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.
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.
making it easier to cut ties with Taiwan down the road.
It’s a smart strategic decision to not be caught without chips in the event of a war between Taiwan and China.
Yes, which amounts to the same thing. Such a war will only happen if the China believes the US won’t defend Taiwan.
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.
Chinese military is mostly defensive, they might take a few regional territories they consider to be a part of China, like Tibet and Taiwan, but they don’t have much interest in using their military to invade a country like Japan. That said, no one is going to defeat the Chinese in a ground invasion of China, they are pretty fucking tough.
Princess Bride joke about a ground war in Asia stands. LOL
Seriously though, we want to deter China, not invade them. NOBODY wants to invade China. What a fuck hell that would be, and so pointless. Plus right now China is failing badly, with respect to their country’s internal issues. I suspect that’s a big part of why Xi is beating the war drum so hard, in order to distract from domestic catastrophes.
But their military is still in very bad shape, the military purge Xi just did recently is because of all the grafting and corruption and how screwed most of their systems are. They have the tech they’ve stolen from the US, but that doesn’t translate to the ability to manufacture it reliably, manage logistics of a military, etc. They are learning though, and that’s what I mean about giving them time.
Right now their three air craft carriers are literally a bad joke. They’re dammed near useless, and they have scandals with their missile systems and the missiles, and so on across the board. BUT this will get better over the years. I’d rather skirmishes and standing fast on right of navigation, and dismantling of the military islands they’ve created, along with Taiwan independence now—instead of once they have REAL air craft, and missiles they can rely on, and refined equipment designs that fix the subtle flaws that have a huge impact when deployed for real.
I don’t think we’re in any serious disagreement here. Avoiding an invasion of China is a MUST. But pushing for what the world needs, freedom of navigation, Taiwan, and dismantling the illegal military islands… that’s best done now. Where worst case scenario has a far smaller impact on our forces. And if it weakens Xi, then that’d be great. He’s a terrible dictator and I wouldn’t cry if he was gone.
How do you compare this to Ukraine?
You don’t? Ukraine is its own individual recognized country, being invaded by a completely different neighboring country. That just isn’t what’s happening in Taiwan.
That was my point. Ukraine has been recognized worldwide as being its own country for quite some time now. So I don’t understand how the person I replied to said they compare what is happening with Taiwan, which is not universally recognized to be its own country, with what Russia is doing.
Edit: unless I misread what they said… if they were meaning that Taiwan is a complicated situation when compared with what what is going on in Ukraine.
Yeah I think you misread it, they are specifically saying you CAN’T compare because Taiwan is such a complex issue
Ukraine was very black and white compared to it
Yep, makes a lot more sense.
Ukraine has been recognized as its own country since 1991.
By acknowledging that Ukraine voted for independence from the Soviet Union in the 1990s before Russia did the same. Russia is trying to act like they are the Soviet Union and never recognized Ukrainian independence as opposed to another breakaway state.
Taiwan is the remaining territory of the republic of China, a government that lost the entirety of mainland China in a civil war that neither side claims is over and has just been in a stalemate for most of a century. The koreas are a better comparison than Ukraine.
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.”
Somehow, I imagine that would still get you in trouble.
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.
deleted by creator
…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!
USA policy for decades, at least publicly, has been to neither support nor oppose a particular final status for Taiwan, but to support such status being worked out through peaceful non-coercive negotiations between the two sides.
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?
“We arent ready to sever ties with China, so we will tow the line and kowtow for the meantime”
Or he backs a Taiwan taking back control of mainland China.
I think supporting the One China policy makes pretty clear where he stands and it ain’t with Taiwan.
Taiwan is politically complicated. Taiwan has to play a balancing act where China believes that will Taiwan will willingly rejoin the mainland, while still acting as ‘the true China’. If mainland China believes that it will eventually be resolved diplomatically, they won’t resort to violence. This is complicated with the election of the anti-Chinese president in Taiwan who will push harder against China, upsetting that balance. My guess is that his statements are done to ease Chinese concerns, and/or signal to Taiwan to not antagonize the Chinese.
The US officially supports One China, the US doesn’t have an official statement on who we want to be in charge of that One China. The whole thing is a wink-and-nod sort of operation. Sure, we support the reintegration of Chinese culture and territory. Do we support that existing under Jinping? Ehhhhhhhh. America would be just as happy, or happier, were the Taiwanese government to gain control of greater China. But since we aren’t trying to start a shooting war with greater China, we keep that part quiet.
The Chinese government knows damn well we don’t like them much. We also know they don’t like us much. But we’re economically interdependent and neither of us wants to rattle sabers at the other until our hand is forced. That’s why the situation is full of doublespeak and missing information. It’s intentionally vague so that a non-inflammatory statement can be given without backing oneself into a corner.
That’s okay, the US doesn’t support Biden. He’s literally only the president because he’s the least smelly piece of shit. Fascism was an even worse smelling pile of crap.
The US population, in general, has no legal and peaceful way to elect a leader that represents them. There is just the false choice of less-fascist capitalist party vs racist, extremely fascist capitalist party.
Shut up donkey.
Okay then, Mr Tankie McRussianbot, let’s all hear what fucking genuis solution you have that no one has thought of in the last thousands of years since the development of human civilisation that you believe is superior and allows everyone’s voice to be heard.
Proportional representation, like virtually ALL new democracies. Nobody uses our broken and flawed two party system. It was cool and neat when democracy was newer and novel, but it’s super outdated.
I’m sorry you want to bluster about how uneducated you are on the subject. It’s pretty cringe. That you resort to name calling just backs up and reinforces the angry, uneducated, cringe look.
I hope you feel better, touch some grass, and learn that better methods of managing a democratic republic are available and have been developed. I’ll even start you off with some low effort reading:
See you fucked up there, you could’ve been way more condescending by linking to the simple Wikipedia
Since I’m helping out today, I’ll bite.
They would have more success opening a conversation with someone if they forgo the insults:
Okay then, Mr Tankie McRussianbot, let’s all hear what fucking genuis solution…
Instead I suggest they try something like “I am not very familiar with alternatives to our two party system, what would you suggest instead?”
I’m not their friend, I have no desire to be their friend, and honestly I was being restrained in my response b/c they were being such an asshole. But I figure it’s usually worth a try to respond with the information on the off chance they’ll read and change.
If their feelings got hurt by the response to the angry, aggressive, insulting comment, then I’m not particularly bothered or interested.
Hopefully, this helps them have better interactions with others in the future.
Looks like you’re really dumb and were replying to someone else completely. However, I appreciate your links and will educate myself on the topic by reading the stuff you provided; thank you.
I hope you feel better, touch some grass, and learn that better methods of managing a conversation are available and have been developed. I’ll even start you off with some low effort reading:
“I’m gonna vote for Jill Stein!”
Parliamentary systems with weaker heads of state tend to at very least allow a broader spread of parties and ideas to be represented.
Ranked choice voting
