the terrs hate us for our freedoms.
As if.
Another happy ending, that campaign!

 

[Twilight Hue]

Keep in mind that the reason this status quo exists in the first place was because our own government gave in to Mao's demands in an attempt to placate the government of Communist China. Our government did much the same in the 1990s even despite the Tiananmen Square massacre. That didn't matter to US policymakers back then; they favored a reckless free trade policy which has severely crippled the US economy in more recent years.

I don't disagree. It's made our dependency into a means that is strengthening China every decade that passes.

We need to nip that forthright or China will someday become a, if not the, sole dominant world power setting policy and tempos.

That would be disastrous for the free world in ways people cannot fathom.

 

[sun rise]

Maintain it.

I agree. Now is especially not the time to take this on with a war to help the Ukraine people win.

 

[sun rise]

I don't disagree. It's made our dependency into a means that is strengthening China every decade that passes.

We need to nip that forthright or China will someday become a, if not the, sole dominant world power setting policy and tempos.

That would be disastrous for the free world in ways people cannot fathom.

And we've seen what happens - Hong Kong being the example.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The result of republican tax cuts on the wealthy. The wealthy get richer while the average citizens struggles making ends meet with higher prices. The republican plan is a better economy to bolster revenue, and that relies on China exports to a large degree.

Dems have done some damage as well, like when Clinton shot the nation in the foot with a bullet called NAFTA.

 

[Clara Tea]

Pelosi ends Taiwan visit as furious China conducts combat exercises nearby - UPI.com



When the Chinese Communist Revolution ended in 1949, and the government of the People's Republic of China was established on the mainland, the Nationalist Chinese government of Chiang Kai Shek retreated to Taiwan and continued to maintain that they were the true and legitimate government of China. U.S. policy reflected that until the 1970s, when Nixon visited Red China to try to bolster ties and take advantage of the Sino-Soviet split. In order to improve relations with Red China, one condition was that the U.S. had to cease its recognition of Taiwan and recognize the PRC as the true government of China. This raised hackles among anti-communists and was seen by many as the U.S. turning its back on Taiwan.

Now, 50 years later, U.S. policymakers seem to be expressing some measure of regret over decisions made by our government back then.

We didn't do this with South Korea. We didn't suddenly stop recognizing South Korea in favor of North Korea. Nor did we do this with Germany, although we did establish diplomatic relations with East Germany about the same time the reversal on Taiwan/China was taking place (1970s). But that didn't mean we stopped recognizing West Germany.

We also refused to recognize the Communist governments in Vietnam and Cuba for a very long time before finally doing so in 1995 (Vietnam) and 2015 (Cuba). Even then, a lot of people didn't like the fact that our government recognized those Communist regimes and established diplomatic relations.

Has our policy on China been coherent? For more than half a century, the US government touted itself as the "leader of the free world" and defender of capitalism against communism, and yet, when the opportunity for cheap labor and economic gain in China presented itself, they threw their principles and all caution to the four winds and embraced closer trade ties with a communist state. This has benefited China and the position of their government immensely, while the U.S. has faced greater hardship, such as supply chain difficulties, computer chip shortages, as well as severely lagging behind the industrialized world in education, science, technology, industry, and other key areas. This was due to our national leadership being extremely myopic, reckless, and greedy. It was great for the high flyers and quick buck artists, but that was only temporary, and now, we're in a worse situation than we would have been if we had stuck by our principles all along.

Should we close our embassy in Beijing and reopen it in Taipei? Should we have embassies in both countries, or at least try to, even if the PRC doesn't approve? If they don't approve, then it would be totally on them. China is essentially saying that they're still in a state of civil war that supposedly ended more than 70 years ago. Should the U.S. continue to give validation to that peculiar mental state that the Chinese government has been in?

You wrote an informative, terse, well written article on modern China.

Russia had allied with Nazi Germany, then changed sides when Germany attacked it. Germany was foiled by the harsh terrain and winter of the Russian Steppes. The Rosenburgs had been executed for selling nuke secrets to Soviets (they denied, but their uncle had confessed to doing it after they were executed). This started a cold war with the Soviets, and with all Communist nations. Essentially, the US was fighting Soviet and Chinese Communism on the soil of various South East Asian countries, and even holding off the spread of Communism from West Germany (from East Germany). Thus, the Vietnam War was really the US/China/Russian War fought on the soil of North Vietnam and South Vietnam. Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, and even Cuba were part of that vast war against Communism.

My parents were sent to China by the US government to try to stop the spread of Communism. They were there, and right next to the Royal Palace, when Communists took over. They were about 15 minutes (or less) ahead of the invading Communist army, and they could see pregnant women's bellies sliced open, and the women stuffing their guts and fetus back in. They could see the women of the Royal Palace fleeing the Palace, some carrying away precious jewels to be used for bribing ship's captains for safe passage to anywhere. The royal women had had their feet bound from birth (a symbol of royalty. . . a symbol of not needing to work. . . just as long fingernails symbolized the idle royals). They hobbled over the hillsides, running as fast as they could on their stumps.

But, the Chinese people chose Communism (they used to have a Democracy. Why? Because Democracy and Capitalism had failed them. There were fast numbers of unemployed, while there were fallow farms, unfarmed and unoccupied (no one could afford to run them). Family farms that had been in families for a thousand years were now, for the first time, barren and useless. Any kind of food, whatsoever (bugs, roots) were dug out of hillsides. . . now sterile and devoid of any kind of plant or animal life or detritis. Even poop was a valued possession, and "honey carts" would ply the streets picking up poop donations (to be used as fertilizer). Women knew that their little helpless babies would be starved to death by morning, and they couldn't bear the constant crying for food. So, knowing, full well, that mud would definitely kill their babies, they fed them mud. It would satiate their hunger for just one more night (their last night alive).

Inflation, in post WW II China, was doubling prices each and every week. Shopping was done with a wheel barrow full of Chinese currency. It was common for non-coms (those not yet officers) to hire a house-boy to do the shopping. Since barter and negotiation was used, and prices were not fixed, one could save money if one could speak the language. It was cheaper to hire someone than to shop yourself. Our house-boy, since he cooperated with Americans, was put to death upon the arrival of Communist forces.

The ships were crowded with anyone who could bribe passage. Precious gems, in the royal family for thousands of years, were given to the captains, and sometimes they kept the ill-gotten booty and still denied passage. Madams of houses of prostitutions were almost always the first to escape (they had money, and political connections). Their prostitutes were next. There were even Russians who fled Communism in Chine, who escaped, and many were White Slaves (prostitutes). Politicians bribed their way onto the ships. It was generally assumed that any White woman on the ship was a Russian prostitute, so many offers were made to negotiate for services (do you want nylons? ring? crisco?).

China had been opposed to monarchs. According to Wikipedia: "Aisin-Gioro Puyi, courtesy name Yaozhi, was the last emperor of China as the eleventh and final Qing dynasty monarch. He became emperor at the age of two in 1908, but was forced to abdicate on February 12, 1912 during the Xinhai Revolution." While most Chinese were forced to wear drab uniforms (to look alike so no one stood out as a higher class), Yaozhi was forced to consider the feelings of others. He was forced to live with other people, and when he peed, he was told to pee against the side of the bowl, so it wouldn't splash and wake others at night.

What happened to Chinese equality? Apparently, China adopted Capitalism (while no one was looking), and there is vast wealth in the hands of a few. Luxury cars, mansions, US gambling junkets with millions of dollars per bet. Everyone equal? Some "more equal than others" (as the book Animal Farm pointed out).

China and Taiwan had signed a "One China" pact, which meant that they don't restrict trade with mainland China. Yet, China seems to have perpetually cheated on that deal.

Both Taiwan and Hong Kong were to be signed over to China in about 20 years. China (probably noting weakness due to the covid that they allowed to escape to the rest of the world while protecting their own people) decided to take Taiwan and Hong Kong now. China also chased other nations off of the China Sea, prompting Trump's aircraft carrier, prompting Putin's war ship (in support of China), and China fired mach 10 rocket warnings over Trump's ship. The US has mach 4 (the US is screwed in a nuke war).

My mom had been an unofficial translator (official was incompetent) for the progenitor of the Central Intelligence Agency (then the War Department, Prisoner of War section), for communiques from the French underground and other places. An opera singer, and New Yorker, she had learned about 8 languages very fluently (she took after her dad, a polyglot of 54 languages). With that background, and being in China, they made her the liason between the Chinese government and military. Her orders were that the US didn't do anything wrong. Rapes were rife (give me all your evidence....oops lost it....don't have any evidence)(never raped her)(no, you don't get his address, and that might ruin his current marriage if they find out about the new baby out of wedlock). My mom resigned. She couldn't handle the constant lies.

In foreign countries, it is normal for a man to shoulder responsibility for their own children, not merely abandon them in a poor country on the streets. The country doesn't know what to do about it. Half-breed Americans are treated like garbage in Asian countries, especially if they are girls. Selling them into prostitution is about the best solution.l

 

[Clara Tea]

Dems have done some damage as well, like when Clinton shot the nation in the foot with a bullet called NAFTA.

Clinton described NAFTA as a window that needs a screen. You want air in, bugs out. Clinton sent Ron Brown to other nations, made mutually beneficial trade deals around the world, and, as a consequence, made a budget surplus (which could have reversed some of the National Debt (or other debts) if it hadn't been immediately spent by W. Bush the next year. This sharply contrasts W. Bush's trade deals. W. Bush, a graduate economist of both Yale and Harvard, ascribed to Adam Smith's Capitalism, and the "Invisible Hand" theory that says that Capitalism always choses the most beneficial path if you use free trade. Free trade requires laissez faire (hands off economics. . . no interference....no Ron Brown making good trade deals). As a result, under W. Bush, the economy collapsed because bad deals were made, and, though the US was keeping hands off, Chinese were not. They were undercutting deals and that ruined the "invisible hand" of Adam Smith.

Some argue that the US economy was declining at the end of the Clinton presidency. Yet, that was due to Congress cancelling "fast track" trade power that they had ceded to the presidency years before. It was this trade power that had allowed Clinton to make such great trade deals with the US. Congress had concluded that trade deals have to be made much faster than Congress is able to make them (it takes a vote of 100 senators and almost 500 representatives to conclude a trade deal unless such trade matters are handled by the president).

In short, NAFTA does work, but you have to carefully help it to work.

W. Bush made a deal for Canadian beef, and failed to put in provisions about mad cow disease. So, the US was on the hook for the beef, diseased or not. I wrote a strongly worded objection to the USDA about their new policy of grinding up mad cow beef (from cows that we definitely know had mad cow disease), and mixing it with regular beef, and selling it on US markets. I felt that such a policy could not only endanger US citizen's health, but also spread the disease. The USDA felt that mechanical separators, that removed nerve fibers from the beef, worked flawlessly. That theory was proven wrong. . . many mistakes (deadly mistakes) were made.

After canceling the policy of hiding mad cow beef in our food supply, Canada sold the mad cow beef very cheaply to Africans. They then got a strange nodding disease (nodding their heads when they were offered food). . . similar to the neurologic mad cow disease.

CDC - Global Health - Nodding Syndrome

More info about Nodding Syndrome from the CDC (link above).

Jimmy Carter was the target of dirty tricks. Top Reagan aides say that Reagan negotiated with Iranian kidnap terrorists to hold the hostages until Carter left office, and Reagan got into office (to make Reagan look more commanding by ordering the hostages released). That would have made Reagan (then a civilian) a co-conspirator with the kidnap terrorists. . . Reagan would be classified as a terrorist, as well. In light of the Iran Contra scandal (helping Nigaraguan dictator, and the dictator of Iran while counterfeiting US currency, selling narcotics (Maxine Waters objected to the sale on the streets of Los Angeles), and getting imitatation Soviet guns to Iranians (to blame Soviets), we have to pretty much believe any kind of skullduggery.

 

[Clara Tea]

Dems have done some damage as well, like when Clinton shot the nation in the foot with a bullet called NAFTA.

Clinton fought Yugoslavia (claiming that two world wars started in that part of the world) while ignoring the holocaust (death of millions of captured Tutsis at the hands of the Hutus in Africa). I don't think that NAFTA (as Clinton used it) was damage. After all, he made a budget surplus.