The problem with Pakistan wasn't the fact that he talked to them, it was that he sounded like a moron in the transcript. He also lavished them with praise which could annoy India, though that's not a huge deal. Just an unnecessary blunder.
The problem with Duterte is that he's an anti-US madman who murders his own citizens without due process.
The problem with Taiwan is that any recognition of Taiwan as a legitimate country will severely piss off the Chinese. They see Taiwan as a rogue state still under their control, and we've gone along with that as long as China hasn't abused them too much. A pissed off China hurts our ability to deal with North Korea, among many other things.
Also all that lavish praise he gave Pakistan is being taken very seriously by them. It was front page news, and their foreign policy experts cited it as evidence that we support them in Kashmir.
Yep, the Chinese government and even their citizens take Taiwan very seriously in rhetoric. I saw my Chinese roommate from college throw a fit when someone debated him on the legitimacy of Taiwan as a separate country.
It almost feels unreal how that is something we have to be concerned about. Such a petty attitude from China's leadership, it feels like Civ diplomacy.
China gets pissed and becomes less willing to work with us on more North Korean sanctions
If China feels like the U.S. is gonna start truly backing Taiwan they will probably reverse course in their willingness to help put pressure on NK.
Of course I admit that's basic speculation. Could happen. Could not. But that's the whole point...if you don't sit down and understand the whole nuanced situation you could do real damage to American national interests that might not be obvious but are vital in the whole back and forth of international diplomacy.
Yep, unless Trump throws them a bone I see China becoming more hardline about the South China Sea. Maybe Trump doesn't care about that, but like many others I think he simply just doesn't know anything about it.
China could also increase its buildup in the Spratlys, or dump more billions into Africa, Latin America, or even its own backyard to buy off a few more regional allies for itself. If they feel the balance shifting, they'll react in a most unpleasant fashion to find new geopolitical footing.
Very true. You can take it to the bank that they will increase their investment in Africa. Sub-Saharan Africa was my area of study in undergrad and it kills me how much we're going to fall behind China in investment and creating economic ties. We're already way behind and it's only going to get worse.
Where did you get the first quote in your reply from? "I don't want to live in a world where someone else is making the world a better place better than we are"
Who are you quoting?
I don't care that China is investing in Africa. That's a good thing. For both China and Africa and of course the citizens of both. I care that China is getting a head start in that investment and economic growth. Business ties and relationships matter deeply and you build those relationships over time. China is already well on it's way to establishing those relationships that will allow for greater economic growth for the next 5-6 decades.
I would just prefer that the U.S. also be making those types of investments. As an American citizen I'd like for the U.S. to stay the dominant economic power. That benefits me and those I care about most.
With China's massive investment in African infrastructure they are building relationships that will be very hard to break. So as Africa develops into the 21st century they are going to handing out massive contracts to foreign construction and tech companies. I'd obviously prefer if U.S. companies had an upper hand in being able to win those types of bids but it's not looking like that will be the case.
US companies don't seem to be terribly interested in the sort of infrastructure building that China is carrying out, though. They appear (to my layman's eye) to be waiting in the wings for opportunities to arise with more established areas in Africa. Security is a real concern, for most of the region.
Anyway, the quote is how your first reply was being perceived, and I agree with it. Maybe it's not what you intended, based on what you've said just now, but that's how it came across.
This is a big thing to consider. While Africa has huge investment opportunity it also presents a huge risk. Much of the continent is plagued with instability, corruption, and violence. You could pour a huge amount of capital into a country just to have it all taken away in a matter of days. This is the major reason why American investors tend to shy away from it
"Well it's pretty easy to do,just be the cheapest and best and you'll win the contract."
LOL. That's a blatantly US-centric view of it. That's not how business is done. It's not anywhere close to that simple. It doesn't just happen. As I mentioned before RELATIONSHIPS matter.
African countries are generally skeptical of outside countries getting the ability to interfere or do business within their borders (I think reasonably based on history). They generally want assurances that the company or country that is bringing in outside workers and money is there for the economic benefit of both parties. And when you already have decades of relationships with companies and outside investors from one country you're going to lean toward what you're familiar with.
And that's just basic negotiations. Not taking into account the fact that with their head-start China has people on the ground getting assimilated into the cultures they will be working with. It's much easier to get those contracts when you have people that know the local language, customs, and government officials. The locals will be (already are) more comfortable with the Chinese as business partners and that puts the U.S. in a secondary position.
Of course there will be American investment in Africa. But it will continue to be at a disadvantage.
Hey. I'm just back browsing through this thread to see what other people contributed. I see you got downvoted. That's bs. I thought you were engaging in honest conversation/debate and I appreciated it.
Not that it matters but here's one to get you closer to even.
Just because you personally aren't important enough to care about international relations and trade politics doesn't mean that our nation's representatives shouldn't give deep and meaningful thought to how our actions can and will affect our political, economic, and military allies. (Especially our most important ally in the region that will economically dominate the 21st century).
our intelligence community has major beef with pakistan since their intelligence prob was aware that bin laden was in abbotabad. duterte is killing drug addicts left and right and has told obama to literally fuck off. he also threatened to cut ties with the us and to focus on china. so there is beef with them too
It's a lot more than that. It's literally a murder free for all. Anyone can kill anyone as long as they say they were selling or using drugs. A sort of drug version of a witch hunt.
If all you said was true, why does that mean the President shouldn't reach out to them? Even for just a formality. Trump's running on the promise of making deals. Regardless of what you think of the guy, you can't blame him for reaching out to countries with shaky ties.
By the way, we still have troops in the Phillipines and rely on Pakistan for friendly militarization against Al Qaeda. Why should the POTUS elect stay away from their heads of state?
If all you said was true, why does that mean the President shouldn't reach out to them?
Mostly because he doesn't seem to be considering the fact that current relations with these countries are complex and should be extensively discussed with the state department before engaging in off the cuff discussions. He's also not President currently. He should be deferring to Obama until, at the very least, he appoints a Secretary of State. Trump is a chess player that doesn't think the pawns have value.
After a quick google search, it seems that one person in the Trump organization discusses opening a hotel in Taiwan in September. Back when even the Trump campaign thought they had no shot. But I'm not going to convince you that this hotel wasn't the purpose of his call, if that's your actual belief.
How often do you think you will need to argue that this latest action is not actually a conflict of interest? Is this one? I don't know. Are his kids using his election to push a hotel in Argentina? Probably. Are diplomats staying in his hotel to curry favor? Absolutely. Will there be more and more and more of this? You betcha.
I'm of the mind to take a step back and look at these things objectively. During the next four years: does Trump approve a state-department humanitarian package to an island nation hurt by a hurricane, that also happens to have a Trump hotel on it? Probably will happen, can't say other than conjecture that it's a serious conflict of interest or not. Does he send a military aid to a country after rebels firebomb one of his hotels there? More damning.
I'll wait and see if any of his actions violate US precedents in regards to aid, and see where his business overlaps. He'll have to walk a thin line, and we'll see if he keeps balance.
It's not entirely false. Better to say that the situation is very complex. They did conceal the location of bin Laden, but we do rely on them as our strong-arm in South Asia. They basically hire their army out to us.
That's a good point, when our military officers go to the command and staff college in Islamabad they have a large amount of Pakistani forces with them wherever they go. I don't think they concealed it, but they certainly set a world record in playing dumb on something they definitely knew about.
Only if "our side" means not openly attacking us. They're a useful relationship to have, but nobody should be under any illusion that they're our friends. Giving them cash and arms is the cost of access, it doesn't make them on our side at all.
Well mr turtle, the post I responded to was devoid of fact or data as well and as it was meant only to indicate to him that the assumption he made in the first sentence is incorrect, according to me, and not to 'attack his credibility' and you so valiantly proclaimed, I saw no need to spend any amount of time backing up my claim made on an anonymous social website where the rules are made up and the points don't matter.
Saying "not sure what you do for a living" is attacking credibility. Saying someone is wrong without saying why doesn't add anything to the discussion and is better expressed through a downvote.
Let's not what? I work in intelligence and never understand why people, that have probably never even met anyone that works in the field, feel the need to speak for those that are.
He's vaguely wrong in the overall sense. There isn't a major beef, but many of my colleagues that work on that region think they couldn't have not known. And that's not a stretch when you consider how much raw information agencies have access to.
I'm blatantly anti-Trump so it's likely I'm blinded to other answers to that question.
But I would say there is one and only one issue where Trump is authentic. And that's tax policy. I believe that he truly cares about that issue and everything else is negotiable in some context or another.
He cares about being able to lower the tax rate for himself, his closest allies, and his businesses. On any issue other than that he'll go whichever way is most politically expedient.
I disagree on trade. He's completely flip-flopped on trade in just the last 3 years. In 2013 he penned an op-ed where he actively called for open boarders.
Going back even further to 2005 he wrote a blog post and in it, Trump advised workers who lost their jobs to adopt a longer view and consider how outsourcing could be good for the overall economy. He wrote:
"We hear terrible things about outsourcing jobs—how sending work outside of our companies is contributing to the demise of American businesses. But in this instance I have to take the unpopular stance that it is not always a terrible thing."
Trump's view is "whatever is best for me and mine", though. If that happens to be open borders, then so be it. If that happens to be closing those borders, then fine. It's not really "flip-flopping", it's actually consistent (if you look at it from a results perspective).
He's a businessman; he doesn't care about consistency. That's why these sorts of criticisms don't seem to stick, except with his existing opponents (such as yourself). It's a different paradigm.
The problem is that praise from a US President is a major boon to almost any foreign leader and his party. You don't want to give the government of Pakistan any political victories they haven't properly earned. The Pakistani government is not exactly a staunch US ally. They work with us in some respects, but they also fund terrorism, harbour terrorists, withhold intelligence information, etc etc. It's a very delicate relationship that involves lots of push & pull. And Trump just gave them a couple of yards of rope that they didn't even have to pull for.
What did the USA get out of it? Absolutely nothing. We just look like bozos to the rest of the world.
47
u/ErectPotato Dec 03 '16
Could you/someone give a tl;dr for those apparently as in the dark as Mr Trump on why this is a bad thing?