I don’t think it’s productive to be glib about “long-established ‘rules’ of doing things” when it comes to China and Taiwan. Whatever you want to call “the Deep State,” the development of the One-China Policy was a diplomatic dance that worked precisely because all sides agreed to abide by something that didn’t make perfect sense. I think it has been vastly more successful than the way we treated communist takeovers in Korea and Vietnam. And, yes, it’s a way of controlling our own lunatics just as much as it is a way of controlling theirs.
If Trump is being advised by lunatics now, that’s a problem. And if he’s just so ignorant and pig-headed that he doesn’t know or care what he just did by having his staff arrange a call with Taiwan, that’s not a bold way of violating pointless norms. It’s extraordinarily dangerous and portends all kinds of problems for our country, the world, and the prospects for peace between nations.
I cannot understand how Trump was allowed to offer a state visit to Rodrigo Duterte, the president of the Philippines. It’s beyond belief. That absolutely cannot happen. Figuring out how to handle Duterte and our longstanding relationship with the Philippines is a real conundrum, and a ton of work would have to be done before we could even think of rewarding Duterte with a state visit. Honestly, I don’t think it would ever be justifiable.
And Trump cannot go plodding into Pakistan-India relations without getting a briefing from the State Department. They are nuclear-armed powers on constant alert against sneak attacks from each other, and it’s unimaginably irresponsible to speak with either government without carefully considering the implications of every word you’re going to say.
You can talk all you want about how Trump has some kind of mandate to challenge the status quo and that our elites are just using stale norms to “control the executive.” We’ve had normal presidents deal with that straightjacket, on Cuba, Israel, China, anti-Soviet policy. That’s not what we’re dealing with here. At all.
If you want to challenge norms and blow up longstanding ways of doing things, it’s all the more important that you understand exactly why we have done things the way he have and what the implications are of changing them.
Right now, we’re relying on something quite appalling.
“If he were president of the United States now, this could lead to a breaking-off of diplomatic relations between China and the U.S.”
“Having this mishap occur before he is president is better than having it occur after he is president,” said [Bonnie] Glaser of the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “Privately, I expect Beijing to find a way to give him an education on Taiwan.”
Right now, we’re relying on foreign powers forgiving our president-elect because he’s an idiot who doesn’t know what he’s doing. We’re going to tell them not to take him seriously or personally, and that we’ll give them an opportunity to “educate” him.
But if we can’t educate him and his staff can’t educate him, what hope is there for our adversaries and allies to educate him?
I saw that glib post and it made me want to throw things.
We are in for some really hard times. At this point, I’m sort of praying that the recounts go on, that the states flip, or even that the Electoral College DOES deny him the presidency.
I know that’s not going to happen though, and I’m going to have to watch this unmitigated disaster roll out.
It is incredibly disheartening to see the same childish, immature reasoning in comments. The same Clinton hate, the same infantile libertarian BS. The same ‘how many angels can fit on the head of a needle’ poll analysts.
We are in a different battle now. Real people are going to be hurt. It’s not an intellectual game.
.
Some things are dangerous and some are not
Talking to Taiwan is not. At least not as dangerous as selling 2 billion in arms as Obama agreed to
Talking about blowing up the Iran deal is dangerous
Effective opposition to Trump will require knowing the difference
Right now we are mostly clueless
L
You should probably stick to poll watching.
Talking to Taiwan is not dangerous, in fact the US government talks to them every day. I’m sure Kerry is talking to Taiwan today.
But for the POTUS to talk directly to the leader of Taiwan is incredibly dangerous. For you not to see the difference is very enlightening.
But not surprising.
.
He’s not the POTUS for several more weeks. If you haven’t noticed in the past year and a half, Trump doesn’t honor or abide by established rules of protocol. The GOP was first in trying to rein him in and failed miserably at that, then the MSM took him on and failed, then the billion dollar candidate went toe-to-toe with him and lost. What has been your contribution over this time? Clap louder and go la-la-la in response to those here that early on were forewarning that Trump wasn’t a joke and Clinton was a poor choice for the nomination and an especially poor choice for ’16.
The “OMG! Trump’s crazy!” strategy to take him down and out didn’t work in 2015-2016 and you think that more of the same will magically produce a different result? Democrats and the DP put all their eggs in one basket, Clinton, and lost. Now they can no longer avoid the reality of being a national rump party and trifecta control of only five states compared with GOP trifecta control of twenty-four states.
The jury is still out on this nalbar. Trump talking to Taiwan’s leader is potentially dangerous. It is also potentially revolutionary. To some great degree, every out-of-the-box move that Trump makes is a Schroedinger’s Cat problem. In Schroedinger’s thought experiment the imprisoned cat in in an “indeterminacy” state…neither alive nor dead…until the box is opened.
Trump’s moves are in a similar state. If China takes some sort of action…or does not…and that action/inaction proves to be dangerous to our welfare, then Trump’s action was indeed dangerous. But if whatever China does or does not do indeed does not endanger us, then his action was not dangerous.
Duh!!!
We shall see…about Trump and his various moves…soon enough.
I will say this…the same people who trumpeted “Never trump!!!” for a year and a half, the ones who said that everything he did on every level from his initial entrance as a long-shot Republican candidate right on through his winning the presidency? They are the ones who got…sorry, l but I gotta say it…Trumped. I no longer think that his win was some kind of stupid mistake, because he has consistently (for going on two years now) won and won and won again.
He is using the same moves he used in business. Maybe he sees a weakness that can be exploited in the Chinese system…just another bunch of lame-ass bureaucrats to be Trumped once again by bold, unexpected moves to which they have no ready answers.
We shall see…
It worked with these lame bureaucrats:
And then with these as well:
maybe it will work with these fools as well.
We shall see…
AG
And you and your buddy tossing out downratings for comments and/or commentators that you don’t like makes you look small, petty, and childish.
Suggestions for a good read …
○ RevLeft
“That’s libertarians for you — anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.” [Sartre]
You make it sound like the government in China is rational about Taiwan, or that these issues don’t roil Taiwanese politics, or that it doesn’t matter if Trump is being led around by ideologues who want to provoke China out of the box.
Yeah, having a 15 minute chat on the phone doesn’t sound dangerous.
But a rift with China, deliberate or otherwise, is extraordinarily dangerous, especially when it isn’t thought through in either case.
You imply that China is irrational about Taiwan. I just don’t see that. They seem, up to now, incredibly rational about Taiwan.
They insist Taiwan is a province of China, and eventually reconciliation will take place. Taiwan is an incredibly prosperous country, and China knows (one assumes) that destroying that would not be to China’s advantage, so they play the very long game. None of that is irrational. China has flatly told Taiwan, declare independence and we will invade. Saying that is not irrational. Invading WOULD be irrational, but not being blunt with Taiwan.
And who actually believes that there won’t eventually be reconciliation? Taiwan will eventually be part of China.
.
I don’t mean that every aspect of Chinese policy toward Taiwan is irrational. I think you know what I meant, which is that they freak out anytime anyone treats Taiwan like what they are, which is a culturally and politically and economically independent nation. So, to host their sports teams, you have to agree not to call them Taiwan, and so on.
I don’t have an opinion of the long-term prospects for reunification. I don’t live in either place and I don’t feel qualified to opine about that.
What I do know is that China is prepared to go to war over Taiwan and that we are committed to their defense. What the Chinese need to see to start a war isn’t necessarily obvious to a rational person.
Go back and read up on US foreign affairs during the Civil wars, the Trent Affair, Mason and Slidell, etc, when the US was a relatively new, and tetchy, power in the world.
The PRC Chinese insist on having Taiwan treated more or less the way the US insisted on foreign powers treating the Confederacy.
Yes.
The US would be pretty darn sensitive if the roles were reversed. In fact, invasion would have taken place, prosperity be damned.
.
Yes, I agree. And I was narrow in my thoughts.
I know you are busy but here are three YouTube channels that are affiliated. They are fascinating and more than a little addicting.
Two young male expatriates who emigrated to China about 9 years ago, one from South Africa, and the other from upstate New York. They discuss day to day life in mainland China.
Churchcustoms
lao
serpent
Not at all what you could get anywhere else. Both are visiting the US for December, but their videos go back years and years.
.
War. Only the neocons are willing to send $165 million f16s into to a dog fight. The Chinese are smarter. Now the Pakistanis, that a whole different thing. Who needs a f16 when you got suicide bombers.
“What I do know is that China is prepared to go to war over Taiwan and that we are committed to their defense. “
I am not so sure this is right.
This is from the Counsel on Foreign Relations
http://www.cfr.org/china/china-taiwan-relations/p9223
The article talks about Taiwan effectively becoming de facto independent. The article references polling indicating the rise of a Taiwanese identity. Only 15% of the country now identifies as exclusively Chinese.
If unification happens it will be at the point of the gun. US Policy is against that happening.
Given the complexity here I am more inclined to see your point. The danger isn’t in this situation, it is rather with a willingness to make change in a complex situation where governmental institutions have very good reasons for the policy they support.
This is a downside of this global populist movement. In Brexit it was widely noted that voters dismissed concerns raised by economists about the effects of Brexit. There is in all of this an essential anti-intellectualism – something common in populist movements.
This is what comes from elite failure. People are fond of making comparisons to Germany.
But before Hitler came to power the sensible parties like the SDP in Germany had to lose credibility. Had the SDP reacted effectively to the depression, Hitler would never have come close to power.
It is worth noting in this regard the similarity seen in Paris, where the Socialists find themselves completely discredited.
Populists gain power when elites fail. When crisis occur which destroy their authority and credibility.
It is this that has rendered the media response to Trump so anemic. When median family income has not increased since 1999, when wars are fought by mistake, when the perpetrators of financial crisis are not held accountable, people become less willing to listen the criticism.
My first post in the other thread said that we needed to become much better at picking the fights with Trump. I still think that is right.
But I am less sure – and in fact I rather think I was wrong – to be so dismissive of the concern you raised.
Agree with:
Disagree with:
Nothing inherently intellectual about ruling elites or anti-intellectual among populists. Elites may wrap their screw-ups in a bunch of intellectual mumbo-jumbo, but it doesn’t alter the fact that they made stupid decisions for the populace as a whole even if those decisions enriched the circle of elites. The dodge used by elites that have screwed and a populist movement in response to their acts is that the mob is stupid and ruled by emotions. As if GWB and Trump aren’t stupid and aren’t ruled by emotions.
Are then Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton smart? If so, what are they ruled by?
Actually there is little support for integration among young people in Taiwan
And why would they want to integrate? Taiwan is richer and freer than china
Hell they can get to facebook and google in Taiwan.
I am far from knowledgeable about this but I actually everyone knows integration is an idea whose time has passed
LOL!
Perhaps there is a Clinton health diary somewhere? Or emails for you to comment on?
It’s China that will decide when and how.
When integration comes the ‘youth of Taiwan’ won’t get a vote. More than likely they will be in their 40’s and 50’s. China will not be what it is now.
.
I don’t usually do this: but I am going to make an exception.
In the time you have been here you have shown yourself to be intellectually vapid, and either as a result or simply because you don’t have the capacity, incapable of a civil exchange.
This response is evidence of both.
In point of fact it is US Policy that China will NOT make the decision for Taiwan.
Your post actually reveals that you know virtually nothing about the situation. As is typical with things you post you offer no links to support you analysis, probably because you have none. You simply react to something you disagree with, but invest neither the time to try and convince others you are right, nor offer any objective evidence to support your conclusion.
The nastiness that characterizes virtually every exchange you have with anyone is common and is equally evidenced in your post.
It is not surprising that you and a few other posters rather absurdly resort to using ratings to signal disagreement. This absurdity is apparent to others who post frequently know that the ratings have no effect on anything.
Perhaps you simply are stuck in bitterness that Clinton lost. Well, I worked for a good more than you did I suspect. But that simply isn’t an excuse for your behavior.
Well, you sure worked harder than I to repeat republican memes, that’s for sure.
Enjoy your followers, you earned them.
I hear Chelsea has friends. You should post a diary.
.
You aren’t worth responding to anymore – if indeed you ever were.l
You’re just and angry not very bright guy who as I suspect doesn’t actually do any work on campaigns at all.
Trust me, the feeling is mutual.
.
Kind of off-topic, here. If you have a problem with another comment fladem has made, perhaps you could respond there?
Actually I regret the whole thing. While I have insurmountable issues with fladem, he is a solid contributing member of the community, and deserved better than a ‘LOL’ Unlike others, he does his best.
.
You cannot have this both ways.
Answer this directly:
Is that phone call as provocative is selling 2 Billion in advanced weaponry to Taiwan?
Because that was Obama’s policy.
Is that phone as provocative as the TPP: which in many ways was aimed at the creation of an ant-China block?
Both of those actions were undertaken by Obama.
The only part of this that scares me is the name John Bolton.
But frankly some of this is hypocritical.
I don’t think this quite apples and apples. Selling weaponry to Taiwan has been fairly routine behavior over the years.
With regards to TPP, I don’t recall China making too many waves in opposition. All of the countries involved in TPP negotiations have and will continue to have trade with China. That was always going to be the case even if TPP had passed.
So, I’m not sure either of these policies are quite as provocative as you indicate. I think Trump’s phone call was not done out of ignorance. It appears calculated although perhaps for a domestic audience. Perhaps Trump will go even further in antagonizing China. We will see.
Doesn’t he have business deals with Taiwan in the offing?
Coincidence? I think not.
…the US House of Representatives made a substantive move to include US-Taiwan military exchanges in the new Defense spending bill. (http://m.focustaiwan.tw/news/aipl/201612030012.aspx)
Well, you have all the alt right upgrades, so there’s that.
.
Such a tough guy — why restrain yourself by dishing out 1’s and 2’s; go for a donut to show how really tough you are.
btw — there are no alt-right folks here, although the one anti-immigrant guy displays some features of alt-right, but he sure doesn’t uprate any of my comments. Nor does he hide his bullying behind downrates.
FWIW — those opposed to neoliberalism economic policies and neoconservative foreign policies ARE NOT alt-right. Nor are we racists, sexists, or homophobes.
RE:
Are you sure?
NONE of us is?
Cuz I’m pretty sure you’re wrong about that.
Looks quite a safe bet that at least some in fact are; i.e., that the Venn diagram for those two sets has some significant overlap between them.
Tempted to say the evidence for that looks purtnear overwhelming at this point, in fact. Relevant question almost seems “how could it be otherwise?”
Well, since Putin stopped the paychecks the Russians aren’t around anymore.
It’s hurt the upgrades for the existing alt right.
.
It’s like watching a sad, little tamagotchi starving to death. Sigh.
What actual wars and US military engagements have the “alt-right” faction opposed?
“alt-right” economic policies (if that is what they can be called) are limited to low taxes on the wealthy, no social safety net (for the poors), quasi-free market with protections for corporations, and some sort of trade policy that protects US workers. IOW the have their cake and eat it too lunch bunch.
Lots of Venn d overlap between alt-right and Libertarians and they often travel in the same circles, but they are different. I may agree with Ron Paul on a couple of issues, but we don’t come by those positions from the same place. Principally, libertarians and alt-right folks would reduce to the role of government to the military and police and deny any social welfare role for governments (even if it’s in the Constitution).
not?
Cuz you weren’t very clear on that ya know. (In fact, sorta seems like you dodged the questions actually asked.)
(You realize a single counter-example is all that’s required to disprove a universal claim like yours, right? I’m confident that could easily be done. So confident I lack any motivation to waste any time actually trying to do it.)
Making this reply all look like non-sequitur obfuscation about stuff not at issue.
How ironic as their nazi role models nationalized businesses, used deficit spending to fund immense public works projects (autobahn), and created a welfare state that was anti-capitalist and anti-free-market both of which they associated with the Jews.
Some of their platform (from the Yale Law school):
We demand the nationalisation of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).
We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.
We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.
We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or municipality.
The state is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program, to enable every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education and subsequently introduction into leading positions. We demand the education at the expense of the State of outstanding intellectually gifted children of poor parents without consideration of position or profession.
The State is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and child, by outlawing child-labor, by the encouragement of physical fitness, by means of the legal establishment of a gymnastic and sport obligation, by the utmost support of all organizations concerned with the physical instruction of the young.
Scary huh?
Nazi Germany was a centrally-planned capitalist state, boosted by free slave labor.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2663635/Revealed-How-Nazis-helped-German-companies-Bosch-Mer
cedes-Deutsche-Bank-VW-VERY-rich-using-slave-labor.html
However troublesome, we should start from the known facts. Trump is 70 years old, and people at that age don’t undergo serious changes — especially when their behavior has gotten them what they want (and more than they expected, if you trust reports that Trump was surprised to win). He has no real sense of the job on which he is entering, and his ability and inclination to absorb serious information (such as detailed government briefing papers) appear to be very limited. How Trump will manage staff advice is not known; his business affairs are highly personalistic in essential matters, not staff-driven (as most USG work is). As well, at least some of his national-security staff (Flynn especially) are incompetent for their jobs and have the wrong instincts.
It may just be that we are in for four years of President Doofus — someone whose words (and to some extent his actions, like the telephone call and Détente) just can’t be taken seriously. The experience with Carrier is indicative: Trump clearly didn’t expect his commitment to saving jobs at that particular plant to be believed and was shocked at the idea he had to deliver. To Trump, speech is performative nonsense, intended to gain assent/subjection by others, not to establish “positions” or make “commitments” in the way the speech of previous U.S. Presidents has done.
The difficulty, of course, is that there really is not a place in the international order that can be filled by President Doofus. For other nations to make such a place, which they may have to do, will require not taking the United States seriously as they have in the past. They will just have to get used to a USG that blunders about apparently violating longstanding norms without really intending to do so (because that kind of intention requires a level of self-control and depth of understanding and information that will just not be there at the top of the executive branch).
Within the State Department (where I spent over a quarter-century as an FSO), that’s going to mean hoping for a SecState who is (a) sane, (b) sufficiently credible to manage most foreign-policy issues himself without getting a heedless White House involved, and (c) able to attract able and sane people for the DepSec, UnderSec, and AsstSec jobs (whom he will then tell to do everything they can NOT to refer issues to the White House. That will, of course, be complicated by the fact that many such issues for many years have been interdepartmental (especially with DoD), but perhaps “the agencies” can develop a sufficient terror of the consequences of sending anything “up the chain” to decid informally to avoid it. Of course, some things will have to go that way, for legal or protocol reasons (only Presidents can host State Visits or make certain kinds of decisions). But when that happens, “the agencies” will just have to expect badly considered results and do the best with them that they can.
But it just cannot be assumed that the new President is actually going to function in any way similar to the way Presidents have functioned for the last several decades. The American people, greatly assisted by a Republican Party that had abandoned both truth and policy, broke that pattern of the Presidency; now they get to own it. In the line from “A Knights Tale,” “Welcome to the new world.”
Anyone of the list so far that meets that criteria:
Of all the Secretaries of State over the past seventy years, how many were good enough?
I think the list begins and ends with George Marshall.
I was thinking that I might put Cyrus Vance on that list.
Was also thinking of maybe doing a diary to nominate the “good enough” members of US cabinets over the past hundred years and the best of the best from those that list.
Okay — Francis Perkins is the hands down best ever Sec Labor, but maybe a few others ones have been good enough.
Yoiu ask:
None of them.
The State department is riddled with career bureaucrats and intelligence moles.
Riddled.
FSO=Foreign Service Officer.
Here is the official FOS spiel from the U. S. Department of State website:
I repeat:
“The mission of a U.S. diplomat in the Foreign Service is to promote peace, support prosperity, and protect American citizens while advancing the interests of the U.S. abroad.”
Yes sir!!! They sure have been doing some great work over the last 70 years or so, eh? Promoting peace, supporting prosperity, and protecting American citizens while advancing the interests of the U.S. abroad?
Deep.
AG
The Celtics are riddled with basketball players.
But so few of them have the blood of thousands on their hands.
AG
This post should be removed, and if Martin Longman has any sense of decency he will do so. it is not a contribution to reasoned discourse but a squirt of hate speech, directed at thousands of people who have given lifetimes of work to the country and whose efforts make it possible for the United States to have a foreign policy at all. In the main lobby of the State ?Department, on both sides, are large plaques — one entirely filled, the other largely so — of diplomats who have given their lives for this country. The scoundrel who posted this slimy, ignorant attack is not worthy to shine their shoes.
Surely Martin would not tolerate this kind of venomous assault on our military personnel. He should not tolerate it against our Foreign Service staff either. Allowing this kind of thing is how formerly respectable sites become Breitbart clones. If Martin Longman wants to do something other than simply wail about how awful everything is, he can start by removing this piece of trash and banning its author.
I disagree. It is time to start calling out all who have cooperated in the gradual disintegration of the moral structure of this country.
My father and mother ran away from their NYC-area home to join the Royal Canadian Air Force and fight Hitler in 1938. They both put their lives and careers on the line to do so. They were heroes as far as I am concerned. It was a just war.
My mother was a radar operator in the Battle of Britain and my father flew Spitfires in the same battle. When the U.S entered the war my father transferred to the U.S. Navy Air Corps…apparently the U.S. forces had no need of further female soldiers.
When the war ended, they started a family…my father got a degree in aeronautical engineering and my mother worked to help the family through his education; then he became a high level aeronautical engineer in the Cold War military industrial complex.
By the time…in the mid-’60s…that it became necessary for me to make a decision about military service I had already spent some time in S.E. Asia…Vietnam and Thailand…as a musician. I saw what was happening there, up close and personal. I did not meet a serviceman in over a month who did not warn me not to let them draft me into this horrible conflict, and I met a lot of them. Up close and personal. Bet on it.
I already knew that the rot of the post-assassination years had turned an honorable U.S. population into the victims of a post-JFK coup. All of my years of further observation have confirmed my observations. Anyone who continues to support the economic imperialist aims of the post-JFK empire is either too stupid to know the difference and/or too crooked to give a damn.
I have no idea to which group…if not both…you belong, sir or madam…but the “venomous assault on our military”…and diplomatic…corps has been led from the top, not the bottom.
Martin knows this full well.
That hogtied froggie that is the symbol of this blog?
It represents the war criminals…Rove, Kissinger, etc…who should have been tried and executed for their crimes.
Are you among them, or just another misled apologist for the bloody American Empire?
The jury remaoins out on all of you.
You want DiploSpeak?
Not from me, brother or sister.
From me? You’re not getting it.
Welcome in.
AG
Passive-aggressive. An effective strategy for subordinates stuck with an ignorant and incompetent boss (most like that, but not all, are also mean and vindictive; so, subordinates have exercise the passive-aggressive strategy with a degree of caution).
I think Trump sees himself this way :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cg_qay_zXj4
RE:
Though on its way to the Politically Incorrect scrapheap (so Trump should eagerly embrace and self-apply it!) via the “euphemism treadmill”, “educable” is still a thing, along with “trainable“. Perhaps there’s hope Trump qualifies as the latter, if the former is indeed out of his reach?
Sad (and terrifying in present context) that blameless humans congenitally limited by IQs in the 50-75 range can accomplish what Trump (for very different reasons, for which he is largely accountable) cannot.
War is education by other means.
Folk translation: That’ll larn ya, darn ya.
questions potentially even more troubling, like:
Who’s doing the training?
Training to do what?
For what purpose?
To whose benefit? (Presumably, the trainers’?)
At whose expense?
In this case, the “trainer” in question is most likely John Bolton, whose foreign policy goals you may see here:
http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/John_Bolton_Foreign_Policy.htm
Let us start from a basic fact. Donald J. Trump is not officially the president-elect until the electoral college actually elects him on December 19.
Everything that he has done so far is technically in violation of the Logan Act if it that act is taken seriously. That of course becomes a moot point if he is indeed sworn in on January 20, 2017.
That is taking it seriously.
Now, who has the power to intervene in that process to do what needs to be done? And will they?
The heedless ideologues the American Madman is surrounding himself with ARE “educating” him. Hence this obviously calculated call, which it is reported his “staff” arranged. And when the Madman then disingenuously tweets that the Taiwan prez CALLED ME (as though that pre-arranged detail excuses the ploy), one can see that the affront was calculated.
So the Madman and his team want an immediate confrontation with China, eh? I think they will get one.
One’s geopolitical adversaries are not in the business of “educating” their opponents, sorry to say. The Madman and the white imbeciles that voted for him want to break things, and stir the shit? Well, we are going to find out that this is hardball and that international crises are very real and very hard to deescalate. And you can all place your bets on the calculating abilities of Team Doofus and the Chinese leadership. Or Team Doofus and KGB head Putin. The world equity markets can all place their bets as well.
Dems are quiet as usual, and whether a diplomatic misstep (with another nuclear superpower) is “dangerous” or not is in the eye of the beholder. China issued a statement “educating” the Madman, but I doubt he and the reckless foreign policy nuts that he is cloistering with are educable. Hell, Der Trumper thinks he is the one to “educate” the generals on Syria. We’ll see how this goes over with say, Gen. Mad Dog Mathis at DOD. He won’t be long in the job, haha.
To echo afdiplomat above, our unqualified new prez ain’t gonna be like any past prez in the modern era. And yes, as a result of our incompetent white electorate and our failed constitution, we now “own” him, and the world will have to deal with him and the impulsive hawks around him. The Madman may find that inexperienced dimwits and rash China-breakers aren’t kowtowed to like he expects to be. Which then provokes more American Jingoism by the Madman and his white rubes and the Noise Machine, in an escalating cycle of increasing tensions. Everywhere.
So hoping the other great powers are going to cut the American Madman any slack is likely just wishful thinking. That’s not how power politics work, at least if history is any guide. Instead, unplanned wars and flashpoint military confrontations (both small and great) are the more likely result. To paraphrase Sir Edward Grey in August 1914, The lamps are going out all over, they will not be lit again in our lifetimes…
We’ll see. Most of them don’t want war either. Even China wants to peacefully eclipse us.
I generally agree with this post but with Duterte I think you’re letting your entirely correct moral outrage cloud your diplomatic judgement. Also its impossible for Atrios not be glib. He has posted perhaps 3 non-glib posts since he started.
I confess I’m not sure what this post is supposed to accomplish. If you need to vent, vent but Trump wont change and the provocatives around him wont.
provocateurs?
To be perfectly honest as a response to the Chinese provocations in the South China Sea, the Duerte incident and most recently the embargo of Singaporean armoured personnel carriers in Hong Kong, this phone call incident has a number of positive possible outcomes. It is not status quo which entails considerable risk, to be sure, but doing nothing entails risk also.
The real question is just who is advising him on these decisions. Because they don’t come out of nowhere. So who is that, and what are their interests and strategies? Who are their allies and what are their interests and strategies? These are questions someone in Washington should be asking very intently right now…
No mystery on this one. John Bolton. His Op-Ed was published in the WSJ last January.
It goes much further. These rules are being ostentatiously broken in order to discredit the entire class of people who were involved in formulating them, over the past seventy years. The end game of the international alt-right is to relitigate WWII. Half (~~) of the American people have always believed that we intervened on the wrong side of that conflict and that the wrong side won.
I believe you are exactly correct about the implications of what seems to motivate this incident. A pivot to mercantilism is probably the best interpretation of the Trump Doctrine as we now understand it. And the Taiwan call fits neatly into this model.
But I can’t agree that some significant fraction of the “American people have always believed that we intervened on the wrong side of that conflict.” That may be true now in the addled minds of those whom have strategically forgotten or never understood. But it was not true when it happened. Not even close.
I think there was a much greater fraction that wanted no part of yet another destructive European war. A reason to appreciate the EU, however long it lasts.
It was a combination of those who believed we intervened on the wrong side …
https:/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_American_Bund
https:
/www.amazon.com/American-Axis-Henry-Charles-Lindbergh/dp/0312290225
… and the much larger cohort that believed we shouldn’t have intervened at all. Since that was a big help to the Axis, you will find many Hitler admirers involved in the latter movement. But most weren’t.
http://www.npr.org/2016/07/23/487097111/america-first-invoked-by-trump-has-a-complicated-history
Once we actually got into the war, to say that we were on the wrong side was treason. So not too many people actually said that.
What they did do was more subtle, but far more damaging. And they really got back into action the day FDR died.
http://www.panshin.com/trogholm/secret/rightroots/dulles.html
http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-intelligence-and-the-fate-of-the-private-pre-war-international-banki
ng-system/5378602
Given that our entry into World War II was predicated by a massive military attack on the United States by the Axis, I think it’s inaccurate to claim that there were a large number of Americans who believed or believe that America intervened on the wrong side or shouldn’t have gotten involved at all. That may have been true before the attack on Pearl Harbor and our discovery of the concentration camps and other Axis horrors, but those events did happen. In the wake of those events, those who honestly believe or believed that the U.S. should not have joined the Allies are relatively few in number and are moral reprobates.
That said, I recognize that moral reprobates are a sub-sector of our President-elect’s supporters, and that literal Nazi sympathizers are among them. That’s a terribly distressing sentence to write.
Distinguish between Japan and Germany. There was something close to unanimity on the topic of Japan, but I reiterate that “half” (obviously not a tight or literal metric) the country thought, throughout and since, that Russia was a greater immediate and potential danger than Germany.
All of which is a dusting of sugar compared with the fact that, today, the two halves have been taught to distrust each other to the point where it is absolutely unthinkable for them to make common cause other against anything. Anyone daft enough to want to “conquer” the “United” States need merely give them one good jab with a hatpin and watch them fall to civil war.
I’m sorry, Frank, but you’re being insistent on a point which is simply factually incorrect.
On December 11th, 1941, just days after the Pearl Harbor attack, Hitler stood in front of the Reichstag and declared war on the United States. It’s delusional to claim that anywhere near half of the American public viewed Germany as a lesser threat than the U.S.S.R. from that day until V-E Day.
Also, too, this:
https://www.princeton.edu/csdp/events/Berinsky101107/BerinskyManuscript101107.pdf
Polling of U.S. citizens during the WW II era takes up the most lengthy discussion in this study. This substantial refutation of your claim is included in that summary:
“…Furthermore, the immediate reaction of the American public to Pearl Harbor was not to
demand retribution against Japan, as many have assumed. In December 1941 NORC asked,
“Which do you think we should consider our number one enemy – Japan or Germany?” The
majority of the public – 56 percent – replied Germany, while only 35 percent said Japan. Even
on the West Coast, where reaction to the attack was most severe, citizens identified Germany as
the number one enemy by a margin of 50 percent to 43 percent. The following months did not
change this sentiment. In a March 1942 OPOR poll, 47 percent of respondents said that Germany
was the number one enemy, as compared to 29 percent who said Japan, and Germany continued to outpoll Japan in a May 1942 OPOR poll by a nearly identical margin of 48 percent to 31 percent.
Thus, U.S. entry into the war – and the public reaction to that action – was the realization
of long-term developments in political and military strategies on the part of partisan political
actors. More than a year before Pearl Harbor, the public started preparing for war. While public
sentiment did indeed turn after the Japanese attack, that turn was neither as swift nor as sharp as
conventional wisdom believes it to be. December 7, 1941 did not represent a sharp break with an
isolationist past. Rather it marked the realization of a policy that had been in the works for some
time. Historians have long known that FDR was ready for the shift in American policy during the
years before the U.S. became directly involved in the Second World War. The
opinion poll data from this time makes clear that large segments of the public – in particular
those citizens who took their cues from FDR – were ready for U.S. involvement as well…”
” … a sub-sector of our President-elect’s supporters, and that literal Nazi sympathizers are among them.”
This time they are more out in the open now, but they’ve been there all along.
https://www.amazon.com/Old-Nazis-Right-Republican-Party/dp/0896084183/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8
&qid=1480895049&sr=1-1&keywords=9780896084186
To me (and I believe most people who aren’t political junkies) this china / Taiwan stuff sounds silly, but all the lefty sites I read say this is terrible. This, I think, gets to the big problem with our politics today. In the past very few people knew or cared about trivia like this. The political class went about fucking up the world and no one cared unless they got people killed (Vietnam, 9/11, Iraq). There just isn’t anything we can do about this stuff and the political class doesn’t care what we think anyway.
Today, though, all this drama gets replayed and run through the hyper partisan media. I don’t care about Taiwan (and booman admitted as much in his comments) but because it’s Trump, we must all pick sides and have a social media food fight.
And then we wonder why people don’t vote. This is nuts and it doesn’t matter in any practical sense. But I will never convince the hyper partisans of that so… have at it.
I said that I don’t live in the region and therefore don’t feel qualified to offer a prediction about the long-term prospects for reunification.
That’s modesty, not an expression that I don’t care about the region or Taiwan or this incident.
Perhaps we should explore the definition of “care” when it comes to stuff half way around the world and people you don’t know and never will.
I care in the most basic sense about human life, but that doesn’t mean I actually care how people live their lives or, as you say, feel qualified to tell them how to live them. I have no meaningful stake in the outcome of events like this and I have no ability to affect it and so I really don’t care what they do.
But now, because of Trump, we must suddenly “care”. It’s silly to me.
Would you not care if the US was dragged into war with China over Taiwan? Based in your previous commentary here I would think so.
This story could wind up mostly inconsequential, much like the dust-up with China at the start of the GWB’s presidency.
But, that’s part of the calculus now when considering the potential implications of Trumpian statecraft and the hawks advising him.
Perhaps I’m being naive, but there is zero,chance of a war with China. Where would we get our iPhones? Where would the us military get parts for its equipment. The very notion of a conflict with china is, to me, absurd.
Using your example implies the US would ‘back down’ if China pushed the envelope of our relationship. ‘We need them more than they need us’.
Eventually I think that is exactly what will happen with Taiwan.
20-30-40 years.
.
I certainly hope we would. What on earth would justify blowing up everyone over Taiwan? This is all wild and irresponsible speculation.
Showing disrespect to the Chinese government has implications which extend well past one phone call between our President-elect and the president of Taiwan. Trump and his advisers made many belligerent statements about China and our relationship with China during the campaign, and Trump and his advisers are continuing in this bellicose manner.
Wars are made inevitable when people act irrationally and belligerently, one small act stacked on another. Our President-elect is acting in this way, on many fronts. It is not “wild speculation” to make this observation. Trump’s acts, and his emotional and rhetorical intemperance, are earning our alarm.
One small act, indeed.
It’s called the security dilemma
.
That’s a good point in the link. We should all practice minding our own business. It is probably not helpful to have the US media endlessly debating this issue and inflaming the situation. We don’t want to give the Chinese any more reason to be upset.
Both Chinese governments are despicable crooks so I hope they have a war. We wouldn’t want that statement to be a common feeling in America.
Sure, I don’t think a war with China is likely. But we should probably avoid bellicose talk and raising diplomatic tensions with a nuclear power. This is not good leadership and even someone who’s not paying close attention should understand that.
Some on the left took it as a given that HRC was going to be more aggressive with Russia and Syria, even to the point of war. Well, we can’t ignore Trump’s signaling anymore now that he’s going to be President.
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
Did China ask us if it was OK to devalue their currency (making it hard for our companies to compete), heavily tax our products going into..
2:23 PM – 4 Dec 2016
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
their country (the U.S. doesn’t tax them) or to build a massive military complex in the middle of the South China Sea? I don’t think so!
2:30 PM – 4 Dec 2016
This is extraordinarily belligerent behavior from the President-elect. Military confrontations happen when one poorly thought out act after another takes place.
Taiwan(?) newspaper discusses the phone call and its connection to US arms sales….http://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/2051508/donald-trumps-phone-call-casts-doub
t-over-future-us
Also mentions the Hong Kong/Singapore incident as being in the mix.