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

[*bfine32*]

(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.  Third, Taiwan is our natural ally in the region and they've been getting the middle finger from the US since 1978.

This is where I'm at; I just went by the assumption from reading the OP that Trump made the call. As I said, we can tell China to go kick rocks, but POTUS is going to have to separate himself from his business deals sooner rather than later.

[Dill]

(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.  Third, Taiwan is our natural ally in the region and they've been getting the middle finger from the US since 1978.

Fourth, since 1979 we have had a "one China" policy, which began when we moved our embassy to Beijing, recognizing the People's Republic as the sole legitimate government of China.  Since then, established protocol has been that the president of the US does not communicate directly with the president of Taiwan, which China--and the US--recognize as a province of China. Everyone in foreign service understands how important the chain of command is, how the US has to speak with one voice vis-a-vis other nations. The President of Taiwan also understood this, and if she did call, probably did not expect to actually speak with Trump.

Fifth, not only is China the 2nd largest economy in the world (our third largest trading partner after the EU and Canada), but also the only country with any real leverage over North Korea--in my view, the most dangerous existential foreign threat to the US. Our staunch allies Japan and South Korea also realize this, and see stable relations between the US and China as in their national/regional interests as well.  The PRC is also one of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council. The ability to work with China diplomatically is central to US strategic goals not only on the Pacific Rim, but in both central Asia as well.  E.g., They are a major player in the reconstruction of Afghanistan, a counter weight to Russia and signatories to the recent Iran deal. Their cooperation is required whenever the US wants to sanction countries like Iran or Pakistan.

Sixth, the volume of US trade with Taiwan is barely a fifth of our trade with China. We have a healthy "unofficial" trade relation with them and one military defense treaty, but truth be told, they are FAR LESS important to the US national interest than the PRC. And the PRC, while generally a pragmatic, rational actor on the world stage, is often irrational with respect to Taiwan (like an otherwise normal guy still talking trash about an ex-wife who got the house), which makes them very unpredictable on this one issue. It is not in the interest of either Taiwan or the US to destabilize present relations between the US and the PRC.

The only country in the region served by a feckless, inexperienced president making or taking phone calls outside of accepted diplomatic channels is North Korea, which benefits from the waves of uncertainty spreading out from Trump's statements and actions..

[Dill]

(12-03-2016, 08:45 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: 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?

I just told you what makes me "think" dramatic shifts in foreign policy were not driven by this mysterious group you call career staffers (perhaps a confusion of civil service with foreign policy experts?).

Policies leave a paper trail. I have given you two specific examples of foreign policy which began with individuals outside the US government's foreign policy institutions--Nixon's China opening and Bush 43's Iraq policy. The documentary record is pretty clear on this. Was Nixon a "career staffer"? Were career staffers determined not to be the first US president to lose a war or was it LBJ?

 If you are going to continue claiming "career staffers" must be behind foreign policy shifts then you ought to offer something to support of your claims beyond bald assertion. Otherwise you are just doubling down on a guess.   And I suspect that behind that guess is a fundamental misunderstanding of how foreign policy agendas (including your A,B and C scenarios) are set and carried out in every new administration.

I have hardly said the Wolfowitz doctrine was "born in a vacuum"; I told you it was connocted by neo cons mostly outside government and imposed upon a partly resisting intelligence community and military by someone who got the power of the presidency--someone who ignored "the advice of people who have lived and breathed these issues for decades"--certainly the advice of James Baker and others who had served his father so well.

That's what "sitting in the chair" means when you come to power with an agenda and the experts don't agree with it. You can ignore them. 

[Dill]

(12-03-2016, 09:43 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: 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. 

Here is another consideration.  Since the Iraq disaster, one group of policy "experts" has been on the outs, discredited. Within the military, a division over how to characterize and fight the Islamist threat has also emerged, with those who want to fight a religion (like ex-General Flynn) on the outs while Obama was in power.

But Obama is soon gone. Now, with the authoritarian, Islamophobic, and inexperienced Trump at the center of national power, these fringe groups see their chance and vie for cabinet, intel, and advisory positions. What kind of advice will sound good to Trump--someone suggesting that a post-invasion plan needs to be in place before we send US troops into Syria or someone insisting we must "call radical Islam what it is," bomb them to hell, and forget regime change?  He as already chosen Flynn as his National Security Advisor--a man who has publicly called Islam a cancer, thinks Hillary should be locked up, and won't rule out killing the families of suspected terrorists. Whether Trump understands it or not, this is already a disturbing signal to US allies in the Middle East--the people the US needs to work with to defeat ISIS.  Other people, those the liberal media like to call the "adults in the room," are not applying.

Trump's new Secretary of Defense is also someone fired by Obama. "Mad Dog" Mattis is a disappointing pick on a number of fronts, but unlike Patton, whom Trump repeatedly compares him to, he at least he understands the importance of diplomacy, which means cultivating and maintaining alliances both in Europe and the Middle East.  

This is why the choice of secretary of State is becoming more critical by the day. Huntsman would have been a quality choice for Secretary of State or Ambassador to the UN, perhaps some other positions as well. But he is too diplomatic for Trump's taste, I suspect, and certainly for Trump's base.  The now groveling Romney looks like the best of the field considered so far, though Kellyanne and the base prefer someone with less competence and more loyalty. Petraeus looks good as well, though it would be an odd choice given the anger over the Clinton email scandal.

[*bfine32*]

Doesn't the Taiwan Relations Act outline our relationship with Taiwan? From what I gather Taiwan is modeled more in our image and the riff with the mainland (China) is that they want to be a democracy.

When did we start advocating shunning Nations that want Democracy?

[*bfine32*]

(12-03-2016, 06:05 PM)Dill Wrote: Fourth, since 1979 we have had a "one China" policy, which began when we moved our embassy to Beijing, recognizing the People's Republic as the sole legitimate government of China.  

The rest is a bunch of wiki cut and paste, but doesn't the "6 assurances" speak directly against this. 

[Dill]

(12-03-2016, 10:47 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Doesn't the Taiwan Relations Act outline our relationship with Taiwan? From what I gather Taiwan is modeled more in our image and the riff with the mainland (China) is that they want to be a democracy.

When did we start advocating shunning Nations that want Democracy?

Not exactly. The Taiwan Relations Act was a reaction of Congressional anti-Communists to the 1979 Joint Communique between the US and PRC.  Within the one China policy already established, it provides a framework for conducting business with Taiwan outside any official diplomatic channel or institution. E.g., we can't call it the "Republic of China" anymore. So it is a kind of addendum to the Joint Communique, and does not alter recognition of the PRC as the government of China.

The "riff" with China is that the Taiwanese government is the remainder of the Guomintang, Chiang Kai Shek's party and government, expelled from the mainland in 1949.  They still claim to be the legitimate government of China, but it made little sense to recognize them as such while a billion plus Chinese live on the mainland outside their jurisdiction.

Post- WWII, anti-Communist presidents have never had a problem "shunning" nations that want Democracy when their Democracy conflicted with the perceived national interest. A quick google of the history of US relations with Chile (1973), Guatemala (1982), and Iran (1953) among others will establish that.

But the US is hardly shunning Taiwan, at least not economically.

[Dill]

(12-03-2016, 10:53 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The rest is a bunch of wiki cut and paste, but doesn't the "6 assurances" speak directly against this. 

No, The assurances only "assure" Taiwan they are still a trading partner, that we back a peaceful solution to
the sovereignty issue, and that we won't go behind their back to consider Beijing's wishes before determining weapon sales to Taiwan.   It's a complicated set up in which maintaining appropriate diplomatic channels for each side is crucial.

The State Department website makes the current "unofficial" status of US-Taiwan relations very clear.

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/35855.htm

As does the current re-affirmation of the ACT which was passed by the House and received by the Senate in May of this year.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-concurrent-resolution/88/text/eh

[*bfine32*]

(12-04-2016, 12:14 AM)Dill Wrote: No, The assurances only "assure" Taiwan they are still a trading partner, that we back a peaceful solution to
the sovereignty issue, and that we won't go behind their back to consider Beijing's wishes before determining weapon sales to Taiwan.   It's a complicated set up in which maintaining appropriate diplomatic channels for each side is crucial.

The State Department website makes the current "unofficial" status of US-Taiwan relations very clear.

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/35855.htm

As does the current re-affirmation of the ACT which was passed by the House and received by the Senate in May of this year.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-concurrent-resolution/88/text/eh

Yeah, cut and paste aside. Does any of that say we recognize Taiwan to be under Chinese rule? 

[Dill]

(12-04-2016, 12:32 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Yeah, cut and paste aside. Does any of that say we recognize Taiwan to be under Chinese rule? 

Odd that you ask me to explicate these communique's and agreements, get timely and accurate responses, then dismiss the results, apparently without reading them. Since you are a voter, I'll try once more.

In a nutshell: 

1) The US State Department explicitly states that the US does NOT recognize the Independence of Taiwan; This implies necessarily that Taiwan is part of the PRC. But nowhere that I am aware of does the US say this.  (I believe it cannot.)

 2) But the US unofficially recognizes the government of Taiwan as representative of the people on Taiwan until it is peacefully re-intgrated with the PRC.  Should the PRC try to re-integrate it by force, the US is treaty bound to help resist. (This is not a NATO-style mutual defense treaty though, as the previous Sino-American Mutual Defense Treaty had been.)

So Taiwan is under PRC sovereignty, but not under direct PRC rule. 

The PRC is far more important to our national interest than Taiwan, but because Taiwan was long the darling of anti-Communists who romanticized Chang Kai Shek, we still support its de facto independence from the mainland until such time as its people decide to peacefully reintegrate.
 

[JustWinBaby]

(12-03-2016, 06:36 PM)Dill Wrote: I just told you what makes me "think" dramatic shifts in foreign policy were not driven by this mysterious group you call career staffers

LMFAO....you honestly don't think there is such a thing as career staffers?  What do you think is so mysterious about it?  LOL I've never seen anyone challenge that concept.

Just to reiterate and drive the point home....LMFAO

[Belsnickel]

(12-03-2016, 09:43 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: 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. 

This is my take on it all.

(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. Third, Taiwan is our natural ally in the region and they've been getting the middle finger from the US since 1978.

For one and two, I am given to understand that according to Taiwan, the call was scheduled by the Trump camp. So while Taiwan dialed the number, the PE asked them to and gave them a time.

[Dill]

(12-04-2016, 02:57 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: LMFAO....you honestly don't think there is such a thing as career staffers?  What do you think is so mysterious about it?  LOL I've never seen anyone challenge that concept.
Just to reiterate and drive the point home....LMFAO

I'm sure if we go into the Pentagon or the State Department we will find people who have been working there for decades, across changing administrations. You may call them "career staffers" if you want. I haven't said such people don't exist, just that they aren't the ones who really make policy. They cannot. It's not their job. Are you referring to another group? Perhaps area experts in academia or think tanks? I've asked but you won't say.

No you claim your "staffers" are the ones who "really" make foreign policy, and that foreign policy doesn't change all that much from administration to administration .

When you made that claim, I didn't LMFAO. I offered counter arguments with specific historical examples in support.

Now you could try to refute my claim with a counter examples, just as I gave you examples both of dramatic policy shifts and of presidents (not "staffers") driving those shifts. But you don't do that. You just claim it's "obvious" there are career staffers and they MUST be doing most of the real foreign policy work, plans B,C, and D etc. You added that it would be chaos if foreign policy changed with every administration change. Sure, no one has contended otherwise. But continuity between administrations is not created by "staffers" somehow guiding policy no matter who is in charge. It is created by presidents and cabinets who follow precedent, understand the costs of undermining US credibility, and select where and when change will be in the national interest.

And you see no reason to presume Trump--who promises to blow up treaties and put enemies and allies alike in their place--will be different from any other president; whatever he says won't matter much because "career staffers" do the real work of guiding foreign policy. I believe you once mentioned "checks and balances" which you suppose could contain the guy.

Make unsupported claims.Throw up a straw man (as in a point or argument no one made) when challenged, laugh your ass off, follow up with no evidence, no examples.

Can you break the pattern? Let's see.

[BmorePat87]

(12-03-2016, 09:43 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I'm surprised Huntsman isn't in talks for State. 

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trumps-expanding-list-secretary-state-stavridis-huntsman-tillerson/story?id=43974501&cid=abcn_fb

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

Didn't Trump already say he was going to instruct his Treasury Secretary to officially label China as a currency manipulator? I know Trump has said a lot of stuff (lol) but I can't imagine that would have ever made China happy either.

So if you're already going to sell Taiwan guns, and you're going to label China a currency manipulator, why not accept a call from someone else?

I don't think the US should be the world police, but if they are going to be, they should at least do it properly. Support the peaceful democratic nation, and not the nation who's currently building islands to militarize heavily disputed waters.

[Cure4CF]

Shame on The Donald. Cozying up to the Russians and disrespecting China.

Damned if you do Damned if you don't.

[fredtoast]

(12-04-2016, 04:31 PM)Dill Wrote: I'm sure if we go into the Pentagon or the State Department we will find people who have been working there for decades, across changing administrations. You may call them "career staffers" if you want. I haven't said such people don't exist, just that they aren't the ones who really make policy. They cannot. It's not their job. Are you referring to another group? Perhaps area experts in academia or think tanks? I've asked but you won't say.

No you claim your "staffers" are the ones who "really" make foreign policy, and that foreign policy doesn't change all that much from administration to administration .  

When you made that claim, I didn't LMFAO. I offered counter arguments with specific historical examples in support.

Now you could try to refute my claim with a counter examples, just as I gave you examples both of dramatic policy shifts and of presidents (not "staffers") driving those shifts.  But you don't do that. You just claim it's "obvious" there are career staffers and they MUST be doing most of the real foreign policy work, plans B,C, and D etc.  You added that it would be chaos if foreign policy changed with every administration change. Sure, no one has contended otherwise. But continuity between administrations is not created by "staffers" somehow guiding policy no matter who is in charge. It is created by presidents and cabinets who follow precedent, understand the costs of undermining US credibility, and select where and when change will be in the national interest.

And you see no reason to presume Trump--who promises to blow up treaties and put enemies and allies alike in their place--will be different from any other president; whatever he says won't matter much because "career staffers" do the real work of guiding foreign policy. I believe you once mentioned "checks and balances" which you suppose could contain the guy.

Make unsupported claims.Throw up a straw man (as in a point or argument no one made) when challenged, laugh your ass off, follow up with no evidence, no examples.

Can you break the pattern? Let's see.

Rep.


I predict another "I am not going to bother explaining because you would not understand" reply witha couple of personal attacks thrown in to prove he is right.

[Rotobeast]

(12-05-2016, 03:40 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Didn't Trump already say he was going to instruct his Treasury Secretary to officially label China as a currency manipulator? I know Trump has said a lot of stuff (lol) but I can't imagine that would have ever made China happy either.

So if you're already going to sell Taiwan guns, and you're going to label China a currency manipulator, why not accept a call from someone else?

I don't think the US should be the world police, but if they are going to be, they should at least do it properly. Support the peaceful democratic nation, and not the nation who's currently building islands to militarize heavily disputed waters.

I was waiting for someone to bring up currency.

My money says that Trump and his friends are knee-deep in Dong.
(Hey Vas..... this is an opportunity to start a Daddy Loves Dong chant.)

Supposedly the IMF has been considering revaluing/resetting the value of the Dong and a lot of people have bought into it, in speculation.

I'm going to assume that Trump's communication has something to do with influencing that.

Maybe JustWinBaby could give some economic insight ?

Should I go buy some Dong ?

[Dill]

(12-05-2016, 03:31 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trumps-expanding-list-secretary-state-stavridis-huntsman-tillerson/story?id=43974501&cid=abcn_fb

Huntsman would be a competent choice--but geez, considering Bolton too?

[Dill]

(12-05-2016, 10:13 PM)fredtoas Wrote: I predict another "I am not going to bother explaining because you would not understand" reply witha couple of personal attacks thrown in to prove he is right.

Ha ha. If we'd just "think for ourselves" we'd know he's right.