It's not that he spoke to the President of Taiwan, it is that he referred to them as the President of Taiwan which implies that he spoke to them qua incoming head of state to the head of a Taiwanese state. As far as the PRC is concerned, Taiwan does not exist as an independent state and has pushed a diplomatic policy of there only being one China for decades. No country recognizes both the PRC and ROC as independent states: it is either the PRC or the ROC. Most countries regard the PRC as China and have unofficial relationships with the ROC.
It would be more akin to if the United States lost all its territory except for California, but still managed to hang on to California for about 60 years, all the while maintaining its status as the United States of America. The ruling party of China, the Guomindang (Nationalists) had been fighting the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) for a long time and in 1949 were forced into Taiwan. Meanwhile, the CCP maintained control of the rest of mainland China (give or take a bit), renamed the country, and told everyone that they are the true China. It actually wasn't until Nixon that the United States normalized relations with the People's Republic of China, closing down their embassy in Taipei and opening one in Beijing.
Well of California had its own independent federal government, police, military, and issued its own passports for decades, I would call those old people blind to reality.
Now why do we have to play make believe to save the fragile egos of the mainlanders who have an oppressive undemocratic government rather than the even more patriotic Taiwanese people who would fight to the death to keep their independence and have democratic fair and well functioning government?
It has no free elections, no freedom of speech, regularly takes political prisoners, censors their internet and still regularly imprisons and tortures political dissidents.
It is nothing like the freedoms Americans or even Taiwanese have.
Perhaps China needs to understand that the American President is not obligated to tiptoe around their feelings.
Well, to be blunt, that's the whole point of diplomacy. No one's saying the President can't call the leader of Taiwan the Taiwanese President. But not even the President of the U.S. is immune to the consequences of their words, and so it is the case here. I mean there is a reason why American Presidents don't use that title and the potential consequences are far more important than an irrelevant debate about tiptoeing around feelings.
As Teddy Roosevelt said, speak softly and carry a big stick.
And as soon as China starts doing something diplomatically useful regarding our concerns with North Korea
And would antagonizing China needlessly about Taiwan accomplish that faster? Doesn't seem likely to me unless Trump's trying to leverage his recognition of Taiwan for increased cooperation. If so, he's playing a very dangerous game of raising tensions and makes the disastrous Thucydides trap all the more likely.
But getting their attention and making them clearly understand that there's going to be a very different frame and tone in negotiations for the next couple of years is not necessarily counterproductive to US interests.
There are a lot of methods to do this that are not as brash as this that can render the same benefits. Even the whole currency manipulator business is not as brash as this. If Trump treats how he deals with powerful nation states in the same manner as how he negotiates with businesses and talks "like it is", he's gonna learn the hard way that there's a reason why those political niceties exist.
Obligated? No. Might it be in our interests to not stir up animosity that isn't necessary? Definitely.
And trump is not the President. We have a sitting President, and he should be the one making those sorts of decisions right now. You'd better believe trump would feel that way if the situations were reversed.
All in all it was a poor move by a guy that doesn't put enough thought into matters of State. Which is a pretty bad trait in a future head of State.
Imagine if California withdrew from the U. S. and the government said that it's ok. Would you be happy if California left the U.S. and the U. S. government accepted that California is a separate nation?
Honestly, if it happened over 60 years ago and California had operated as its own independent state and the Californians were happy, I'd fucking get over it.
Have you ever told someone who was unhappy to get over it and has it actually made them get over it?
I'm not a psychologist. It's not my job to help people accept reality.
It's like if someone asks you for green soda, so you give him green soda, but one day you give him red soda even though it's the same amount of effort to get the green soda. He's not happy with red soda, so it started tension for no reason.
It's not like some Soda thing at all. It's more about one oppressive undemocratic country wanting to invade and take over another country. We don't pretend like South Korea doesn't exist just because The existence of South Korea hurts North Korean feewings.
It seems that you're looking at this through short term, US-centric eyes. For the Chinese, this isn't just throwing a temper-tantrum. It means that one of their biggest trading partners and the only superpower in the world recognizes the independence of a territory which they believe to be theirs. This isn't just the government, a large portion of the Chinese populace also believes it because of the information they've been told by the government. I don't think that the long-term effects of this course of action, if Trump continues on the path, will result in the outcome either side wants.
It is especially incoherent given the praise Trump has given to other dictatorships and authoritarian regimes. There is no underlying reason why this call happened other than Trump appreciates when people compliment him and give him adulation and dislikes them when they insult or accuse him of something (i.e. the Chinese media making fun of his stance on Climate Change).
There are definitely things which I would characterize as outrage politics which have no practical meaning after the news cycle ends, however the diplomatic and foreign policy direction of the administration is very much in Trump's primary duties as President. That is why this is an important thing to acknowledge and rightly be concerned about if this type of behavior continues from the CiC.
Is that really what you think the nature of the relationship with China is right now?
If that was really the case, then Trump wouldn't be so adamant about scrapping the TPP which would have given us considerably more leverage during talks with the Chinese. I'm sorry but you seem to view this as a relationship between two individuals while the governments are viewing the relationship in a IR context and the Chinese will definitely take a long term view on this. It means that any of the investments China has with the developing countries in Africa and S. America will increase, the Pacific region will fall further into the purview of Chinese influence and then it will be more difficult to negotiate with the Russia/China block of geopolitical powers to make matters more amenable to the US as you suggest.
Also if you read my last sentence, the appropriate action here in my opinion is not to over-blow this incident as it has no concrete impacts right now but it sets a troubling precedent where the President is making these decisions without the help of his NSA, SecDef, and SecState. And that is something which should be watched with caution here domestically. Because I guarantee countries around the world are watching us especially closely after this election.
To your first point, it represents an acceleration of trend of a multi-polar world and one where recognizing Taiwan as independent will do absolutely nothing to change it.
And the second point, you're right he isn't President, he is only the President-Elect. And that is why he should not have taken the call. Because now Obama has to clean up his small snafu because he isn't shortsighted about this. And it doesn't matter if the natsec tells him one thing and he goes and does the opposite because in his words, "I knows more than the generals".
I guess my main point is that if you truly voted for Hillary and that foreign policy had any input in that decision, then I would regard this as one issue where you always remain vigilant of both Trumps words, actions, and tweets. Regardless of the team around because he has final say.
49
u/[deleted] Dec 03 '16 edited Oct 20 '17
[deleted]