Showing posts with label Trump. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Trump. Show all posts

Monday, May 08, 2017

Everyone panic: Trump Administration becomes a normal US Presidential Administration

Searching for a way out....

Yeah. This has all happened before. Remember when Bush Lite declared...
President Bush, offering a more explicit commitment to Taiwan than his recent predecessors, said in a television interview broadcast today that if the island came under attack from China, he would order ''whatever it took'' to help Taiwan defend itself.
We all know what happened. By Bush's second term he was trying to suppress Taiwan on behalf of China, to accomplish some transient thing or other. Because traditional US policy on China is to make permanent concessions to address transient issues. Yay!

We begin this way with every Republican President.

So it is hardly surprising, in retrospect, that the arms deal for Taiwan, originally slated for an April announcement, is now waiting on the launch pad...
The relatively small sale to Taiwan — worth just more than $1 billion — was set to go in late 2016, but the Obama administration never pulled the trigger. After some early pro-Taiwan signals from President Trump, including a phone call with its president, most Taiwan watchers expected the new administration to move the package forward quickly. Now, administration and congressional officials say, the deal is stalled due to a lack of administration consensus and the fear that angering Beijing could complicate Trump’s top Asia priority: solving the North Korean crisis.
Once again, a classic of management of Washington by Beijing: fear of Beijing's anger makes Washington shrink from necessary action. Always, Washington must give up its freedom of action, lest Beijing react. *sigh*

It wouldn't be surprising to me to learn that China has fomented this trouble with N Korea because it knows it can get concessions from Washington for doing nothing while giving the appearance of doing something. It's pretty obvious to many of us watching that Beijing isn't going to help the US, partly because it doesn't want to, partly because it can't, and partly because Washington is dangling the possibility of Ultimate Stupidity in front of Beijing -- War with N Korea. That would complete the trifecta of Chinese victories in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“What is it? Is the king dead? Has an enemy landed in Narnia? Is it a flood? Or dragons?”

Peter Enav, ever pessimistic, asks: Can Taiwan Survive Donald Trump? To wit:
Today, however, ties between Washington and Taipei seem to be at their lowest ebb since 2006 or 2007. That was when President George W. Bush agreed to act as a Chinese sub-contractor in pushing back against Chen Shui-bian’s pro-independence policies. It’s not so much that President Trump has anything against Tsai personally; it’s more that he is so entranced by the authoritarian leadership of Chinese President Xi Jinping, so much so that he now appears to see Tsai as a dispensable nuisance on the road to a far bigger prize — the strategic neutralization of a nuclear-armed North Korea, which threatens the United States.

Unfortunately for Tsai and for Taiwan as a whole, it has taken her far too much time to pick up on this — if indeed she even has. The clearest indication of this came in late April when she told an interviewer from the Reuters news agency that she was, in theory, open to another telephone conversation with Trump. In doing so she irresponsibly opened herself up to a Trumpian rejection, which predictably came — in another Reuters interview — less than 48 hours later.
Tsai did not "open herself to a Trumpian rejection." There was nothing else she could say, as I've noted before. The problem was that she answered the question in good faith, when the whole thing was a set up by Reuters to create just this situation. Someone on her media team should have nixed that question as soon as it was asked.

The short answer to Enav's question is yes, of course. We survived Nixon's sell out, the switch in recognition, Clinton, Bush's about-face and rejection of needed weapons sales, and Obama's neglect and weakness. We will survive Trump as well.

The reasons are simple, and Enav in his call for closer relations with Japan puts his finger right on them: Taiwan is part of a web of issues, which includes Japan. Trump cannot give up Taiwan without also selling out Japan (and also Phils). Everyone who does geostrategy and of course, the DC foreign policy establishment, knows that. That is why Enav also recommends Tsai cultivate them. She should also be pursuing enhanced relations with key congressional leaders on foreign affairs.

So here we are, Trump is doing what Obama and Bush and Clinton did before him: sending people to nibble around the edges for Taiwan's "international space" while delaying and denying arms packages and other needed real and symbolic items. This is all very normal for a US president. It is disappointing because many people expected a bit more from a Republican Administration, including this writer.

Indeed, if it were not Trump, it would be ho-hum. It is only interesting because of the terrifying prospect of Jared Kushner's influence on foreign policy -- the Washington Post reported on his latest antics: hawking visas to Chinese investors, banana-republic style -- and because of Trump's bizarre failure to staff key positions in foreign policy as well as his apparent desire to cash in on his position by cozying up to China.

As Enav notes, another issue is Trump's supposedly unusual embrace of authoritarian leaders. This is also normal in an American president, see Reagan and Iraq, Bush/Obama and the Saudis, etc. The ominous thing for many observers is that current Sec of State Tillerson seems to have given up on human rights as an American value. Traditionally that was a source of support for Taiwan...

For the nonce, we will simply have to grin and bear it. Those weapons will find their way here eventually. The geostrategic situation isn't going to shift tectonically in the next couple of years.

For the long term? Well, we are heading towards war out here. That will wreck everyone's plans, and render moot pieces like this.

And on our current course, nothing will survive Trump's climate policies.

So no, Taiwan won't survive Trump.
_________________
Daily Links
____________
Don't miss the comments below! And check out my blog and its sidebars for events, links to previous posts and picture posts, and scores of links to other Taiwan blogs and forums!

Wednesday, May 03, 2017

What Trump traded for 'cooperation' on N Korea

I love discovering little roads like this...

The NYTimes reported on what Trump traded for Chinese noises of amicability on N Korea and some copyrights for the Trump Empire... turns out weeks ago the Navy asked for permission to do some South China Sea freedom of navigation exercises....
But instead, the Pacific Command request — and two others by the Navy in February — was turned down by top Pentagon officials before it even made it to President Trump’s desk. More than 100 days into the Trump presidency, no American Navy ship has gone within 12 miles of any of the disputed islands in the South China Sea, Defense Department officials said.

The decision not to challenge China’s territorial claims represents a remarkable deference toward Beijing from an administration that is increasingly turning toward President Xi Jinping for help amid the escalating crisis in the Korean Peninsula. It remained unclear on Tuesday whether it was Defense Secretary Jim Mattis; Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr., the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; or one of their deputies who turned down the three requests. Defense officials said the White House was not involved.
Yeah, it wasn't Taiwan that got traded, but the South China Sea. This represents a much bigger defeat than Australia's bow to Chinese shouts. Not only is our established principle of freedom of navigation now threatened -- what will Trump do when China announces that the SCS is territorial waters in which it will control the movements of ships -- but Trump has betrayed every nation on the SCS littoral that was looking for US leadership and support. Hugh White, loyal Friend of Beijing, was quick to point out the awkward position Australia would have been in, had it thrown down its own FONOPs missions.

Trump is so weak, I almost doubt China will throw an ADIZ over the SCS, because it would be superfluous.

And there is Taiwan. "Freedom of Navigation" in the South China Sea has crossed President Tsai's lips more than once (here and here), signaling Tsai's aligning herself with the US. Which, for the moment, has left her high and dry.
_______________________
Don't miss the comments below! And check out my blog and its sidebars for events, links to previous posts and picture posts, and scores of links to other Taiwan blogs and forums!

Monday, May 01, 2017

=UPDATED= MEDIAFAIL: Reuters Plays the Leaders of Two Democracies for Clickbait headlines

A golden dragon phoenix turkey thing.

NOPE: Reuters is still running the story as if it hadn't been outed for lying about it and as if there were no controversy.

UPDATE: Reuters has apologized for playing the President for clickbait. Just a 'misunderstanding'. Yes of course it was a set up:
In response to media queries, Lee said Reuters had submitted a list of questions in advance, but the one about a possible repeat of the telephone call between Tsai and Trump was not on the list.
...did Reuters mess with the US-Taiwan relationship? You bet....
He said Washington was concerned over Tsai’s comment about the possibility of calling Trump until the ministry provided them with a full transcript of the interview.
...luckily plenty of people in Washington saw what was going on. ....on to the original post...

++++++

Wow. Reuters one-two punched President Tsai Ing-wen of Taiwan and President Trump of the US, harmed Taiwan, possibly impacted US policy, possibly encouraged Xi of China to move whatever invasion plans he has forward... the ramifications of Reuters' creation of a sensationalist story are endless, and entirely negative.

Check out the clickbait title of the first half of this setup garbage:
Exclusive: Taiwan president says phone call with Trump can take place again
What did Tsai say? Reuters quotes her correctly in the full text of the article.
"We have the opportunity to communicate more directly with the U.S. government," Tsai told Reuters in an exclusive interview on Thursday.

"We don't exclude the opportunity to call President Trump himself, but it depends on the needs of the situation and the U.S. government's consideration of regional affairs."
The question of another call was a hypothetical from Reuters, not Tsai, and obviously intended to elicit a sensational answer that Reuters could sex up, as it actually did. Tsai could hardly answer this any other way. She could not have said "No, no, we won't accept another call opportunity" since she could not justify that either domestically or snub the US that way. So she carefully said: "It depends," the correct, polite, human answer.

Of course, she wasn't talking to people dealing in the same good faith she was.

Consider the other possibilities for a headline. Based on that exact same quote, Reuters could with the same logic have written:
Tsai may refuse to take another call from Trump
What a clickbait headline that would have made! Reuters really missed an opportunity there. Or
Possible second Trump-Tsai call depends on regional situation
....which is a precis of what Tsai said and would have been fairer reporting.

Despite its vile purpose, the Reuters piece did contain some hilarious moments:
The call angered Beijing because it fears contacts between Taiwan and government leaders would confer sovereignty on the island. Democratic Taiwan, self-ruled since 1949, has no interest in being ruled by autocratic China.
....if only contacts with US leaders could confer sovereignty! Many commenters on this Reuters piece missed the part at the bottom:
She tweeted congratulations to Trump minutes after he took office in January, and when asked if she might tweet him again, Tsai said: "Might not be a bad idea. I'll give some thought to it."
Reuters was at it again subtly trolling her with another Trump-related hypothetical, apparently hoping that a tweet from her would send Trump into another frenzy of clickbait newsy tweets. She should refrain from further tweets about/to Trump. And further interviews with Reuters.

I guess in this age of shrinking news staffs, it is cheaper for news organizations to manufacture news than to go through the arduous and costly process of reporting it.

But withal, Reuters was really not interested in embarrassing Tsai, she was just the collateral damage of their set up of Trump, who got the same hypothetical question in his interview. In framing Trump's words, Reuters straight-up lied about what was said:
Trump, sipping a Coke delivered by an aide after the president ordered it by pressing a button on his desk, rebuffed an overture from Taiwan President Tsai Ing-wen, who told Reuters a direct phone call with Trump could take place again after their first conversation in early December angered Beijing.

China considers neighboring Taiwan to be a renegade province.

"My problem is that I have established a very good personal relationship with President Xi," said Trump. "I really feel that he is doing everything in his power to help us with a big situation. So I wouldn’t want to be causing difficulty right now for him.

"So I would certainly want to speak to him first."
The part in blue was what everyone reacted to, and it certainly would be a departure from previous US policy, if Trump ever did what he said he would do.  Emily Rauhala at WaPo said the same thing:
As is often the case with the U.S. president, it is not clear whether Thursday’s comments amount to a change in policy or are just another off-the-cuff remark.
But even as he was speaking, US officials were in Taiwan (below) talking to officials there entirely without consulting with Xi. Many observers pointed out that Trump was referring to the N Korean crisis -- note the words "right now" and not foreclosing the possibility or indicating that at all future points, Xi would be consulted. Overreading Trump's remarks for clickbait is irresistable.

No, the part of the Reuters interview that is vile is bolded in red above. Read Tsai's comments, and then ask yourself: can the reader honestly say that Tsai "made an overture"? No reasonable person could say that Tsai "made an overture". Indeed, she went out of her way not to. Remember, Tsai was not actively bringing up the subject, but responding to a hypothetical.

Reuters simply sexed it up, and that action of sexing it up is strong evidence that Reuters paired these interviews on successive days to generate just such a situation, taking advantage of Trump's mouth. At what possible costs to the situation in E Asia, no one can say at the moment.

Reuters even timed it so the news would come out on Friday, meaning that there could be no State Department/Administration response and it would dominate the news cycle over the weekend. Brilliant.

(Why report that Trump was sipping a Coke he got via a button? Why is that worth mentioning? Is that news? It's just a gratuitous hack at Trump, noise whose only purpose is to register the reporter's contempt.)

It's not that Trump says stupid things. That's a given, he's been doing it since day 1 and no one ever expected different. Note that US policy remains largely unchanged: working around the edges to give Taiwan as much space as it can. This week AIT head James Moriarty was in town to talk about getting Taiwan more space in international organizations... and Adm Harry Harris of PACOM said before the House Armed Services Committee that any attempt by China to use force to annex Taiwan would be unacceptable (Chinese)(Video of his testimony). It's important to separate what Trump says from what is happening...

No, the problem is that behind Trump there is no team to issue clarifications, keep policy on track, manage Trump, and calm everyone down. WaPo's Josh R reports that Trump's Asia team has not been put in place.
But none of Trump’s top officials had deep Asia experience before joining the administration, and inside their departments nearly all of the Asia-related political-appointee positions remain unfilled or staffed by temporary civil servants. There is no appointed assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, no assistant secretary of defense for Asian and Pacific Affairs and zero Trump ambassadors to Asia are in place. Only one, nominee for Beijing Terry Branstad, has even been submitted for consideration to the Senate.
This is an unmitigated disaster, and things are only going to get worse.

Note: Nelson Report commentary below....
________________
Daily Links:
  • Migrant workers in Taiwan say no to brokers and call for government run system. Recall that last time someone introduced legislation to alter this system, they were threatened by gangsters. There's tons of money in human trafficking. 
  • Gazillionaire Terry Gou of Honhai visits the White House, fueling speculation that he might run on the KMT ticket in 2020. The reason his name has been floated is simple: the KMT might not have the money to fund the kind of campaigns they've run in the past -- but Gou does.
  • Good news for English teachers: the legislature is hearing calls to make English the official second language.
  • The new infrastructure bill will go back for another round of meetings. The KMT is well aware of how much its local clout depends on feeding and watering its patronage networks with infrastructure money, and will fight to the death.
  • Beijing takes aim at Taiwanese young. I hope they study in China, it will teach them how un-Chinese they are. As a sharp observer pointed out on Twitter, there is nothing new here in these supposed new policies. 
  • Memory chip exports up
  • Meteor shower peaks May 6
Nelson Report commentary on this is below. Click READ MORE:

Sunday, April 09, 2017

Trump-Xi: Taiwan not even mentioned

The road to Duona.

Taiwan News has it:
As expected by some observers, nothing spectacular really happened during the Trump-Xi summit at Mar-a-Lago, and the meeting gave the Taiwan government some comfort as the island country was reportedly never mentioned during and after the talks, nor was a rumored “fourth communiqué” signed between the two leaders that would hurt the US-Taiwan relationship.
In fact, there is so much nothing here that there is nothing to say about it.

When you think about all the raging that went on beforehand...
He and Kushner will therefore sell off core national interests and investments at cut-rate prices.
...it's easy to see that many people lost the struggle to separate their hatred of Trump from their analysis of his actions.
_____________________
Daily Links:


_______________________
Don't miss the comments below! And check out my blog and its sidebars for events, links to previous posts and picture posts, and scores of links to other Taiwan blogs and forums!

Tuesday, April 04, 2017

Xi-Trump Meet: the Farrago in Mar-a-Lago

Camphor is of the same genus as Cinnamon.

So my wife comes home today and proudly wins high fives all around with some Quick Thinking in the face of a scammer:
As she is exiting an ATM at the post office across from police station, a woman comes up to her.
"Are the ATM machines broken?" the woman asks.
"Sure, they are fine, no problem," my wife says.
"Which one did you use?"
"The one on the left, it's fine."
The woman's brows turned mean. "I just took out money and I was short a $1000 NT bill. You must have it," she accused.
My wife rose to the occasion. "There was a woman there before me, I am sure she has it."
"Oh..."
I don't know what that has to do with Dictator Xi of China meeting President Trump of the US at Mar-a-Lago (Wiki), but I am sure your imaginations can make a connection. This meeting is set up for Thursday, and the world is on pins and needles, or perhaps Xanax, contemplating its possibilities.

Mar-a-Lago is a good choice. Xi will surely feel right at home in south Florida, where the population is geriatric, income inequality is high, and everyone lives in gated communities under constant surveillance.*

One thing that is different: the Obama Administration's deference to Beijing and its diffident, dilatory policies have been replaced by Trump's confident trolling. Roughly in tandem with the announcement of the meeting with Xi came the news that the US will announce a major arms sale to Taiwan in April. Trump then trolled China with the possibility of selling THAAD and F-35s to Taiwan (Japan Times). Trolling one's interlocutors with abusive announcements even as you are talking to them is a bog-standard Chinese tactic. I admit to being amused to see Trump hoist Beijing by its own rhetorical petard.

That said, everyone is quite nervous because the Chinese have realized that the need to cultivate the President's family, particularly his son-in-law, to make progress with the Trump Administration. Many articles on it this week -- this one from Josh Rogin is good -- and there's a collection of remarks from China/Taiwan waters at NBR if you are interested in political analysis as well as some fine remarks from Richard Bush -- but this remark pretty much summed it up:
It’s so great that the American political system resembles China’s political system enough for the Trump administration for have its very own princeling.
Drezner also noted:
But it is hard not to conclude that Trump and Kushner are spectacularly out of their depth on these issues. Worse, Trump displays no metacognition whatsoever: He doesn’t know what he doesn’t know, and probably never will. He and Kushner will therefore sell off core national interests and investments at cut-rate prices.
I don't believe Trump will sell off any fundamental American interests. What no one seems to have noticed about the deals that Trump makes is that he never pays. Trump's tactic is to troll some possibility, like THAAD for Taiwan, and use that as a vapor threat to extract concessions. He's not going to hand over assets when he can extract favors by trolling with them. After all, assets are only useful if you hold them.

Of course, China follows the exact same tactic. They troll and then don't pay. They don't give up assets, and they don't make deals that don't favor them. China follows agreements to the most minimal, stingy, letter of the law possible, if it follows them at all. If they make some investments in the US it will be purely cosmetic, and if they buy more exports it will go on loudly for a while until the program is quietly ended. The Middle Kingdom either fears you or accepts your submission, but it doesn't bargain with you, because in China, win-win means either way, I win.

Both sides are interested in appealing to domestic audiences, Xi to the CCP, Trump to his base. Thus, what will happen is that Trump will troll, Kushner's business interests will get quietly fed and watered by way of courtesy, nothing major will happen, China will sour on feeding the Trump family businesses sooner or later, and the quadrille of US-Japan-Taiwan-China relations will go on until China begins the war it is building toward. But at least the media has something to write about.

This point is made by a Chinese writer at the strongly pro-China East Asia Forum:
But the ecology surrounding the relationship between Beijing and Washington is still fragile. The past warns against predicting breakthroughs from the Florida summit. The number of times Xi met with Obama surpassed that of all their predecessors combined since 1971. While there is no evidence to conclude that bilateral ties worsened from those high-level meetings, there is still room for the relationship between China and the United States to improve.

This time round, ‘get tough on China’ is more the norm than the exception among US foreign policy protagonists. Many American pundits blame the Obama administration for having failed to ‘stand up to China’ on just about every issue area from trade and cyber security to North Korea and the South China Sea. Never mind the contrast between Obama’s declarations that ‘prosperity without freedom is just another form of poverty’ in philosophising a strategic ‘pivot to Asia’, and Xi wondering why foreigners view China as a threat when his country no longer exports ideology or poverty.

Trump is therefore challenged to prove that the United States can, after all, stand up to China. Another group of Americans encourages Trump to live up to his own tweets about China. So far Trump and his team have chosen to resist the pressure.
Asian nations are also looking at this, and you know that Trump and Abe of Japan exchanged a few words about it. There are many many pressures in the international system shaping outcomes.

Taiwan? The US has promised to brief Taipei before and after the talks. Seems like business as usual.

This piece at the National Interest raises an interesting and even worrisome point: it's too early for a summit...
Lastly, the Trump administration itself is not ready for the summit. The Department of State lacks necessary personnel across the board, including a deputy secretary and assistant secretaries. Even though the administration is claiming that it is considering every measure on the table with regard to North Korean nuclear weapons, it lacks the capability to craft and implement policy. The Pentagon is in a similar situation, and one can only expect that the National Security Council is also overwhelmed with a myriad of fast-moving crises around the world. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s visit to Japan, Korea, and China has already proven that the upcoming presidential summit will not lead to any substantial accomplishment. In addition, messages from Trump and Tillerson conflict with one another.
The Trump Administration has been incredibly slow in getting people on board. Would be nice if some of those names that were mooted months ago finally made it on board.

*My Florida friend says wrong
_______________
Daily Links:
_______________________
Don't miss the comments below! And check out my blog and its sidebars for events, links to previous posts and picture posts, and scores of links to other Taiwan blogs and forums!

Saturday, March 25, 2017

Nelson Report: Rumors of a 4th "Communique"

The coast off Kenting.

Rumors of the 4th Communique driven by Henry Kissinger under which the US sells out Taiwan are circulating in the local media... last week Randall Schriver, longtime Taiwan expert, said it was "unlikely". But the government put in a letter in the NYTimes pleading for the US not to sell out Taiwan for an agreement with China on N Korea. Some sort of agreement of this nature is always mooted whenever there is trouble with N Korea. As an expert explained to me, as Nork's nuke program develops the ability to put nukes on US western seaboard cities, pressure for a deal with China on N Korea will grow, and Taiwan is an obvious bargaining chip. What's amazing to me is that even after all these many years of dealing with China and N Korea, anyone can imagine that either party will keep a bargain....

+++++++++++++
US-CHINA/TRADE/TAIWAN...there's a rumor we're trying to track down that long-simmering dissatisfaction with the increasingly unwieldy US-China "S and ED" annual meetings (too many bureaucratic players leading to too much blah blah blah and consequently too little "deliverables") so the Trump folks may cancel the whole thing OR...this strikes us as the more plausible version...separate the "S" for security and "E" for economic into two more focused confabs.

Presumably a decision on this will be made in time for (and thus perhaps announced at) the early April Trump/Xi Jinping summit here in DC. No doubt you've also heard rumors that there will be a "4th Communique" resulting from this...and we frankly have to say we think there's a better chance of passing Trump/Ryan Care tomorrow morning...but perhaps you know better? For sure there are folks on Taiwan taking the rumor seriously:

Gov't concerned over reports US, China may sign 4th communique
The Taiwanese foreign minister says the government is worried the US and China will issue another communique that voices American support for the One China Principle. The Chinese language publication Liberty Times earlier carried a report that said former Secretary of State Kissinger was pushing for another communique that said that the US believed there is but one China and Taiwan is a part of China. This would overrule the last joint communique issued by the US and China, which said that while the US would not support either an independent Taiwan or "Two Chinas." Some reports have identified the upcoming visit to the US by Chinese President Xi Jinping as an occasion for the signing of such a document, possibly also limiting arms sales to Taiwan. Speaking to the legislature, Foreign Minister David Lee said, "We told them (the U.S.) that we don't want to see (the possible signing of a fourth communique) happen," and that the government has said that it hoped the US would stand by the Taiwan Relations Act and Six Assurances. He also mentioned that the Americans had spoken to their views of Taiwan, but FM Lee declined to specify what that meant.

Source: http://www.chinapost.com.tw/taiwan/intl-community/2017/03/23/494116/Govt-concerned.htm

Your Editor : never forget that one of Kissinger's hallmarks is self-aggrandizement, and while god knows the man has carved a legitimate role for himself in history, if he's pushing for Trump to completely trash the Shanghai Communique's real meaning (that is, the US takes no policy position on whether Taiwan is part of China) especially given what's behind the Trump/Tsai phone call...the strong support for Taiwan within his Administration and on Capitol Hill, not to mention the coming US arms sale package (?)...then we have to question the sanity of all involved.

But that leads us to a totally serious concern: Chinese officials have taken to declaring with a straight face that President Tsai is "moving toward declaring independence", and that proof of this is her "failure to endorse the '1992' consensus in language being demanded by Pres. Xi."

This risky, factually challenged demand thus puts Beijing in the position of deliberately risking the "status quo", since literally everything Tsai has said and done since declaring for the presidency a couple of years ago has been exquisitely calculated not to upset the existing Cross Strait status quo, despite pressures from her party's more extreme Pan Greens.

Worse, perhaps, to put "teeth" in this demand, political players in Beijing have taken to threatening a "unification law"...presumably to create the "lawful" threat of the use of force to "enforce the law"...as has been seen via China's armed Coast Guard in various maritime disputes with the neighbors.

If Kissinger wants to push a 4th Communique he might want to turn his talents to avoiding a deliberately set "crisis"...by Beijing?
_______________________
Don't miss the comments below! And check out my blog and its sidebars for events, links to previous posts and picture posts, and scores of links to other Taiwan blogs and forums!

Friday, March 17, 2017

America and Taiwan in the News

Only a  few months from my next Lanyu trip...

Another long analysis saying Donald Trump is No Friend of Taiwan of the Trump calls and "everything is negotiable" comments from Trump, this one from longtime Taiwan expert Shelly Rigger. She reviews the history of The Call, and then the Trump Administration's appointments, and discusses Trump's trolling...
In less than 200 words, Trump managed to shake the foundations of U.S.-China relations and cast Taiwan’s future into doubt. Even for a devotee of short-form writing like master-tweeter Donald Trump, this was an achievement.

The one China policy is a U.S. policy statement first articulated in the 1970s that has allowed the U.S. to pursue economic and political ties with Beijing while maintaining robust unofficial relations with Taipei. Every administration since Richard Nixon’s has affirmed the policy. Suggesting it might be open to revision cast the very basis – even the possibility – of economic and diplomatic interactions between the U.S. and China into serious doubt.
It might at some point pay analysts to consider that the "one China" policy from the 1970s and US Taiwan policy dating formally from Apr 28, 1952, are not the same thing, even though they refer to some of the same entities.

Note the words of Trump that Rigger gives in full:
I fully understand the One-China policy. But I don’t know why we have to be bound by a One-China policy unless we make a deal with China having to do with other things, including trade. I mean, look, we’re being hurt very badly by China with devaluation, with taxing us heavy at the borders when we don’t tax them, with building a massive fortress in the middle of the South China Sea, which they shouldn’t be doing. And, frankly, they’re not helping us at all with North Korea. You have North Korea, you have nuclear weapons, and China could solve that problem. And they’re not helping us at all.

So, I don’t want China dictating to me. And this was a call put into me. I didn’t make the call. And it was a call, very short call, saying, “Congratulations, sir, on the victory.” It was a very nice call. Short. And why should some other nation be able to say, I can’t take a call? I think it would have been very disrespectful, to be honest with you, not taking it.
Trump is not threatening Taiwan's status in US policy. He is threatening China's status. Taiwan's status is never mentioned and is obviously not the focus of Trump's thoughts -- China is. Let's imagine what "not being bound" by the one China policy could mean. Because the US could switch to a two-China policy (ROC and PRC are both China), a no-China policy (neither PRC nor ROC is China, we don't recognize either), switch recognition to the ROC (wouldn't the KMT swoon over that) or something else. In fact at some point some of these policies existed in the past, and under all of them, the US worked to preserve Taiwan's status. Even when the US recognized the ROC as China it never recognized Taiwan as part of the ROC.

Under current understandings the US could delete the one China policy under which we recognize the PRC as China, without affecting Taiwan's status, which exists because of a different policy. But no major change was ever in play, as many of us wrote at the time.

In any case, as I argued before, it was all meaningless trolling related to Trump's trademarks and so on. Nobody actually ever formally proposed seriously revising US China policy.

As I noted in January, many people who derive wealth and status from the current US position on China were quite unsettled by The Call, since it signaled them that things might change, and threatened their wealth and status. It is amusing that at the moment it is ok to criticize Trump's team for not knowing anything about China, while remaining silent on the deep links so many China commentators have with Beijing's status and money flows. The limits of the discourse, ya know....

Nevertheless, Rigger is often insightful and this comment is dead on and has had me worried as well
Taiwan’s leaders should also worry about the Trump administration’s overall approach to foreign policy – an approach that seems to abandon America’s long-standing commitment to democracy around the world. Trump’s speeches rarely mention democracy or human rights, and his proposed budget slashes funding for all sorts of values-oriented programs. For Taiwan, this is a very bad sign. As China’s political, military, and economic power increase, making a utilitarian argument as to why the U.S. should support Taiwan gets harder, leaving democracy as Taiwan’s signal virtue. When Navarro used the phrase in his July 2016 article, describing Taiwan as a “beacon of democracy” was a tired cliché. Today, it feels like an important moral statement.
Further down she says abandoning the TPP was a bad idea, but I don't see abandoning the TPP as a "devastating blow" since the TPP was a corporate giveaway that would have put Taiwan permanently under the sway of US corporate power, immiserating its people and further harming its economy and environment. Trump did all us who live on Taiwan a favor, even if you don't like the geopolitics of that decision.

Rigger notes that there will be an arms sale in April (more on that in a moment) and that the Administration might well upgrade official visits. She then concludes:
In sum, after a promising start and with the eager participation of many strong supporters of Taiwan in the transition, the Trump White House has managed to comprehensively botch its Taiwan policy, leaving Taiwan more vulnerable than ever to Beijing’s increasing pressure.
LOL. We're barely 90 days in, and she's claiming that Taiwan policy is botched. Umm.... no. It's way too early. Note that Rigger provides no concrete examples of botched policy and its consequences (quick, point some out). In fact Taiwan's status got a tiny upgrade, with US marines to be posted to the new AIT office.

Chinese pressure on Taiwan existed prior to Trump's call, and will go on in the future, as the recent decision to block cosmetic imports from Taiwan over the 1992C shows. A trial balloon? A local official's overreach? New policy? Only time will tell.

Contrast Rigger's claims with the reality of the Obama team's Taiwan policy, which got high marks from the Establishment commentariat. Yes -- those same people who are worried that Trump might sell out Taiwan said nothing when Obama actually did so. The Obama Administration blocked an arms deal for Taiwan out of fear of China (Rigger does not mention the arms sale she lauds as a "bright spot" was blocked by Obama, one wonders what the commentariat would have said if Obama had dumped $1 billion in arms on Taiwan -- would have excused it if Obama did it, will hate it when Trump does). On Twitter Rupert Hammond-Chambers said it was probably because the US needed China's cooperation on the climate deal (as if either Beijing or the Trump Administration was going to adhere to that). Indeed, recall that the Bush Administration also downgraded its support for Taipei for China's cooperation in some transient political thing or other. Bonnie Glaser remarked:
But it is also possible that the Obama administration did not want to approve an arms sale in its final days because it didn't want to offend China and undermine the President's legacy with Beijing. 
For Obama's legacy Taiwan can't get arms it desperately needs (Trump at least got trademarks!). But of course the really worrisome thing is that Trump might sell out Taiwan.

Finally, KMT legislator Jason Hsu wrote up his trip to the US to visit the Trump Administration. It is interesting reading, his takeaways...
Despite all this, I came away with clear and crucial promises regarding stability in the Taiwan Strait: the United States will continue to uphold her moral and legal responsibility toward Taiwan. She will continue to assist in our self-defense. In terms of upholding the Taiwan Relations Act and the Six Assurances, American good faith will endure.

President Trump, despite immense pressure from China, will still adhere to the One China Policy, the bedrock of strait relations. But China will also continue to demand adherence to the One China Principle. The danger then, lies in how the still-adapting Trump and an uncompromising China interpret these two differing frameworks, it has the potential to throw off the delicate balance of power in the Straits.

.....

Taiwan and the United States share more than thirty years of stalwart friendship. The Congressional Taiwan Caucus remains the second largest caucus in the United States Congress with more than 120 members. Despite the fragility of international relations, we remain unwavering in this partnership; we still believe in America’s good intent. Now is a time of uncertainty but it is also the time for opportunity and recognition. For years Taiwan has been America’s most loyal ally in the region, we are a young but flourishing democracy, an open and robust society with liberal values that mirror the U.S. We share the same resolve in promoting democratic ideals while ensuring peace, in fostering security while defending freedom, and in furthering trade and prosperity for all.
Kudos to Hsu for not only understanding the difference between the one China policy and the one China principle, but also for not conflating them in an attempt to mislead the reader as KMTers so often do.
_______________________
Don't miss the comments below! And check out my blog and its sidebars for events, links to previous posts and picture posts, and scores of links to other Taiwan blogs and forums!

Wednesday, March 15, 2017

Wash Times: Trump Administration to give arms Obama Admin blocked

The red letters of this temple gate say "new village".

From the Nelson Report. A good example of how the Chinese shaped Obama Administration China policy via the threat of China's "anger." *sigh*. ADDED:  Rupert Hammond-Chambers said on Twitter that the Obama Administration was concerned about the climate deal with China. LOL. As if either the Trump Administration or Beijing would adhere to it.....

+++++++++++++++

A COMING TRUMP DECISION...REVISE AND EXTEND THE OBAMA ARMS SALE PACKAGE TO TAIWAN...Loyal Reader Bill Gertz has an interesting piece in The Free Beacon with a headline accusing President Obama of a last-minute cave-in to China, cancelling a $1-bil arms sale package. But Your Editor's reading of the piece is it seems to report that on balance, the cancellation is really just a "postponement", since Obama assumed the Trump folks will certainly come up with their own.

And the Gertz argument also encompasses the possibility that Obama was spooked by the Tsai-Trump phone call and didn't want to add to Beijing's angst, and thus prompt a dangerous over-reaction from Xi...surely a legitimate concern?

CSIS's Bonnie Glaser agrees with some of that, followed by Bill's original piece:

Chris,
I think Gertz is right that State and Defense approved the package and the White House killed it. It is possible that the decision was made after the Tsai-Trump phone call not to notify Congress of the pending sale. But it is also possible that the Obama administration did not want to approve an arms sale in its final days because it didn't want to offend China and undermine the President's legacy with Beijing. It doesn't make sense to me that Obama officials would have wanted to leave the package on the table for the next administration. The Obama team anticipated that there would be a lot of friction with China under Trump. It would have made more sense to approve the package in December so there would be less pressure on the Trump administration to make an early arms sale, which would further exacerbate tensions.

Obama White House Blocked Needed U.S. Arms Sale to Taiwan
Trump set to sell more arms

BY: Bill Gertz
March 14, 2017 5:00 am

The Obama administration blocked a $1 billion arms sale to Taiwan in December that was needed to improve the island's defenses despite approval from the State Department and Pentagon, according to Trump administration officials. The scuttling of the arms package was a set back for U.S. and Taiwanese efforts to bolster defenses against a growing array of Chinese missiles and other advanced weaponry deployed across the 100-mile Taiwan Strait.

The action coincided with a controversial pre-inaugural phone call Dec. 2 between then-President-elect Trump and Taiwan's President Tsai Ing-wen. It could not be learned if the arms package, which was ready to be announced publicly in December was derailed by the Obama administration because of the phone call.

The new Trump administration is now preparing to provide more and better defensive arms to Taiwan, said administration officials familiar with internal discussions of the arms sale. The new arms package, however, is not expected to be made public until after Trump meets with Chinese leader Xi Jinping next month. White House officials said the meeting is set for early April at Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate in South Florida.

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson also will visit China later this month. Taiwan is expected to be a major topic of discussion for both the summit and Tillerson's visit. "There's a process for these things that's being followed," a White House official said of the arms package. "The Trump administration takes America's commitment to Taiwan's security very seriously."

Other officials said the arms package was set for release to Taiwan and formal notification to Congress in December. But National Security Council staff officials blocked it, setting back the process of supporting Taiwan with defensive arms considerably. The approximately $1 billion included parts and equipment needed for the Taiwan military's ongoing modernization of its arsenal of 1980s-era F-16 jet fighters along with additional missiles.

The approved package was held up by Avril D. Haines, the Obama White House deputy national security adviser. Haines did not return an email seeking comment. Former Obama administration spokesman Ned Price confirmed that the administration held up the arms package. He told the Washington Free Beacon that neither Haines nor others in the Obama White House "unilaterally blocked the package that was under discussions, which was relatively modest."

"In consultation with State and DoD, the Obama administration decided not to move forward with it in the final days of the administration," Price said, adding that one factor was that "we thought it would be a useful package for the next administration to pursue in their time because it was well-calibrated to strike the balance we typically try to achieve consistent with our commitments under the Taiwan Relations Act." One administration official said the package also included communications, intelligence surveillance, and reconnaissance gear that would bolster the Taiwan military's command and control systems.

This official said one positive aspect of the failure to send the latest arms is that pro-China officials in the U.S. government who oppose helping Taiwan will no longer be able to argue internally that the United States had fulfilled its obligations under the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act with the package. The act requires the United States to provide Taiwan with defensive weapons. "Now we can start from scratch with a truly useful arms package once the assistant secretaries are in place," the official said, referring to working-level political appointees at the Pentagon and State Department.

State Department spokesman Mark Toner had no immediate comment. pentagon spokesman Cmdr. Gary Ross said he does not discuss "pre-decisional matters."

"The objective of our defense engagement with Taiwan is to ensure that Taiwan remains secure, confident, free from coercion and able to engage in a peaceful, productive dialogue to resolve differences in a manner acceptable to people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait," Ross said, noting U.S. arms sales support that goal. "We strongly believe that our policy has contributed to stability in the Taiwan Strait by providing Taipei with the confidence needed to pursue constructive interactions with Beijing."

The official Taiwan government office in Washington had no comment on the arms package. Taiwan officials are looking forward to working closely with the Trump administration in upgrading defenses. The Taiwanese are considering the development of indigenous fighter aircraft and submarines and are hoping the United States can provide technology for the arms.

Former State Department official John Tkacik said the failure to release the arms package in December was a mistake. "It is truly alarming that the White House, in its last month, would ignore a defense transfer recommendation endorsed by both the State and Defense Departments, especially after the incoming president had already signaled his support of a strengthened security relationship with Taiwan," Tkacik said.

Tkacik said it is likely that Obama administration officials in charge of Asia policy, after eight years of giving the Chinese free rein in Asia, were unhappy with Trump's tough posture toward Beijing. "If the new National Security Council can't move forward afresh with strengthened defense supplies to Taiwan, given State and Pentagon recommendations to do it, I'm afraid the new administration will lose its momentum, like Obama's people did, and simply resign itself to letting Beijing take over in Asia," he assed.

Randall Schriver, a former assistant secretary of state and assistant secretary of defense, said the Trump administration should increase arms transfers to Taiwan. "China's growing capabilities combined with an intent to put greater pressure on Taiwan should compel us take a serious look at increasing our security assistance to Taiwan including support for its indigenous submarine program and making available a [vertical, short-take off and landing] fighter aircraft," he said.

Rick Fisher, an expert on Asian military affairs, also voiced concern. "It is extremely disappointing that the Obama administration would not release this final arms sales package before leaving office, but at a deeper level, that it did not exercise the leadership to accelerate this F-16 upgrade package first approved in 2011," said Fisher, senior fellow at International Assessment and Strategy Center. The delay in upgrading the jets means China has gained six years on deploying advanced fighters jets and next generation short and medium range ballistic missiles that threaten Taiwan.

Fisher warned that China is preparing for a possible invasion of Taiwan in early 2020 and the Trump administration should provide new military capabilities for the island to help deter any Chinese attack. "We are really up against the wall; if we cannot devise the right package of fifth generation capabilities, be it new F-35 fighters, submarine technologies, new, cheap, long range anti-ship cruise missiles and energy weapons, then we will face the threat of Chinese invasion of Taiwan perhaps as soon as the early 2020s," Fisher said.

Taiwan in January began upgrading its force of 144 F-16s. The jets will be outfitted with active electronically scanned array fire-control radar that analysts say can detect radar-evading stealth aircraft. New avionics equipment also is being added along with advanced AIM-9X Sidewinder air-to-air missiles. The last arms package for Taiwan was announced in December 2015 and was worth $1.83 billion. It included two Perry-class Frigates, Javelin anti-tank missiles, TOW anti-tank missiles, and amphibious assault vehicles. Command and control hardware, F-16 gear, Phalanx Close-In Weapons Systems and Stinger surface-to-air missiles were also part of that package.

In December, China's military conducted a show of force with a squadron of jet fighters and a bomber that circled Taiwan Dec. 10. U.S. EP-3 and RC-135 reconnaissance aircraft shadowed the Chinese jets during the incident, along with a long-range RQ-4 Global Hawk drone aircraft. The Chinese saber rattling against Taiwan coincided with Trump's phone call with Tsai.

China also protested a provision of the fiscal 2017 defense authorization bill that was signed into law in December. The new law contains language calling on the Pentagon to conduct a program of senior military exchanges with Taiwan. Current policy has limited military exchanges between U.S. and Taiwanese officers despite a requirement under the Taiwan Relations Act for the United States to defend Taiwan against a Chinese attack.

The phone call between Trump and Tsai in December was the first time an American president had spoken directly to Taiwan's president in decades and prompted protests from Beijing, which views Taiwan as a break away province. The United States does not accept China's interpretation of the so-called One-China policy and regards the Beijing-Taipei dispute over Taiwan's status as unresolved.

"Interesting how the U.S. sells Taiwan billions of dollars of military equipment but I should not accept a congratulatory call," Trump tweeted Dec. 2. Trump has taken a hard line against China, mainly over unfair trade and currency practices. After the Dec. 2 call, he also suggested the United States might abandon the One China policy and adopt more favorable Taiwan policies. However, Trump later reiterated U.S. support for the American interpretation of the One China Policy.
_______________________
Don't miss the comments below! And check out my blog and its sidebars for events, links to previous posts and picture posts, and scores of links to other Taiwan blogs and forums!

Saturday, February 25, 2017

Econ crystal ball looks... cloudy

What's around the bend for the US economy? Absolutely nothing good.

Over at CNBC Benjamin Carlson argues that the loser in a China-US trade war will be Taiwan. Carlson quotes Blue academic Steve Tsang, as well as Gerrit van der Wees and J Michael Cole from the pro-Taiwan side, observing...
A trade war between the world's top two economies would "hurt Taiwan since so much of the Taiwan's tech-oriented consumer industries are tied to those in China, as part of the global value chain," said Steve Tsang, director of the SOAS China Institute, University of London.

Taiwan can little afford such a blow, as its economy is in the midst of a difficult transition. Growth rates have been sluggish, hovering around 1 percent per year, while exports have fallen, dropping 13 percent from their $320 billion peak in 2014.
It's really not that simple.

First, much depends on the shape of the trade war. If the Trump Administration sanctions are symbolic, then the effect will probably be low. But if they have teeth, and are directed only at China and not at Hong Kong, it is obvious what will happen: China's exports will simply be re-routed through Hong Kong and to a lesser extent, Taiwan. Will the Trump Administration distinguish between China and Hong Kong? I expect so...

If they are directed at China, Hong Kong, and Macau, Taiwan might well come out less damaged than many might think. China's firms will still want to export, and export to the US. The natural route will then be through Taiwan, which will show up as falling trade surplus with China followed by rising trade surplus with the US. This will give Taiwan firms added clout in selling stuff to Chinese firms. Even more complicated arrangements might arise, as China and Taiwan attempt to re-route goods through countries in Central America that have free trade agreements with the US. The mind boggles at how any of this will be enforced: "Excuse me sir, are you a Muslim? Are you carrying any electronic parts from China?"

As van der Wees pointed out in a Facebook discussion, it will force the US to further distinguish between Taiwan and China. van der Wees also noted that Taiwan might well get a bilateral trade treaty since the Trump Administration has killed the TPP. That would be an additional impetus for goods to travel through Taiwan from China. One can easily see Ma's free enterprise zones revived in some form to handle this trade. But let's not forget, smuggling from China, already rampant, will only increase under such a regime....

What about the big electronics makers? Many of them have already started shifting production to Vietnam and elsewhere as labor costs in China rise (Forbes, for example). Taiwan does about $18 billion in exports of electronics to China, which constitutes roughly 40% of its exports to China. The "red supply chain" is already starting to eat into Taiwan's position in the supply chain. How long Taiwan will maintain its place in China's supply chain is already a pressing question...

How things will work out depends on how quickly firms shift to other countries, how China retaliates, and so on. Many scenarios suggest themselves. Taiwan might get a short-term boost via re-exports, and then a long-term hit if Beijing decides to accelerate its attempts to replace Taiwan firms in the supply chain in response to a trade war, or Beijing becomes more autarkic.

The end result of trade limits is policies that attempt to create autarkic trade regimes for individual nations, and after that, generalized war. Or so the 1930s taught us. *sigh*

Another issue is that the Trump Administration's increasingly harsh border practices will make tourists think twice about the US, especially people from countries like India whom America's militant unwashed might consider Muslims and thus, fair game for a bullet from one of the hundreds of millions of guns keeping America safe. Luckily for Taiwan, the government has been promoting Taiwan as a tourist destination for Muslim tourists since late in the Ma Administration. Since tourists in general will probably shy away from the US in coming years, Taiwan's tourist boom will likely get a bump as tourists with money search for alternative destinations.

In any case, the really serious problem the Trump Administration is going to create for Taiwan isn't the trade issue, it's the Administration's Wall Street policies. The repeal of Dodd-Frank is a signal that the Administration is going to let Wall Street loot the US economy again. That will trigger another recession and economic crisis, with attendant effects on US purchasing power, the dollar, US power, and long-term economic growth. If it arrives in the midst of a global trade war...
_______________________
Don't miss the comments below! And check out my blog and its sidebars for events, links to previous posts and picture posts, and scores of links to other Taiwan blogs and forums!

Sunday, February 19, 2017

Who Caved?

A group of Vietnamese workers chill at 7-11 with Bar beer and a movie.

STATUS QUO ANTE: US has one China policy, which recognizes Beijing as the government of China but does not include Taiwan in China.

1. In Nov of 2016 Trump receives briefings and explanations about Taiwan-US-China triangle as call with President Tsai Ing-wen of Taiwan is set up. Trump becomes aware that Taiwan is sensitive topic and China is unduly sensitive to criticisms and attacks, and aware of importance of US one China policy.

2. Dec 2, 2016. Trump and Tsai talk by phone, earth veers from its orbit, sun rises in west, sea and land change places.

3. Week of Dec 5. Trump attacks China for its South China Sea policy and exchange rate manipulations in Twitter outburst. This is pure trolling, designed to test how sensitive China is, and confirms that it is indeed a sensitive state, to which much attention is paid. He learns how easy it is to troll China.

4. Jan 17: “Everything is under negotiation, including ‘one China’,” Trump says. TROLL.

5. Storm ensues. Media and commentariat: ZOMG THIS CAN'T HAPPEN!

6. Xi-Trump phone call on Feb 9th. Trump affirms "our one China" policy, indicating that he/advisors understand nuances. Media portrays this as caving to China, suggests Xi got better of Trump, etc.

7. Trump wins the trademark case in China in November. 90 days pass with no objection, meaning that the trademark becomes his. Feb 14th, days after phone call, trademark is formally awarded to Trump. Since negotiations must have been going on for a while, the China government certainly knew there would be a call. If there had been no call, would an objection have suddenly appeared? (Kevin Drum at Mojo). Many observers wondered why Trump had taken so long to call Xi... every day he waits is one day closer to that 90 day deadline, with China not wanting to tick him off by having an objection appear.

8. Return to STATUS QUO ANTE. US still has one China policy which recognizes Beijing as the government of China but does not include Taiwan in China. Cost to Trump: zero. Cost to US: zero.

Oh, but Trump now has unchallenged trademark.

Who caved?

UPDATE: China violated own law to give Trump trademark?
_______________________
Don't miss the comments below! And check out my blog and its sidebars for events, links to previous posts and picture posts, and scores of links to other Taiwan blogs and forums!

Friday, February 17, 2017

Trump concedes on "one China" + LINKS

A train enters Dawu station in southeastern Taiwan.

Trump really needs to stop calling leaders in East Asia. I'd rather be biking than writing on this stuff. But just before I left for another sojourn on the east coast with a group of close friends, the news came that Trump had made an about-face on one China.

*sigh*

The NYTimes here says...
President Trump told President Xi Jinping of China on Thursday evening that the United States would honor the “One China” policy, reversing his earlier expressions of doubt about the longtime diplomatic understanding and removing a major source of tension between the United States and China since shortly after he was elected.
The NYT report does not make clear what Trump's statement said, that the US would honor "our" one China policy (not China's). That little word, as many people pointed out, was highly significant, since it shows that the US is going to maintain policy continuity. The US one China policy does not include Taiwan in China.

It was also important for another reason. It was rather painfully obvious that Trump would "cave" on one China. For example, J Michael Cole observed a while back:
But one thing is certain: the likelihood that the United States will scuttle “one China” is next to nil, as such a policy goes against even what the more creative (and pro-Taiwan) of Trump’s advisers on Taiwan and China, people like John Bolton, have argued over the years.
What that "our" signaled was that people who understand the policy were in charge, in the background, of maintaining it. I doubt very much Trump himself insisted on the "our" -- that had to be inserted by someone who knew what he was doing. The situation thus appears to be as I argued before...
....not much will change because Trump is surrounded by people who will keep policies that help Taiwan in place and expand around the edges where they can.
...wise hands steering Taiwan policy? Good to see.

The Economist observed that Trump's one China pleased Taiwan as well. The Xi-Trump call also raised another issue, as Trump materially benefited from it, apparently, in violation of the US Constitution.
__________________
Catching up links:
_______________________
Don't miss the comments below! And check out my blog and its sidebars for events, links to previous posts and picture posts, and scores of links to other Taiwan blogs and forums!

Saturday, January 14, 2017

What will Trump do? + Links

A small shrine tucked away in a field

NYTimes reports that Taiwan moves to shore up its central american friends, but the really ominous thing wasn't the possibility that they might bolt, but what happened in Nigeria, where Beijing forced the Taiwan office to move, is far more dangerous. Diplomatic allies are not as important as the everyday engagement Taiwan has with nations all over the world.
This week, another move showed that even countries without diplomatic ties to Taiwan could still isolate it further. On Wednesday, Nigeria ordered Taiwan to move a representative office in the country out of the political capital, Abuja, to Lagos, the country's commercial hub. Nigeria has not had official diplomatic relations with Taiwan since 1971, so it doesn’t have an embassy in Abuja to move; instead, Taiwan was forced to move its trade mission, one of about 50 unofficial representative offices it has around the world.
That mission had been serving the small Taiwan factory investment community there. China offered to sink $40 billion into projects there... wonder how much will actually appear. Meanwhile the US is spending billions bombing wedding parties and barbecues in the Middle East. Hmm......

Another problem: Trump again says "one China" policy up for negotiation. This comment is entirely lacking in definition, though it is widely reported. What does he mean? Though Bonnie Glaser says China is preparing for rocky relations in 2017. If someone senior in the administration would contact me, I would be most grateful. At The News Lens Wayne Pajunen writes:
Among the ongoing tit-for-tat of Trump tweet vs. CCP bark, keeping in mind the Chinese proverb: a barking dog never bites (會叫的狗不會咬人), PRC Foreign Minister Wang Yi (王毅) responded, “China is paying close attention to developments,” Wang said. “I can clearly say that no matter whether the Tsai Ing-wen authority, any other person in the world, or any other force, if they try and damage the one-China principle and harm China’s core interests, in the end they are lifting a rock only to drop it on their feet.”

Beijing is always very careful to respond only with threatening rhetoric while never drawing lines in the sand demarking tangible retaliatory actions. To date, the uncertainty created by CCP bluster has been sufficient to deter the democratic nations to do Beijing’s bidding and isolate Taiwan.
"The barking dog never bites" may also apply to Trump. It's maddening how little concrete information there is about his Administration's views and plans. Rosalyn Hsueh in WaPo writes on his trade policy with China, while Michael Pillsbury argues that Trump can stand up to China without provoking a war.

Shirley Kan: China's military provocations ARE NOT mere responses to Trump
__________________
Daily Links:
_______________________
Don't miss the comments below! And check out my blog and its sidebars for events, links to previous posts and picture posts, and scores of links to other Taiwan blogs and forums!

Thursday, December 22, 2016

Qz.com: China Propagandize like Boss

One of my favorite sights is this old railway viaduct.

If you are at all familiar with China anti-US propaganda, you'll instantly recognize familiar themes and seeming errors of this piece at qz.com on the people around Trump. It neatly dovetails with the emerging media consensus that writers can say whatever they want about Trump's China people, and no one in the media will question or factcheck it if it fits their ideological prejudices (as with Bloomberg earlier this week). The writer opens:
US president-elect Donald J. Trump said that he doesn’t want to be “bound by a ‘one China’ policy,” the US’s decades-long stance of treating Taiwan and China as the same country.  Instead, he plans to use the issue as a bargaining chip, he said Dec. 11, to “make a deal” with China on trade and other issues.
A major error: US policy is that Taiwan's status is unsettled. Hence, US does not "treat China and Taiwan as same country". It's a common error, but clearly the writer does not know what he is talking about. Check second sentence: Trump never said he planned to use Taiwan as a bargaining chip, but simply raised the possibility.

The writer then cites a PRC source as first quote to support his claim that Trump's "plan" to use Taiwan as a bargaining chip is because his advisers have an outdated Cold War approach:
Trump’s throwback approach comes because he has surrounded himself with outdated, Cold War-era advisors who have had little exposure to China since then, analysts including Shen Yi, an associate professor at the School of International Relations and Public Affairs of Shanghai’s Fudan University, say.
We all know that PRC people who permit themselves to be quoted in foreign media pieces on US foreign policy are putting out Party propaganda, or they will be punished by the State. They all know the drill because they have lived in an authoritarian security state their entire lives. Anything quoted from a PRC source should be contextualized and caveated, and none of these people should ever be treated as if they were academics simply talking out of expertise.

The next two paragraphs on the 1982 US-China Arms Sales to Taiwan Communique (text). The qz.com piece asserts:
On August 17, 1982, the US and China issued a joint communiqué that agreed the US will gradually reduce its arms sales to Taiwan. But earlier in July, Reagan also pledged to Taiwan that the US would not set a date to cut off the arms sales, and “would not formally recognize Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan,” among other promises together known as “the Six Assurances.” These guidelines have been confirmed by each successive US administration.

To complicate matters, Reagan issued a confidential presidential directive, on the same day of the communiqué, saying that the US’s willingness to reduce its arm sales to Taiwan only stands if China solves its differences with Taiwan by peaceful means. The very next day, the White House even announced the sale of 250 F-5 fighters to Taiwan.
This presentation is massively erroneous and appears to be a construct designed to slander the US by making it look hypocritical and duplicious. Note the term "the very next day" 250 F-5 fighters were sold to Taiwan. That is completely wrong.

The great site Taiwan Airpower.org has the info, easily found with a two second Google search:
On February 9, 1973, the ROC government and the US government reached an agreement for the co-production of 100 F-5E. This program was given the codename "Hu An" (Peace Tiger) and was to be undertaken jointly by Northrop and Taiwan's AIDC (then a branch of the ROCAF).

The first AIDC-built F-5E was rolled out on October 30, 1974, one day before the late President Chiang Kai Shek's 88th birthday, and was thus christened "Chung Chen", an alias of President Chiang. Production of all 100 aircraft was completed in November 1977.

Later 208 more aircraft were added to the production run in five batches, from "Peace Tiger 2" through "Peace Tiger 6". Complexity of the production work by AIDC also evolved in several phases. The whole "Peace Tiger" program was completed on December 9, 1986, when the final aircraft was rolled of the production line. In total, the ROCAF received 242 F-5E and 66 F-5F. Breakdown of the numbers of aircraft built in each Peace Tiger batch is as follows:
When the Reagan Administration announced the F-5 sale, it was not 250 fighters but 60, the tail end of co-production and sales under which Taiwan had already been producing F-5s for almost a decade. The last sentence is complete bullshit.

Worse, the writer omits the fact that the Reagan Administration withheld the sale of F-16s and F-20s to Taiwan because it didn't want to anger China, an early appearance of the successful policy of China managing US Taiwan policy via careful application of "anger". The 60 F-5s were a consolation prize. As I teach my students in my current events class, if you want to understand the political slant of a media piece, look at what it omits as well as what it says.

In other words, we are faced with the choice that the writer is either stupid and lazy or is deliberately misleading his readers by conflating and omitting key information. Your call, folks, but we'll be facing that often in this piece.

Consider also the source: in the next few paragraphs the writer repeatedly sources PRC propaganda from Shen, which may account for all the problems in the first section of this piece. Editors and writers need to take it to heart: everything on Taiwan from PRC "academics" should be regarded as lies and misdirection unless otherwise proven. For example:
The tensions didn’t stop with Bush Sr. In 1995, when Bill Clinton was president, Taiwan tensions almost sparked a war between China and the US, when he granted then-president Lee Teng-hui a visa for a “private trip” to the US, and Beijing objected angrily and physically. Between 1995 and 1996, Beijing conducted a series of missile tests in the waters near Taiwan. In response the US dispatched its biggest combat forces to Asia since the Vietnam War, including two aircraft carriers, to the area, forcing Beijing to soften its stance.
Again, this conflates two separate incidents. The US did not send carriers to the area in response to China's missile "tests" over the Lee visa. It sent them because China launched missiles in an attempt to intimidate Taiwan's electorate during a free election. Moreover, note how the paragraph shows the familiar problem of assigning agency to "tensions" rather than actors. The US and China clashed because China launched missiles, one policy choice out of many possible responses, not because of "tensions". Indeed, the only reason there are tensions is because China wants to annex Taiwan.

O yeah, did that paragraph mention the 1996 elections? Nope. It's almost... almost like someone didn't want to draw attention to Taiwan's democracy.

Indeed, note that all three of the academics quoted in the opening section are Chinese.

The piece next names 5 people as Trump's China advisers: Ed Feulner, Rance Priebus, Peter Navarro, Bob Dole, and Jeff Sessions, because they were involved in The Call. This is a strange list. Dole was linked to The Call in the media but I expect that was wildly overblown, and I have not heard in any source that Dole or Sessions (srsly?) are China advisers for Trump. Or Priebus, for that matter.

Once again: omissions. Check out the presentation on Feulner:
Edwin Feulner (age 75), former president of conservative think-tank The Heritage Foundation, who wrote a 1976 book about China and the country’s “turning point” that is no longer in print.
Yeah, reading that you might think Feulner is 40 years out of date. Yet here, from the Chinese embassy itsownself, is a little blurb on Feulner's meetings with Chinese officials during his 2008 trip there. The writer probably failed to find it since it takes almost two seconds with a Google search. Apparently Feulner does that periodically, since he speaks on China and N Korea in another such junket to S Korea recently. Such trips hardly make him an expert, but the impression left by the sentence on him is false.
Trump’s advisors “don’t have much to do with China,” HKU’s Han said. American scholars who do understand China better, including Johns Hopkins’ David Lampton, David Shambaugh of George Washington University, and Henry Kissinger, are not involved in Trump’s transition, Han said.
These three names will be familiar as pro-China people. Omitted are their ties to Chinese money: Kissinger's firm does a lucrative business with China, and Shambaugh runs the China Policy Program at GWU, which hosts a Confucius Institute funded by PRC government money (Lampton speaks at Confucius Institutes from time to time, indicating he is acceptable to the PRC). Similarly, when the article lists Obama's China advisers, it omits the China business ties of Jeff Bader (Stonebridge) and Evan Medeiros (Eurasia Group).

(most pieces from China also omit Trump's business ties to China -- I wonder if they are considered an embarrassment, or perhaps a tool China does not want to draw attention to yet).

There is another significant omission: John Bolton is often mentioned when China policy is named. Whatever you make think of him, his experience in government is extensive.

Moreover, you could play the same game with Obama's people. Remember when Obama appointed Max Baucus as ambassador to China (on the heels of the solid choices John Huntsman and Gary Locke)?

The article cites Richard Bush on the Trump Adminstration's "China experts". Bush is primarily known as a Taiwan expert. But never mind that, if he is being critical, it is ok to cite him.

In other words, the qz.com piece cites one Taiwan expert and three Chinese academics in this piece of "reporting" on Trump's China people. No US China experts are cited. Hookay.

No balance either: no voices supporting Trump's choices are provided.

There's one final reason this piece sucks: it is too early. Just yesterday Washington sources were reporting that Trump's NSC director for Asia will be Matt Pottinger, described in one report:
Former Edward R. Murrow Press Fellow. Mr. Pottinger covered China for the Wall Street Journal from 2001to 2005 and for Reuters News Agency from 1998 to 2001. His stories, including investigations into energy and environmental pollution, the impact of official corruption, and the 2003 SARS epidemic, won awards from the Society of Publishers in Asia.

In September 2005, he put his writing career on hold to serve five years as a U.S. Marine. He completed three combat deployments: to Iraq from April to November 2007 and to Afghanistan from November 2008 to May 2009 and from July 2009 to May 2010. While in Afghanistan in 2009, he cofounded and trained the Marine Corps' first Female Engagement Teams. On his second Afghanistan deployment, he spearheaded an investigation into problems with the U.S. intelligence effort, coauthoring with Major General Mike Flynn the critical 2010 report "Fixing Intel: A Blueprint for Making Intelligence Relevant in Afghanistan."
Pottinger's autobiographical tale is here.

Off to discuss the media with my class, where this piece will certainly be used as an example.
_______________________
Don't miss the comments below! And check out my blog and its sidebars for events, links to previous posts and picture posts, and scores of links to other Taiwan blogs and forums!