Donald Trump's phone call with Taiwan president risks China's wrath

[Dill]

Question: is Trump just bumbling into foreign policy or is this the beginning of a deliberate reset of Sino-US relations?


“Regardless if it was deliberate or accidental, this phone call will fundamentally change China’s perceptions of Trump’s strategic intentions for the negative. With this kind of move, Trump is setting a foundation of enduring mistrust and strategic competition for US-China relations.”

“It’s unclear who his advisers are, although certainly the ones who have been named have argued over the years for the US to change the relationship we have with Taiwan; to make the US-Taiwan relationship more important and upend the one China policy that we have had in place since the 1970s. So this could set off a lot of alarm bells in Beijing.”

In the lead-up to Friday’s call with Tsai, Trump’s team had reportedly been looking into the possibility of investing in luxury hotels in Taiwan.

In mid-November the mayor of Taoyuan, a city in northwest Taiwan, confirmed that a representative of the president-elect had flown into his city to examine business opportunities at Aerotropolis, a sprawling development of luxury waterside homes and industrial parks near its international airport.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/03/trump-angers-beijing-with-provocative-phone-call-to-taiwan-president

Add to this "chats" with Duterte and Sharif: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/trump-chats-taiwan-philippines-pakistan-leaders-article-1.2896652

Just curious as to what others think of this, especially Trumpsters.

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(12-03-2016, 12:53 AM)Dill Wrote: Question: is Trump just bumbling into foreign policy or is this the beginning of a deliberate reset of Sino-US relations?


“Regardless if it was deliberate or accidental, this phone call will fundamentally change China’s perceptions of Trump’s strategic intentions for the negative. With this kind of move, Trump is setting a foundation of enduring mistrust and strategic competition for US-China relations.”

“It’s unclear who his advisers are, although certainly the ones who have been named have argued over the years for the US to change the relationship we have with Taiwan; to make the US-Taiwan relationship more important and upend the one China policy that we have had in place since the 1970s. So this could set off a lot of alarm bells in Beijing.”

In the lead-up to Friday’s call with Tsai, Trump’s team had reportedly been looking into the possibility of investing in luxury hotels in Taiwan.

In mid-November the mayor of Taoyuan, a city in northwest Taiwan, confirmed that a representative of the president-elect had flown into his city to examine business opportunities at Aerotropolis, a sprawling development of luxury waterside homes and industrial parks near its international airport.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/03/trump-angers-beijing-with-provocative-phone-call-to-taiwan-president

Add to this "chats" with Duterte and Sharif: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/trump-chats-taiwan-philippines-pakistan-leaders-article-1.2896652

Just curious as to what others think of this, especially Trumpsters.

It's actually his utter lack of foreign policy experience that has me most worried.  If he really thinks he can deal with foreign leaders like a bully in a boardroom, we could be in for a rough four years.

[Benton]

I'm hopeful he leaves it up to pence, who doesn't have much foreign policy experience, but at least he's not a complete moron and is halfway likable.

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(12-03-2016, 02:56 AM)Benton Wrote: I'm hopeful he leaves it up to pence, who doesn't have much foreign policy experience, but at least he's not a complete moron and is halfway likable.

And Pence's ultra religious conservatism bothers me almost as much as Trumps lack of foreign policy experience.

[JustWinBaby]

(12-03-2016, 03:06 AM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: And Pence's ultra religious conservatism bothers me almost as much as Trumps lack of foreign policy experience.

We've been over this.

Foreign policy is mostly the purview of career staffers.  The only levers the POTUS pulls is on the margin - go faster or slower, angle left or right....but mainly to tell the public whether or not there is an iceberg ahead, and who/what/why to blame if we happen to hit it (if that's even the official story).  And if our foreign policy didn't have this consistency, where would we get if people could just wait out the administration over 4-8 years?

You just don't come in to deny and ignore someone on the Israel/Palestine issue, for example, who has studied and debated it for 30 years.

Barring egomaniacal sociopaths, I just think that 95% of foreign policy is the same regardless of who gets elected.  And the 5% difference is rarely significant (more "recognize Cuba" than "don't invade Iraq").

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(12-03-2016, 03:16 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: We've been over this.

Foreign policy is mostly the purview of career staffers.  The only levers the POTUS pulls is on the margin - go faster or slower, angle left or right....but mainly to tell the public whether or not there is an iceberg ahead, and who/what/why to blame if we happen to hit it (if that's even the official story).  And if our foreign policy didn't have this consistency, where would we get if people could just wait out the administration over 4-8 years?

You just don't come in to deny and ignore someone on the Israel/Palestine issue, for example, who has studied and debated it for 30 years.

Barring egomaniacal sociopaths, I just think that 95% of foreign policy is the same regardless of who gets elected.  And the 5% difference is rarely significant (more "recognize Cuba" than "don't invade Iraq").

And that is my concern here.

[JustWinBaby]

(12-03-2016, 03:22 AM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: And that is my concern here.

Fair enough.....I just don't see any real evidence he's any different than the past few guys before  him. And the media seems to be struggling with that - is he a liar or a con man, or both, or are we just stupid and what does it all mean?

[Dill]

(12-03-2016, 02:51 AM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: It's actually his utter lack of foreign policy experience that has me most worried.  If he really thinks he can deal with foreign leaders like a bully in a boardroom, we could be in for a rough four years.

Yes, I've expressed this worry in other threads. Trump is least knowledgeable about foreign policy, and that is where presidential power--including the power to launch military strikes and direct covert actions--is least constrained.

George W. Bush gives us some idea of how much damage one president's foreign policy can do. But in retrospect he seems much more stable and informed than Trump.

It's not only his lack of experience that are worrisome now, but also who has his ear on foreign policy. If the Taiwan call was a simple blunder, every world leader, friend and foe, will take note. This is a president who will be unusually dependent upon others advice, if he takes foreign affairs seriously at all.

If it was intended to rile China, then goal is not clear. But it is clear that some 40 years of diplomatic achievement are suddenly at risk. The calls to Sharif and Duterte seem equally reckless, if less consequential.

And all this going forward while Obama is still in office and only finding out about these contacts as we do--from Trump's tweets and CNN.

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(12-03-2016, 03:39 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Fair enough.....I just don't see any real evidence he's any different than the past few guys before  him.  And the media seems to be struggling with that - is he a liar or a con man, or both, or are we just stupid and what does it all mean?

Obviously I don't know the guy personally, and to be fair, I don't think he's a sociopath.  But I think he's an unabashed egotistical, narcissistic, D-bag.  And I really think that he thinks he can bully his way around international relations as if he is in a boardroom.  And I think it's going to cause a lot of conflict, with not only our enemies, but our allies as well.

I'm really hoping he proves me wrong.

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(12-03-2016, 03:59 AM)Dill Wrote: Yes, I've expressed this worry in other threads. Trump is least knowledgeable about foreign policy, and that is where presidential power--including the power to launch military strikes and direct covert actions--is least constrained.

George W. Bush gives us some idea of how much damage one president's foreign policy can do. But in retrospect he seems much more stable and informed than Trump.

It's not only his lack of experience that are worrisome now, but also who has his ear on foreign policy. If the Taiwan call was a simple blunder, every world leader, friend and foe, will take note. This is a president who will be unusually dependent upon others advice, if he takes foreign affairs seriously at all.

If it was intended to rile China, then goal is not clear. But it is clear that some 40 years of diplomatic achievement are suddenly at risk. The calls to Sharif and Duterte seem equally reckless, if less consequential.

And all this going forward while Obama is still in office and only finding out about these contacts as we do--from Trump's tweets and CNN.

It really is a bit unnerving.  I'm not really that concerned about his domestic agenda. It really unnerves me that he is going to set the agenda for our foreign relations.  Why is he so cozy with Putin, but anti-Cuba and anti-Mexico. Trying to buddy up to Durante, and pissing off the Chinese, makes no sense to me.

[JustWinBaby]

(12-03-2016, 04:06 AM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: Obviously I don't know the guy personally, and to be fair, I don't think he's a sociopath.  But I think he's an unabashed egotistical, narcissistic, D-bag.  And I really think that he thinks he can bully his way around international relations as if he is in a boardroom.  And I think it's going to cause a lot of conflict, with not only our enemies, but our allies as well.

I'm really hoping he proves me wrong.

I share the same concerns.

I'll be SHOCKED if there's no checks and balances to what you said.   I'll be absolutely shocked if that comes to fruition, because from my vantage point this is all fear mongering and bullshit.

I don't think Trump will be 1/10th as good as his supporters think.....but at the same time, his detractors need to note the doomsday predctions that fail to materialize....and eventually graduate to the point of asking why and how they believed what they did in the first place.

[Dill]

(12-03-2016, 03:16 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: We've been over this.
Foreign policy is mostly the purview of career staffers.  The only levers the POTUS pulls is on the margin - go faster or slower, angle left or right....but mainly to tell the public whether or not there is an iceberg ahead, and who/what/why to blame if we happen to hit it (if that's even the official story).  And if our foreign policy didn't have this consistency, where would we get if people could just wait out the administration over 4-8 years?
You just don't come in to deny and ignore someone on the Israel/Palestine issue, for example, who has studied and debated it for 30 years.
Barring egomaniacal sociopaths, I just think that 95% of foreign policy is the same regardless of who gets elected.  And the 5% difference is rarely significant (more "recognize Cuba" than "don't invade Iraq").

Your unspecified "career staffers" did not generate the Truman Doctrine, Johnson's decision to escalate rather than withdraw from Vietnam, Nixon's surprise opening to China, the Camp David Accord, The Reagan Doctrine, The Gulf War, the Oslo accords, George W's disastrous invasion of Iraq, or Obama's treaty with Iran--all dramatic shifts in foreign policy, often with significant domestic consequences.  Bush actually steered the ship of state INTO an iceberg others would certainly have avoided, all the while ignoring the advice of Iraq experts who had "studied and debated for years."

And people do "wait out" administrations--as did the Vietnamese in 1968 and the Iranians in 1980. And maybe for the first time in history, rather than wait it out, a foreign power has effectively engineered a shift in foreign policy by determining the winner of the 2016 presidential election.

After refusing boring intel briefings for two weeks, Trump denied and ignored 40 years of protocol/policy and intervened in US-China relations BEFORE taking office and WITHOUT INFORMING THE SITTING PRESIDENT.  He thinks his son-in-law would make a great peace envoy to settle the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He's already using his future presidency to leverage business opportunities in countries with whom he will be negotiating trade agreements. He is not going to make his tax returns public, so we have no clear idea of where his foreign business interests may conflict with US interests and he has no plans to liquidate his holdings.  A man who finds Alex Jones Infowars conspiracies credible will soon be in charge of all US intel operations. He seems unaware that public statements dissing alliances and considering the use of atomic weapons are already foreign policy actions affecting allies and alliance.

What would constitute "real evidence" he's different from the past few guys who went before him?

[Dill]

(12-03-2016, 04:31 AM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: Trying to buddy up to Durante, and pissing off the Chinese, makes no sense to me.

Pissing off the Chinese may have been an accident. Maybe the next few days will bring more info about who is advising him.

Duterte makes perfect sense, in a way. He insulted Obama publicly and has loudly encouraged extra-judicial killings all over the Philippines--hundreds of vigilante actions.

Analogous to Trump, his handlers must constantly tell the international community, UN, and the US what he "really meant" after his blustery threats and name calling world leaders.

[JustWinBaby]

(12-03-2016, 07:21 AM)Dill Wrote: No idea what the bolded words refer to. And the dramatic shifts in foreign policy I listed hardly prove your point that "foreign policy is the purview of staffers" and "95% of foreign policy is the same no matter who gets elected."  You think "staffers" brought Sadat and Begin together and then let Carter in on the deal?

What makes you think "dramatic" shifts in policy weren't driven by career staffers?  Do you really think they don't have A, B and C (and D, E, and F) scenarios?  Do you honestly think the Wolfwitz doctrine was borne in a vacuum?

Do you honestly think the POTUSes are so narcissitic and vain that they don't heavily weigh the advice of people who have lived and breathed these issues for decades?   Do you not understand how ineffective and feckless foreign policy would be if it was unpredictable and nonsensical every 4-8 years with a new POTUS?

Obama himself said it's different when you're actually sitting in the chair - what does that mean to you?

[BmorePat87]

(12-03-2016, 03:16 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: We've been over this.

Foreign policy is mostly the purview of career staffers.  

This is true, and this reads more of an error on his part thanks to a lack of quality foreign policy advisors around him and not him trying to piss off China. A lot of what I read suggested there isn't cohesion yet on the transition team, lots of his allies now together, each vying for influence. Their attitudes have turned off some potential members of the incoming Trump administration as there's a "you weren't with us then, you must grovel now". 

What's clear is he needs some quality foreign policy advisors, and Rudy doesn't cut it. I'm surprised Huntsman isn't in talks for State. 

[*bfine32*]

IMO the call has 2 seperate issues.

1) Should the President Elect still be making such calls in person?

2) Should we have to answer to China in our dealings with Taiwan?

I answer no to both.

[Fan_in_Kettering]

First of all, the phone call was made by the Taiwanese president. Second, Donald Trump isn't going to insult her by letting the call go to voice mail. Third, Taiwan is our natural ally in the region and they've been getting the middle finger from the US since 1978.

[Benton]

(12-03-2016, 02:37 PM)Fan_in_Kettering Wrote: First of all, the phone call was made by the Taiwanese president.  Second, Donald Trump isn't going to insult her by letting the call go to voice mail.  Thirdnot, Taiwan is our natural ally in the region and they've been getting the middle finger from the US since 1978.

not disagreeing with anything you said, and I know its not exactly what you mean with the second point, but a guy I've known for a while was in the army in communications and was at the white house for 10 orb12 years. Anyway, and this may have changed as he was there before cell phones, but he said the president wasn't allowed to answer the phone. I never asked why (my original question was about people prank calling Reagan), but just guessed it had something to do with security. Unrelated to your post, but reminded me of something I always thought was weird. Most powerful man on the planet, not allowed to answer the phone.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

China should be scared of pissing us off, not the other way around. Whether intentional or not I don't mind the future POTUS putting China on notice that they don't call the shots in regards to how the US conducts itself and with whom.

[Fan_in_Kettering]

(12-03-2016, 03:06 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: China should be scared of pissing us off, not the other way around.  Whether intentional or not I don't mind the future POTUS putting China on notice that they don't call the shots in regards to how the US conducts itself and with whom.

+1.