This is the continuation of settled policy on Taiwan. It is not an internationally recognised nation, it is an autonomous territory within China. Declaring support for independence would be escalatory language from the US and could harm efforts within Taiwan to move in that direction domestically. It would allow the CCP to further push the narrative of foreign interference while lessening the focus on the actual desires of the Taiwanese voters. It's a very complicated situation compared to something like Ukraine.
this post was submitted on 13 Jan 2024
128 points (86.0% liked)
politics
19136 readers
4332 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Placating the Chinese is a failed strategy. It only gives them time to build up a stronger military for the upcoming conflict. It is worth calling their bluff on Taiwan and recognizing it.
Hopefully, tensions don't escalate to anything other than skirmishes, but the longer the US waits, the more casualties it will incur from false hope this will get resolved diplomatically.
The US has already decided the opposite. The big push for chip manufacture in the US is about making it easier to cut ties with Taiwan down the road.
Agree that chip manufacturing is a component of the decision making and contingency planning. I disagree with drawing too much of a conclusion about US intent from it. If things work out, the US will happily continue importing chips even as our own capacity grows.
Part of the push for US Chip manufacturing is finally recognizing it as a national defense issue. The US isn't the only country doing this (setting up their own). Modern militaries are crippled without chips. So it's not necessarily a definitive line to the Taiwan policy.
While, I don't disagree that it's a factor, but I would debate the inference and weight of the factor.
It will work fine due to circumstances. China is facing a demographic cliff due to the effects of the One Child Policy. They have to start a war in the next few years or they won't be able to for at least another generation. Probably more like two or three. They have too many old people and not enough young people to take care of them.
With their recent economic downturn (relatively speaking; their GDP is still growing >5%/year) the window may already be closed.
They can continue to be the world's factory, or they can make a big military to take Taiwan and keep the US Navy out of their sphere of influence. They can't do both.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(7 replies)
Everything Biden said was probably negotiated by entire teams from America’s State Department and the Beijing and Taipei foreign ministries. There would be equivalent language Xi and Taiwan’s leadership agreed to.
Sometimes, with diplomatic situations, leadership says what was negotiated and the wording shouldn’t change. Like, we officially agree with the “one-China” policy but are intentionally vague about whether the CCP would be the “one China” leadership.
It’s like when they have read-outs of what leaders discussed and it’s like, “Biden agreed with Xi to improve trade in important natural resources.” They both probably said “Fuck you and the horse you rode in on. You can buy some fucking cobalt or natural gas but don’t test me.” And a state department employee negotiated the official read out.
I had a friend who worked for the military in Taiwan diplomacy for a while and there's a whole rigid structure around how we talk about it internationally that they hammer into diplomatic and military officials.
One of the things he told me is that the people of Taiwan have to be referred to as "the Taiwans" and not "the Taiwanese," because the -ese ending might give the impression that we're alleging a separate national identity, which conflicts with the official position we've maintained for decades with China.
So yeah, I don't think this statement is worth reading into as anything other than a continuation of our long-standing position on Taiwan. Although admittedly, that position leads to some silly-sounding contortions of language.
"The Taiwans" thing is unbelievable, but googling confirms it is true. I'm not sure why anyone would think it implies a separate national identity. Nobody would think that in any other circumstance. The diplomacy around Taiwan can be really absurd.
Of course, Biden has also said that the US will defend Taiwan from Chinese attacks.
Asserting Taiwan is independent before Taiwan does would just be causing trouble that would deteriorate relations with both sides.
Yep, it's extremely sensitive topic between the two country and if Taiwanese want proper independent, Taiwanese need to do it themselves democratically, not some old man from another side of the earth. If Biden were to say he support the independent, all de-escalation effort between US and China will go down the drain, and only gonna further escalate the tension between the two country.
What the fuck is it so hard for a politician to say " Our relationship and diplomacy with china is too Precarious for us to openly support taiwan. While we value democracy internationally, we are not willing Take a stance on that issue for that reason."
At least it would be honest everyone knows that's the deal.
This is like when your spouse asks you “do I look fat?” Then you respond with:
"My relationship with your appearance is too precarious for me to openly support commenting on it. While I value a healthy BMI, I am not willing to take a stance on that issue for that reason.”
load more comments
(1 replies)
Because everyone knows what they mean and changes in wording are negotiated and set off diplomatic tizzies. I studied international relations and every word is negotiated by ambassadors or state department employees and presidents just say them.
It would be like someone saying they support American Samoa independence. You'd basically be telling the US that its territories should be independent nations, which the UN recognizes as "a dick move".
What happens if Taiwan attempts full autonomy or China attempts full control might be a different story, though. We'll have to see how trade is going at that point.
Agreed. The idea that the US should be saying it supports Taiwanese independence when Taiwan doesn't is just a very silly take.
Whatever change in status happens or doesn't happen in Taiwan in the coming years or decades needs to start from the will of Taiwan. There's no reason for the US to be dictating it.
Not really a good comparison.
If American Samoa had been an independent country for the last 75 years, operating pretty much completely independently, had 23 million people, claimed not to be ruled by the US, and other people were saying "we recognize that it has been independent for decades at this point" then it'd be comparable.
What happens if Taiwan attempts full autonomy or China attempts full control
Are you implying Taiwan isn't already fully autonomous? Or that China has any control over Taiwan...?
You are really simplifying the ROC vs PRC situation and leaving out a mountain of important context here.
Are you implying Taiwan isn’t already fully autonomous?
Implying? I'm not implying anything. But for clarity's sake I'll say very clearly that Taiwan was part of China, China still considers Taiwan part of China, and Taiwan disputes this. Largely because the ROC leadership fled mainland China to Taiwan, and after the 1980s largely because of their economic power.
In either case, my comparison seems fine still. In fact, if you go back to the Samoan Civil War, my example works even better than you realized. What happens if Samoa says they still control American Samoa and they want their islands back? Pretty much the same situation as PRC vs ROC, but 55 years earlier.
What do the people of Samoa want? As an American I want to know what they want, this is the first in my almost 50 year of life I've even heard the idea. (and about the 10th time total I've heard of them at all - they are not often in the news or discussions)
By contrast Puerto Rico I hear of a lot, but so far as I can tell the people the there are divided and so I guess status quo is just as good/bad as everything else - but this is only because they don't agree on what they want, if they did I'd support it.
Last I heard Puerto Ricans largely supported statehood, not independence.
Lat I heard the independence supporters (claimed!) that the votes were not fair and so they stayed home. I'm not really in position to look into it. I'm all in favor of statehood if they want it.
Long story short, Puerto Rico doesn't want to leave the USA. All of the choices the people tend to sincerely consider (regardless of reason) are some sort of deep relationship with the US mainland, whether statehood, status quo, or Free Association.
That's the long-standing baseline of the past 70 years
Samoa and American Samoa are two different places. Samoa is an internationally recognized nation whereas American Samoa is a US territory. So in this case asking what Samoa wants is equivalent to asking what China wants to happen to Taiwan.
By contrast Puerto Rico
Puerto Ricans are considered US citizens, whereas people from American Samoa not born on a US military base are NOT US citizens. Because the territory is messy, and the politics are complex, because the history is messy and complex. You can thank Germany and the US for that between Samoa and American Samoa.
They are still debating, they were generally ok with the status quo because they were US nationals and thus were not subject to the full constatution, but I haven't checked on Samoa since citizenship was thrust on them, doubt they'd be happy
Putting international pressure on Taiwan to declare independence is not openly supporting them.
Because you only get one message. There's no way to speak only to one group of people.
Because it’s completely fucking obvious and no president need say it.
...Reports were unclear on whether President Biden's fingers were crossed at the time or if knowing winks were exchanged with the crowd. Initial statements also do not include a "no takebacks" clause.
I also do not support Taiwan's independence. I assume he means West Taiwan. It should certainly be re-unified with the democratic republic of Taiwan.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
China previously warned that the election was critical, as voters could be choosing between war and peace.
Biden’s stance reinforces the One China policy in recognizing Beijing’s claims that Taiwan is historically part of the mainland.
After Biden met with Chinese President Xi Jinping in Nov., he said he “made clear” China should not interfere in Taiwan’s election.
The U.S. announced Wednesday that it would be sending an unofficial delegation to Taiwan after the island conducted its election.
It’s unknown how China will react to the new delegation and Lai’s win, but the country previously told the U.S. that it will “not make any concession or compromise” on Taiwan.
Lai, who said he is open to talks with China, posted on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter thanking voters for electing him and pledged to uphold peace in the Taiwan Straight and to be “a force of good in the international community.”
The original article contains 367 words, the summary contains 153 words. Saved 58%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
load more comments
(1 replies)
After Biden met with Chinese President Xi Jinping in Nov., he said he “made clear” China should not interfere in Taiwan’s election. He said the U.S. maintains the One China agreement and he does not have plans to change it.
Sure yeah. One China. One Taiwan. It’s all good.
Not the Onion?
view more: next ›