Why Do Leading US Politicians Get Asia So Wrong?

[forrestreid]

6 hours ago, PeterRS said:

I must also take you up on your analogy between the effects of colonialism on China in the 19th century and the colonisation of Korea, Vietnam and The Philippines. The latter three were taken over completely by their colonial masters. There was no nationalist ruler in the countries other than those imposed by the colonial masters. Imperial China was never taken over by colonial powers. They merely ate away at large chunks of its coastline and eventually some of the cities like Shanghai and Qingdao. In parts of one independent power humiliatingly they imposed the rules and laws of their own ruling powers. It was like today's China taking over parts of various US states and imposing Chinese rule and laws. How would the US feel about that?

I am not sure what point you are trying to make with this paragraph. The point I was making was that China was not the only country in Asia to be colonised (or partly colonised) in the 19th and 20th centuries, and it seems to have precious little empathy for others suffered a greater indignity at that time, despite feeling rather sorry for itself.

To respond to your analogy I’m sure Americans would feel furious if some states of the Union were taken over by Imperialist foreign powers.

 

But I am sure they would be even more furious if the whole country was taken over rather than in just a few states! (Which would be the analogy to what happened with Korea and Vietnam).

 

As you seem to have discussed with many Chinese the effect that colonisation and the unequal treaties had on China, why do you think it has not made them more able to empathise with the viewpoint  of a country like the Philippines or Vietnam? That is something I have wondered about as the whole saga of the disputes over Chinese expansionism in the South China Sea has played out over the last decade or so.

 

 

6 hours ago, PeterRS said:

Lastly, for those US citizens who advocate independence for Taiwan, is there not more or less a parallel closer to home. In the late 1840s the USA engaged in a war with Mexico. This was after the US had unilaterally annexed the state of Texas. The US then tried to negotiate with the Mexicans who refused to do so. War was declared by the USA and eventually won by US troops. As a result much of New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona, California, western Colorado as well as Texas was ceded to the USA for $15 million.

So Texas is part of the USA, just as Taiwan is part of China. What would Americans think if Texas decided it wanted to become independent and apart from the USA? Would the USA permit it? Of course it wouldn't!

You make reference to US citizens that are in favour of independence for Taiwan. I’m not sure what the average view of Joe Public is in the States, as I don’t live there, but my understanding of the viewpoint of officials and the State Department is that while they accept the argument that Taiwan should be considered as part of China’s national territory in the long run, that “de facto” the independence of Taiwan should be respected, pending a mutual agreement to reunite peacefully. In particular, they don’t feel that the USA is bound by anything to acquiesce to a unilateral invasion of Taiwan by the PRC.

Regarding the Texas example, I willingly concede that the USA would not accept it if Texas unilaterally decided to secede.

However, the analogous situation to the premise of this tread is to ponder what the the position of, say, the government of Canada or Germany would be to Texas seceding. I would like to think that if the secessionist state of Texas was a democratic state and it was leaving a USA which had become a fascist dictatorship, that the politicians in Germany and Canada would support Texas.

There is a more apt example of this sort of situation. This is Kosovo leaving Serbia. Despite the fact that in general, international governments are opposed to unilateral secessionist movements, in this case once Kosovo had rebelled, most of the international community ended up supporting the secessionist rebels. This was for various reasons, mainly the fact that there was view in western countries that a genocide of the Muslims in Kosovo was beginning to take place. (Obviously the reaction of the West in general, and NATO countries in particular, to the Kosovo crisis is still very controversial, with some commentators taking the side of Serbia. But I am talking about the general response to the situation).

It is a good example of how the international official opinion that secession should only occur with the peaceful agreement of both the exiting region and the overall state, can be breached in extreme circumstances.

[forrestreid]

3 hours ago, forrestreid said:

 

It is a good example of how the international official opinion that secession should only occur with the peaceful agreement of both the exiting region and the overall state, can be breached in extreme circumstances.

 

To clarify the above, it was to demonstrate that the USA and its allies have generally not had any constant viewpoint on when secession from an existing state is acceptable.

For instance, it is generally supportive of Kosovo and Taiwan, but in the case of Catalonia, a few years ago, it was definitely on the side of the Spanish government in opposing it, presumably mainly due to Spain being a NATO member and considered a democracy.

Whether this inconstancy is a good thing or a bad thing is debatable, but one cannot accuse American politicians of being hypocrites for being supportive of Taiwan's continued existence as a de-facto separate state.

 

Anyway, Pelosi's trip is underway it seems, with her in Singapore today.

We will await with interest whether she does turn up in Taiwan, or follows the Biden counsel to stay away.

If she was to ask my advice, I would suggest staying away at the moment, as the current international situation is so volatile, and to visit when Biden clearly wants her to keep away would make the American government look divided and therefore weak.

But there are advantages and disadvantages to either option. The main thing is to demonstrate to the PRC that the US  will not abandon a democratic country like Taiwan, which definitely would be getting Asian policy wrong.

[belkinDC]

7 minutes ago, forrestreid said:

We will await with interest whether she does turn up in Taiwan, or follows the Biden counsel to stay away.

 

She just announced today that the visit to Taiwan will proceed.

I think Biden erred in publicly weighing in at all on the visit - the best thing would have been from the beginning to just state that Congress is an independent, coequal branch of government whose members do not need the permission or blessing of the President to travel where they wish — and such travel has no bearing on the Administration’s foreign policy.

[PeterRS]

9 hours ago, forrestreid said:

The main thing is to demonstrate to the PRC that the US  will not abandon a democratic country like Taiwan, which definitely would be getting Asian policy wrong.

I have taken up enough space to make my case (even if some has not been totally clear) and so will not take up more. I merely add here two points.

1. You again call Taiwan a country. I think the vast majority around the world including the US administrations do not agree. I suggest the term used by the British during its administration of Hong Kong is more appropriate. Hong Kong was a "territory". And in international law there is zero doubt that Hong Kong and Kowloon were indeed British territory much more than Taiwan can be called an independent country, even though they formed a greographical part of mainland China. Why the British colonial powers negotiated a 99-year lease for the administration of the New Territories when there was nothing preventing their negotiating the transfer in perpetuity, is one of the quirks of history. Had it negotiated the transfer in perpetuity, there would have been no 1997 issue and perhaps no Taiwan issue. But we cannot say for sure that others would not have arisen.

2. In talking yesterday with a good friend visiting Bangkok who is far more expert in China and Asian issues than I - his degrees from two top universities in the US and UK were in Asian studies, he bascially disagrees with many of my comments, even though he agrees the Taiwan situation in international law is relatively clear. He hopes Pelosi will visit Taipei and basically call Xi's bluff. Like me, though, he agrees there is little the rest of the world can do if China decides to invade Taiwan by force. Western powers may support Taiwan as they have been supporting Ukraine. But war with China is not an option. What will be left of Taiwan and how it will adapt to its new reality would be the big question. And is this one reason which may prevent China from using force?

[tassojunior]

12 hours ago, forrestreid said:

 

If she was to ask my advice, I would suggest staying away at the moment, as the current international situation is so volatile, and to visit when Biden clearly wants her to keep away would make the American government look divided and therefore weak.

But there are advantages and disadvantages to either option. The main thing is to demonstrate to the PRC that the US  will not abandon a democratic country like Taiwan, which definitely would be getting Asian policy wrong.

You state the obvious which I'm sure the US regime knows. Obviously it wants to start a proxy war which it will pay for, just as it knew moving missiles onto Russia's border and proposing Ukraine for NATO would provoke a  proxy war. (Today there's even stories that it was the US that stopped Zelensky from honoring the Minsk agreements). The rationale is that fighting proxy wars may cost a lot (all US wars do) but they weaken adversaries to American hegemony without costing American lives, which is politically costly. 

Or maybe they really do want all-out war. When even Kissinger says you're pro-war crazy, you're past lunatic. Pelosi unnecessarily being sent to Taiwan just to stir up conflict fits that theory.

[belkinDC]

30 minutes ago, tassojunior said:

The rationale is that fighting proxy wars may cost a lot (all US wars do) but they weaken adversaries to American hegemony without costing American lives, which is politically costly. 

Or maybe they really do want all-out war. When even Kissinger says you're pro-war crazy, you're past lunatic. Pelosi unnecessarily being sent to Taiwan just to stir up conflict fits that theory.

I would not credit Biden with that kind of 4D chess thinking. Perhaps if we had a leader like Xi or Putin who was thinking in decades and did not have the inconvenience of elections, he could afford to take such a long view. As it stands though Biden's party is about to get trounced in the midterms and he himself does not need any further foreign policy disasters on his hands if he runs for re-election in 2024. 

It's also a bit too much to think that Pelosi is secretly there at Biden's behest despite his public messages otherwise. Her going against his protestations just makes Biden look weak and feckless that he can't rein in a Speaker of his own party from needlessly provoking China when we are already in a proxy war with Russia. Further, Biden publicly pleading with her not to go just emboldened the Chinese to further harden their stance and rhetoric against her trip, thinking such pressure could perhaps be effective if even Biden was urging against the trip. Making it more difficult for Pelosi to back out as doing so would just encourage and reward more of the same behavior from Beijing in the future. 

Which is why Biden should have kept his concerns private. Perhaps Pelosi might have listened to a private plea if publicly it could still look like she was calling the shots.

[kjun12]

Many of those posting on this topic are so fond of their own views, suspicions and belief they should apply to become cabinet members in the foreign policy arena.😆

[tassojunior]

18 minutes ago, belkinDC said:

I would not credit Biden with that kind of 4D chess thinking. Perhaps if we had a leader like Xi or Putin who was thinking in decades and did not have the inconvenience of elections, he could afford to take such a long view. As it stands though Biden's party is about to get trounced in the midterms and he himself does not need any further foreign policy disasters on his hands if he runs for re-election in 2024. 

It's also a bit too much to think that Pelosi is secretly there at Biden's behest despite his public messages otherwise. Her going against his protestations just makes Biden look weak and feckless that he can't rein in a Speaker of his own party from needlessly provoking China when we are already in a proxy war with Russia. Further, Biden publicly pleading with her not to go just emboldened the Chinese to further harden their stance and rhetoric against her trip, thinking such pressure could perhaps be effective if even Biden was urging against the trip. Making it more difficult for Pelosi to back out as doing so would just encourage and reward more of the same behavior from Beijing in the future. 

Which is why Biden should have kept his concerns private. Perhaps Pelosi might have listened to a private plea if publicly it could still look like she was calling the shots.

I honesty don't think many presidents lately are more than public faces of an administration and Biden especially is basically a good teleprompter reader. No way could he find Taiwan or Ukraine on a map (neither could Trump). Pelosi didn't just decide Taiwan was more inviting than Hawaii this year. Blinken and the CIA and State planned this out carefully, right down to the partial, lukewarm, almost separation from the executive. Hundreds of people rehashed this theater for the public in advance (certainly no other government believes the separation line). Taiwan is being encouraged to go to war with China and the US will foot the bill and then some. Just like Ukraine. NeoLibs think they're geniuses at plotting. It's not genius when you're so transparent. 

Caitlin Johnstone (check twitter) has become a very popular and concise writer on the sudden rightward change in America and manufactured consent. Today she wrote on this issue: https://caitlinjohnstone.substack.com/p/the-anti-china-brainwashing-is-working?r=19f8t&s=r&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&utm_source=direct

If someone criticizing the most dangerous agendas of the most powerful and destructive government on earth looks like "Russian propaganda" or "Chinese propaganda" to you, it's because you yourself have been brainwashed by propaganda.

The best case scenario for Nancy Pelosi's Taiwan visit — the absolute best case — is that it ratchets up cold war tensions with China that threaten us all and benefit ordinary people in no way. The worst case scenario is as bad as anything you can possibly imagine.

They use propaganda to facilitate war, but they also use war to facilitate propaganda. Keeping the wars going helps the propaganda machine spin war as something normal and expected and to be continuously prepared for. It acts as an immunosuppressant against the public's natural, healthy rejection of war. The more normalized war becomes, the more suppressed our collective immune system's rejection of it becomes.

War is the absolute worst thing in the world. It's the most insane thing humans do. The most destructive. The least sustainable. The most conducive to human suffering. Only by very aggressive narrative management can the public be dissuaded from insisting on peace.

[PeterRS]

Breaking what I had earlier said about not adding more to the debate, there is one issue which came up on a news programme yesterday before  it was certain Pelosi would be going to Taiwan. There are three parties in the present "dispute" over Taiwan. Only one will suffer for some considerable time as a result of Pelosi's visit - the people of Taiwan.

[kjun12]

5 hours ago, PeterRS said:

Breaking what I had earlier said about not adding more to the debate, there is one issue which came up on a news programme yesterday before  it was certain Pelosi would be going to Taiwan. There are three parties in the present "dispute" over Taiwan. Only one will suffer for some considerable time as a result of Pelosi's visit - the people of Taiwan.

On 8/2/2022 at 1:39 PM, tassojunior said:

You say this as if you know it to be a fact.  How can this be?  Do you use a crystal ball?

 

 

[PeterRS]

4 hours ago, kjun12 said:

You say this as if you know it to be a fact.  How can this be?  Do you use a crystal ball?

Just look at history! And then consider the present situation of Xi XInping. Then you might consier talking to some people who actually live in Taiwan. No, not the politicians. The men and women who live there and who have seen how China reacts whenever anything to do with independence or dependence on the USA comes up. Ask their feelings about that.

Take the tourism industry for a start. China opened its doors and let floods of mainland tourists visit Taiwan from 2009. Hotels and other parts of the tourism industry benefitted from a very large influx of tourists. Many new hotels opened and many more flights were added. Initially only mainland groups were permitted to travel from China to Taiwan. Then from 2011 Chinese could travel individually, many of them spending considerable amounts of cash according to Taiwan statistics. Roughly 4 years later with the prospect of a new Taiwan government openly talking about independence, China's open-door Taiwan policy was all but abadoned and many Taiwanese suffered as a result. In 2015 when the open door policy was at its height 41% of all tourists were from mainland China - 4.2 milion compared to just 329,000 in 2008. As with all tourism revenues, the benefits were not merely to the tourism industry. For the island as a whole they were very significant.

You should also take into account the fact that historicaly the two main markets for tourism to Taiwan used to be Japan and the USA. But soon after the mid-2000s, both those markets started to contract. Tourism to Taiwan has traditionaly come from just 20 world markets. These have shown almost no geographical variation. So the drop in total revenues from 2015 are very significant. We know covid has killed most international tourism to the island and that the Chinese are just not going to return given the position of both governments. With heightened tensions across the Taiwan Strait, others will understandably become more nervous. Is the USA suddenly going to make up the difference for all the lost tourism revenues since 2015? It happily sells the island advanced weapons but these don't help the budgets of the average household.

But the tourism screw has been turned. China has other screws it can turn. And turn them it will. 

[fedssocr]

A view from Taiwan

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/aug/03/china-us-taiwan-nancy-pelosi-visit

[tassojunior]

And the US regime knows fully well that Xi is up for re-election to another 5-year term and will have to show force. At minimum it will set the mainland and Taiwan at each others' throats again. What the US wants.

Forget any Medicare or healthcare increases for US citizens; we've got two very expensive proxy wars to wage (but no US troops will die). Sec. Austin & his Raytheon will rake in the $zillions.  

[joizy]

2 hours ago, fedssocr said:

A view from Taiwan

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/aug/03/china-us-taiwan-nancy-pelosi-visit

The people of Taiwan consider themselves to be living in an independent country. They will emphatically tell you that they are not China.

[PeterRS]

9 hours ago, joizy said:

The people of Taiwan consider themselves to be living in an independent country. They will emphatically tell you that they are not China.

I have tried consistently to make that point whenever there has been a discussion about Taiwan. But with respect you have quoted from that Guardian article incorrectly. It does not state that the people of Taiwan consider Taiwan an independent country. What the writer actually states is the following -

"The Democratic Progressive party, which emerged from Taiwan’s democracy movement, holds power. It currently advocates for maintaining the status quo, (which means the ambiguous position where Taiwan is de facto but not de jure independent) . . . Most Taiwanese people seem to support the status quo too, with only tiny minorities wanting full independence or unification with China as soon as possible. The full picture is hard to ascertain since there are arguments that the Taiwanese would be more firmly pro-independence if there were no threats from China."

Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen ran on an independence platform in 2020.  She won the election by 57.13% of the vote - a significannt majority but far from a resounding vote for independence. Siginifcantly the Kuomintang Pary which advocates closer relations with Beijing increased its share of the vote in that election with actualy majorities in 6 of the administrative regions.

My Taiwanese friends just want to be left alone without interference from either China or the west. 

[alvnv]

Maintaining status quo indefinitely is impossible. Sooner or later either PRC will take over Taiwan either by force, or through creating fifth column and staging some sort of unification. It could go the other way as well, if CCP loses its grip and PRC becomes ROC, or just China. Unless, of course, desperate Putin unleashes a nuclear war and sends us all to oblivion.

[kjun12]

14 hours ago, PeterRS said:

Just look at history! And then consider the present situation of Xi XInping. Then you might consier talking to some people who actually live in Taiwan. No, not the politicians. The men and women who live there and who have seen how China reacts whenever anything to do with independence or dependence on the USA comes up. Ask their feelings about that.

Take the tourism industry for a start. China opened its doors and let floods of mainland tourists visit Taiwan from 2009. Hotels and other parts of the tourism industry benefitted from a very large influx of tourists. Many new hotels opened and many more flights were added. Initially only mainland groups were permitted to travel from China to Taiwan. Then from 2011 Chinese could travel individually, many of them spending considerable amounts of cash according to Taiwan statistics. Roughly 4 years later with the prospect of a new Taiwan government openly talking about independence, China's open-door Taiwan policy was all but abadoned and many Taiwanese suffered as a result. In 2015 when the open door policy was at its height 41% of all tourists were from mainland China - 4.2 milion compared to just 329,000 in 2008. As with all tourism revenues, the benefits were not merely to the tourism industry. For the island as a whole they were very significant.

You should also take into account the fact that historicaly the two main markets for tourism to Taiwan used to be Japan and the USA. But soon after the mid-2000s, both those markets started to contract. Tourism to Taiwan has traditionaly come from just 20 world markets. These have shown almost no geographical variation. So the drop in total revenues from 2015 are very significant. We know covid has killed most international tourism to the island and that the Chinese are just not going to return given the position of both governments. With heightened tensions across the Taiwan Strait, others will understandably become more nervous. Is the USA suddenly going to make up the difference for all the lost tourism revenues since 2015? It happily sells the island advanced weapons but these don't help the budgets of the average household.

But the tourism screw has been turned. China has other screws it can turn. And turn them it will. 

I admire your tenacity in your writings but have you ever said anything in ten words or less?😍

[PeterRS]

2 hours ago, kjun12 said:

I admire your tenacity in your writings but have you ever said anything in ten words or less?😍

Why should I do that? There is no regulation which states you need to read anything I write. Have you criticised other posters for lengthy posts - e.g. @reader who posts a great many longish comments from news outlets, many interesting? Your comment borders on an insult!

[reader]

1 hour ago, PeterRS said:

Have you criticised other posters for lengthy posts - e.g. @reader who posts a great many longish comments from news outlets, many interesting? Your comment borders on an insult!

"Imitation is the greatest form of flattery."   Marcus Aurelius.

[kjun12]

Oh my.  We are touchy about anything we perceive to being insulting.

I thought the emoji softened my comment but apparently your sensitivity level was too high for that.  I try again: 💓

[Latbear4blk]

Sign of trolling: when someone has nothing to say about the topic, and starts bitching about others' long posts.

[PeterRS]

Since @kjun12 contributes virtually nothing of value to any discussion, he only needs 10 words!

[joizy]

13 hours ago, PeterRS said:

But with respect you have quoted from that Guardian article incorrectly. It does not state that the people of Taiwan consider Taiwan an independent country.

I wasn't quoting the Guardian article, I was relating my own experience. I taught in Taiwan, I've had Taiwanese colleagues, Taiwanese students and a Taiwanese boyfriend. They all emphatically stated that they were not Chinese. The consider Taiwan to be an independent country with its own language, culture, currency and political system. They also look to the West for protection from a much bigger bully, China. They live under the constant threat of an attack, much like South Koreans do with North Korea. Your experience may be different and to be honest, I haven't read all of the posts in this thread because some of them are way too long. I was simply making a point, if you ask the people of Taiwan, they will tell you that they are not China nor Chinese.

[forrestreid]

On 8/3/2022 at 3:17 PM, PeterRS said:

Just look at history! And then consider the present situation of Xi XInping. Then you might consier talking to some people who actually live in Taiwan. No, not the politicians. The men and women who live there and who have seen how China reacts whenever anything to do with independence or dependence on the USA comes up. Ask their feelings about that.

You write as if the “people who actually live in Taiwan” are entirely helpless in the situation.

But the fact is that Taiwan is a democratic country – and it was the democratic vote of the people in elections that has resulted the increased  tensions over the status of Taiwan. As you have pointed out, the collapse in the number of mainland tourists visiting Taiwan followed the PRC unhappiness with the decision of the Taiwan people in the 2015 election. Obviously that very negatively impacted on the tourist sector of Taiwan, but I think it is fair to say that the electorate knew before the election that the result that transpired would enrage Beijing. But they cast their vote for their favoured candidates anyway, as is their right. You are trying to create a divide here between the “politicians” and “the men and women who live there”, but it seems that on this issue people are leading and the politicians following - otherwise the Kuomintang would be winning elections.

Now you may be of the opinion that the Taiwanese people are misjudging their own long term interests, and should “go gently into the good night” of becoming a new subjugated province of the PRC, like Hong Kong. However, I would urge you to make that argument in a straight-forward fashion, rather than insinuating (in a rather dubious proposition for a country with democratic elections) that only "the politicians” want a certain policy… and that the “ordinary people” disagree.

[forrestreid]

15 hours ago, PeterRS said:

Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen ran on an independence platform in 2020.  She won the election by 57.13% of the vote - a significannt majority but far from a resounding vote for independence. Siginifcantly the Kuomintang Pary which advocates closer relations with Beijing increased its share of the vote in that election with actualy majorities in 6 of the administrative regions.

My Taiwanese friends just want to be left alone without interference from either China or the west. 

I think in any democratic system winning with 57% of the vote is a pretty comprehensive win, to be fair.

But my understanding is that is is not the policy of Presidents Tsai's party to go for formal (de jure) independence, it is to continue the present ambiguous system where Taiwan is de facto independent,  whilst avoiding any 1776-style Declaration of Independence (without renouncing the right of Taiwan to do so in theory).

Personally I don’t think any Taiwanese government will ever go for full, declared independence anyway, as it would bring an almost immediate invasion.

My opinion is that, of the two government on either side of the Taiwan , it is the PRC side that has done most to escalate matters over the last decade, and therefore to propagate the PRC view of individual incidents (like the Pelosi visit) is to collude with its bullying.