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

[Wandering Monk]

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?

How can we defend democracy elsewhere, but not in Taiwan?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I don't think that NAFTA (as Clinton used it) was damage. After all, he made a budget surplus.

NAFTA opened the doors wide open to ship manufacturing jobs away. America still hasn't recovered from it.

 

[Stevicus]

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.

The main thing that stopped China from invading Taiwan initially (since 1949) was a U.S. pledge to defend Taiwan. At the time, U.S. naval and air power were far superior, and the Mainland Chinese forces would not have stood a chance in an amphibious invasion of Taiwan. Even after the U.S. recognized the PRC, the U.S. pledge to defend Taiwan remained in place. In the meantime, China was slowly but surely building up their forces, improving their technology, and establishing the industrial infrastructure needed to produce the weaponry and tools of war to reach parity with the United States.

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.

True, although that works both ways. We can get products from other countries, and China can certainly sell to other countries. But do they really need the U.S. that badly that they'd be willing to stand down?

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.

It seems that our open trade policies with China were also designed to benefit the wealthy, while putting working class Americans out of work.

In my opinion, the best way to bolster the economy is to restore America's manufacturing base. Instead of outsourcing and importing goods from China, we should make everything here in the U.S. The only things we need to import are those things we can not grow nor mine in the United States in sufficient quantity.

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.

And that's the fault of our government and capitalist ruling class which chose to act recklessly - and this refers to both parties, which are both to blame. Among both liberals and conservatives were the few voices in the wilderness crying out against it, who knew it would lead to disaster, and whose wisdom went ignored and scoffed at. There were liberals like Jerry Brown and Ralph Nader who opposed it, as well as conservatives like Ross Perot who also opposed it. But they were ridiculed and mocked from both sides of the aisle. Yet they were right.

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.

This isn't diplomatic balls. This is diplomatic theater. The U.S. pretends to be tough on China, and China pretends to be pissed about it. Meanwhile, in the back rooms where the cameras are off, it's business as usual.

 

[Stevicus]

How can we defend democracy elsewhere, but not in Taiwan?

I don't understand the premise of your question. We've already pledged to defend Taiwan, going all the way back to 1949. But since then, our policy has shifted to recognizing the PRC as the true and legitimate government of China, while ceasing recognition of the Republic of China and putting them into some kind of nebulous state of diplomatic limbo.

How can we defend democracy in Taiwan when, technically speaking, our government doesn't even believe they're a legitimate country?

 

[Twilight Hue]

......China knows the USA relies heavily on their production and trade so it would be a soft pressure deal.

"Relies" should not be in the vocabulary with any trade relation.

 

[Twilight Hue]

How can we defend democracy in Taiwan when, technically speaking, our government doesn't even believe they're a legitimate country?

Because in reality, Taiwan is an independent autonomous nation. It's status is only on paper.

 

[Stevicus]

Related story: China halts high-level military dialogue with U.S., suspends other cooperation | Reuters

BEIJING, Aug 5 (Reuters) - China is halting cooperation with the United States in a number of areas, including dialogue between senior-level military commanders and climate talks, in retaliation for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's visit to Taiwan, it said on Friday.

China's foreign ministry also said that it was also suspending cooperation with Washington on prevention of cross-border crime and drug trafficking, and on repatriating illegal migrants, among eight specific measures.

In a statement released soon after Pelosi left Japan on the final leg of her Asian tour, China also cancelled a planned bilateral meeting on a maritime military security mechanism.

Beijing separately announced that it would personally sanction Pelosi and her immediate family in response to her "vicious" and "provocative" actions. read more

Pelosi's brief visit this week to self-ruled Taiwan, which China claims as its own, infuriated Beijing and triggered Chinese military drills on an unprecedented scale in the seas and air around the island. read more

 

[F1fan]

In a related story, Chinese officials refuse to eat their vegetables and clean their rooms in protest.

But they are still accepting our orders and shipping products to the USA.

 

[Wandering Monk]

In a related story, Chinese officials refuse to eat their vegetables and clean their rooms in protest.

But they are still accepting our orders and shipping products to the USA.

And loaning money to the US.

Top Foreign Owners of US National Debt (in billions of dollars)

• Japan. $1,303.1. 18.28%
• China. $1,060.1. 14.87%
• United Kingdom. $608.8. 8.54%
• Luxembourg. $310.8. 4.36%
• Ireland. $308.3. 4.33%

 

[F1fan]

And loaning money to the US.

Top Foreign Owners of US National Debt (in billions of dollars)

• Japan. $1,303.1. 18.28%
• China. $1,060.1. 14.87%
• United Kingdom. $608.8. 8.54%
• Luxembourg. $310.8. 4.36%
• Ireland. $308.3. 4.33%

Right. When the USA owes you that much money, do you really want to make an enemy of them? Some claim China has the advantage, but I suggest both China and the USA are interdependent on each other, and diplomacy is a smart navigating tool. China can thump its chest, but will it do something really stupid? Is running Taiwan worth losing the USA as a commercial partner?

 

[Wandering Monk]

Right. When the USA owes you that much money, do you really want to make an enemy of them? Some claim China has the advantage, but I suggest both China and the USA are interdependent on each other, and diplomacy is a smart navigating tool. China can thump its chest, but will it do something really stupid? Is running Taiwan worth losing the USA as a commercial partner?

If I owe you a thousand dollars, I'm in trouble.

If I owe you a million dollars, you're in trouble.

 

[Wandering Monk]

Right. When the USA owes you that much money, do you really want to make an enemy of them? Some claim China has the advantage, but I suggest both China and the USA are interdependent on each other, and diplomacy is a smart navigating tool. China can thump its chest, but will it do something really stupid? Is running Taiwan worth losing the USA as a commercial partner?

Do they really want us to start producing our own microchips, refrigerators, solar panels, HD televisions etc? And for what? If they invade Taiwan, the Taiwanese will likely destroy anything of value there.

 

[Stevicus]

Is running Taiwan worth losing the USA as a commercial partner?

I guess much of it would depend on just how valuable the USA is as a commercial partner these days. 30-40 years ago, they might have needed us and were therefore willing to put issues like Taiwan on the back burner. At the time, America probably really didn't "need" China, but on the other hand, some clearly saw that there was a great deal of money to be made by going along with closer trade ties and commercial partnerships.

Some people also saw it as a way of building bridges and promoting greater peace and cooperation in the world. Our previous relationship with China had been hostile and militaristic, although the Sino-Soviet rift gave us an opportunity to open the door towards better relations. It was generally believed that closer cooperation with China would be the basis for stronger friendship and the possibility that China itself might reform. Some people actually believed that the influence of US-style capitalism might bring about an impetus for change, that China might one day become as free and democratic as any Western power. If that had been the case, we wouldn't have to worry about lingering issues such as Taiwan.

But it didn't really turn out as some people expected. The idea of a "global economy" promoting world peace and cooperation. While both countries did become somewhat economically and politically interconnected with each other, there might be a point where "national pride" or "national honor" might be a point of disconnection.

They don't really need us anymore, or at least, they don't need to play the same games that our government has played around the world since WW2 - and even since the end of the Cold War, which made even less sense.

Perhaps if we had revised and implemented a foreign policy which more closely resembled and was coherent with the "global economy" they were pushing for after the end of the Cold War, maybe it might have been different.