What's So Special About Taiwan?

[Benny B]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-shrugs-off-fuss-over-taiwan-call-034549067--politics.html

Very few things in life boggle me.  I'd like to say that I think I've seen it all, but I haven't, and life still surprises me from time to time.  But I'm honestly stumped on this whole phone call to the Taiwanese president thing... if you would have told me last week that the US and Taiwan have had no diplomatic relations since 1979, I would have given you one of these:



Set aside the issue as to whether Trump's phone call w/ Taiwan president Tsai Ing-wen is right, wrong or innocuous.... hell, assume that Stephen Hawking or Gary Busey won the election and made the same phone call.

How does one reconcile the US having "severed diplomatic ties" with Taiwan yet still having a "commitment to support its defense."

I don't think anyone - be it past, current, or incoming administration - is lobbying for Taiwan's independence here (even so, why would that be so bad for China).  I guess I can't wrap my arms around why the US is OK with selling arms and military equipment to Taiwan yet we've clearly drawn the line in front of having leaders of the two countries talk on the phone.

Any Sino-American relations experts here that can describe the whole to-do between US and Taiwan in layman's terms?

[mu03eng]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-shrugs-off-fuss-over-taiwan-call-034549067--politics.html

Very few things in life boggle me.  I'd like to say that I think I've seen it all, but I haven't, and life still surprises me from time to time.  But I'm honestly stumped on this whole phone call to the Taiwanese president thing... if you would have told me last week that the US and Taiwan have had no diplomatic relations since 1979, I would have given you one of these:



Set aside the issue as to whether Trump's phone call w/ Taiwan president Tsai Ing-wen is right, wrong or innocuous.... hell, assume that Stephen Hawking or Gary Busey won the election and made the same phone call.

How does one reconcile the US having "severed diplomatic ties" with Taiwan yet still having a "commitment to support its defense."

I don't think anyone - be it past, current, or incoming administration - is lobbying for Taiwan's independence here (even so, why would that be so bad for China).  I guess I can't wrap my arms around why the US is OK with selling arms and military equipment to Taiwan yet we've clearly drawn the line in front of having leaders of the two countries talk on the phone.

Any Sino-American relations experts here that can describe the whole to-do between US and Taiwan in layman's terms?

To keep it simple: Chaing Kai-Shek was the nationalist leader of China during WWII that the use funneled tons of material and money to as a 3rd front against Japan. He was a bit of a military dictator that the US propped up after the war (gee, where have we heard that before?) Chaing restarted the Chinese Civil War between nationalist forces and communist forces (gee, where have we heard THAT before?) and it turns out picked a fight he couldn't win. The Communist defeated Chaing, with he and any followers he could gather escaping to Tawain (formerly Formosa) which was a territory of China reclaimed after WWII. Chaing made every attempt to build up forces to retake mainland China using "covert" US support to build a military. The US mostly viewed it as a hedge against communist China from getting to big for its britches as well as a good place to launch air strikes from should they be required. The mainland China's government has maintained that Taiwan is Chinese territory in rebellion and Nixon agreed as part of the softening of relations with China to recognize the "One China" policy which calls for the unification of Taiwan with China but only by "peaceful" means. So the US can justify selling weapons to Taiwan in the name of defense with the pretense that all parties are trying to find a peaceful way to unify.

Here's a tortured analogy that I think works: Let's pretend the Confederate government escaped to Alcatraz Island (only it's like 10,000 times bigger) and choose to continue it's "war" with the now reunified US. This "cold war" carry's on for a number of years with Canada providing Alcatraz arms and advisors as a means of keeping the US in check without out direct intervention. Eventually, Canada wants the US to build stuff for them cheaper than they can make it and the US uses that as a means of extracting a promise from Canada that their ultimate goal is unification of the US and Alcatraz. To maintain the delicate balance Canada and the US say all the right things in public while under cutting each other as often as possible in private. Any deviation for status quo on the "Alcatraz question" breeds uncertainty which makes markets nervous. And by now Alcatraz is essentially an independent state, but the US can't allow that to happen because it under cuts it's perceived power so legacy continues on.

Basically, institutional momentum is the only reason things are the way they are. Crash has spent a lot more time in the region than I so he could probably articulate it better than I.

One final thought, and something that makes this time period very interesting (and potentially dangerous) is there an awlful lot of status quo out in the world that has been built on foundations that are no outdated. A lot of stuff we still do/say/believe just "because". With the new leadership in the US and other places in the world that seems unable or unwilling to observe the status quo there could be massive change coming. This ties in with the manufacturing/healthcare thread as well. A lot of legacy stuff is in place that will likely be unsustainable in the next 3-6 years, so how does that get replaced? What does the new normal look like? Times they are a changin'

[vogue65]

Short answer, Golf.

[Golden Avalanche]

The real short answer is we played nice so as not to piss off Beijing. And China owns our ass, literally.

The President-Elect orchestrated the phone detente after nearly six weeks of legwork from Taiwanese-friendly Congressional officials because it is the first move in his "standing up" to China as he moves the USA into a protectionist economy (well, outside of his outsourcing and the outsourcing of his friends).

[MUBBau]

My aunt is from Taiwan, that's pretty special

[WellsstreetWanderer]

It's a play to counter China's expansions in the East and south China seas

[GGGG]

It's a play to counter China's expansions in the East and south China seas

But does that help?  And if so, how?

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

I read a really good article on this subject this morning, but I can't find it for the life of me? 
It went into detail explaining all.
At lunch, I coincidentally read James Fallows latest from The Atlantic China's Great Leap Backward, but Taiwan is only referred to in the article not addressed directly.

Found it!

So, Why Can't You Call Taiwan?
President-elect Donald Trump has committed a sharp breach of protocol—one that underscores just how weird some important protocols are.
DAVID A. GRAHAM  DEC 2, 2016
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/12/trump-taiwan/509474/


The main article is a good read.

China’s Great Leap Backward
The country has become repressive in a way that it has not been since the Cultural Revolution. What does its darkening political climate—and growing belligerence—mean for the United States?
JAMES FALLOWS  DECEMBER 2016 ISSUE
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/12/chinas-great-leap-backward/505817/

[brandx]

The real short answer is we played nice so as not to piss off Beijing. And China owns our ass, literally.

The President-Elect orchestrated the phone detente after nearly six weeks of legwork from Taiwanese-friendly Congressional officials because it is the first move in his "standing up" to China as he moves the USA into a protectionist economy (well, outside of his outsourcing and the outsourcing of his friends).

It could get interesting. If China was in a position where they could dictate U.S. policy on fiscal and monetary matters, it would be a problem. But they are not in that position.

Their stake is only in the 6% - 8% range, which is trillions of $$$, but not enough to make any demands. And they need us as much or more than we need them. All we get is garbage goods that don't sell as well in Europe. So, they need our trade to keep their economy humming even more than we need their investments.

[Herman Cain]

It could get interesting. If China was in a position where they could dictate U.S. policy on fiscal and monetary matters, it would be a problem. But they are not in that position.

Their stake is only in the 6% - 8% range, which is trillions of $$$, but not enough to make any demands. And they need us as much or more than we need them. All we get is garbage goods that don't sell as well in Europe. So, they need our trade to keep their economy humming even more than we need their investments.

I agree with this analysis.

[Goose]

MU03eng

Pretty solid overview on the issue. This conflict is a far bigger issue than most in USA understand and definitely worth keeping an eye on it.

[forgetful]

MU03eng

Pretty solid overview on the issue. This conflict is a far bigger issue than most in USA understand and definitely worth keeping an eye on it.

+1.  Complicated and precarious situation.  Great care should be taken.

My opinion is that America's strength in this conflict is a lot weaker than the average american believes. 

[Goose]

Forgetful

Exactly. Agree completely.

[brandx]

+1.  Complicated and precarious situation.  Great care should be taken.

My opinion is that America's strength in this conflict is a lot weaker than the average american believes.

I agree to a point. But there is no strong side here. They need us desperately for their economic health. We need their investment, as well.

[mu03eng]

I agree to a point. But there is no strong side here. They need us desperately for their economic health. We need their investment, as well.

It's basically economic MAD, the US has a stronger hand but it's like 2 times nothing...still nothing

[Benny B]

I read a really good article on this subject this morning, but I can't find it for the life of me? 
It went into detail explaining all.
At lunch, I coincidentally read James Fallows latest from The Atlantic China's Great Leap Backward, but Taiwan is only referred to in the article not addressed directly.

Found it!

So, Why Can't You Call Taiwan?
President-elect Donald Trump has committed a sharp breach of protocol—one that underscores just how weird some important protocols are.
DAVID A. GRAHAM  DEC 2, 2016
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/12/trump-taiwan/509474/


The main article is a good read.

China’s Great Leap Backward
The country has become repressive in a way that it has not been since the Cultural Revolution. What does its darkening political climate—and growing belligerence—mean for the United States?
JAMES FALLOWS  DECEMBER 2016 ISSUE
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/12/chinas-great-leap-backward/505817/

Interesting read... of particular humor was the line "Isn’t the Chinese government sophisticated enough not to take Trump at face value?"

[Golden Avalanche]

It could get interesting. If China was in a position where they could dictate U.S. policy on fiscal and monetary matters, it would be a problem. But they are not in that position.

Their stake is only in the 6% - 8% range, which is trillions of $$$, but not enough to make any demands. And they need us as much or more than we need them. All we get is garbage goods that don't sell as well in Europe. So, they need our trade to keep their economy humming even more than we need their investments.

And this kind of unseemly relationship plays all across the world so it's nigh impossible for a US President to follow through on any of their tough talk.

However, the damage that can be done is currency which is the President-Elect's bugaboo. If he continues down the path of doing all he can to prop the Dollar then long term downside of that will, in fact, affect the trade you pointed out that keeps China's economy humming. At that point, like Russia, a government is no longer concerned about their financial well being since it's in the tank so the only way to prop pride is outward nationalism.

[vogue65]

The premise in all this is that people/nations act in their best economic self interest.  We know that this is not true.  Our political experience repeatedly proves that people don't always act in their self interest.  Many people put their preceived "principles" ahead of their self interest.  We see populist nationalism all over the world doing its destructive thing. 

In Italy for example, we just had the electorate expressing itself, wanting to be heard, while really saying nothing that makes any economic sence.  Why would we expect China, America or anywhere to be logical?  The Brits, Americans and the Italians are all being driven by their emotions and not their intellects.