Help me understand US position on Taiwan.

[walkingman]

I'm curious why the US has consistently (I think) said that they would defend Taiwan against any Chinese aggression? They are not part of NATO?

Reading wiki on the history of Taiwan...

It was a colony of the Netherlands for about 40 years in the early to mid-17th century and was subsequently independent again for about two decades. China gained control there in the late 17th century and ruled Taiwan for some two centuries. Japan acquired Taiwan in 1895 following the first Sino-Japanese War, and it became a colony.

Taiwan was returned to Nationalist Chinese control in 1945 following Japan’s defeat in World War II. However, in 1949 Chinese communist armies defeated Nationalist forces on the mainland and established the People’s Republic of China there. The Nationalist government and armies fled to Taiwan, again resulting in the separation of Taiwan from China. In the ensuing years the ROC claimed jurisdiction over the Chinese mainland as well as Taiwan, although in the early 1990s Taiwan’s government dropped this claim to China. The Chinese government in Beijing has maintained that it has jurisdiction over Taiwan and has continued to propound a one-China policy—a position that few countries in the world dispute.

So US supports the one-China policy and yet we seem to always saber-rattle when it comes to Taiwan.

Can someone explain to me why that is so important to us? Lately I seem to hear "the drums of war" with regard to China - not sure why? It's like they have become the latest "evil empire" in terms of geopolitics.

[The Magistrate]

1. That's An Odd Starting Point, Sir

Dutch colonial rule in the 1600s is hardly when the matter commences, if you intend a serious examination of the question....

[walkingman]

2. Are you saying I should go back further? I trying to understand the current US political position.

Is it a continuation of the Red Scare politics of the '50s? A battle against Communism by the US? Forgive my ignorance on the subject.

[Basic LA]

4. That's how I understood it. When Mao defeated...

...Chiang Kai Shek, Taiwan (Formosa) became the anti-communist stronghold that the cold-war west supported. "Who lost China?" then became the West's red-scare accusation of the time. (I could be wrong. )

[The Magistrate]

6. I Suggest, Sir

That China's position in the matter involves relations long pre-dating Dutch arrival. If one is to examine why one party intends something, it is well to look at what other parties involved intend. On neither side is it simply a Cold War atavism, for all the braying one may hear from professional trolls in office.

[walkingman]

10. So is the continuing issue

support for the People's Republic of China (PRC) vs the Republic of China (ROC)? So although we openly support the One-China policy, recognizing the PRC, we draw a red-line when it comes to supporting the ROC?

In layman's terms - why are we willing to threaten China when in comes to Taiwan and look the other way when it comes to trade policies? It seems to be nothing more than political double-talk to me with some dangerous implications. It's not like we don't like wars or conflicts - they seem to be in our DNA.

What am I missing?

[The Magistrate]

13. You seem To Be Missing China, Sir

As an actor in the situation, with its own intentions, and what means it may have to effect them. Why, one might as easily ask, is China threatening Taiwan? Neither government acts in a vacuum.

[underpants]

3. Taiwan is a "yeah but" in our relationship with China

It weakens them and they know it.

Taiwan is the major chip producer. There was a fire in one of their 3 plants in 2020-2021 and the whole production industry ground to a halt.

China never gets Taiwan. Don’t worry about China militarily. They have nowhere to go other than out in the water.

[walkingman]

5. I understand about the chip issue and assume that is driving our efforts

to bring more chip production to the US. I just don't understand our aggressive nature towards China. Is it primarily about assuring economic dominance? Our capital markets seem more than willing for it to manufacture the world’s products even as they push to expand in areas like Tibet and even India.

[underpants]

8. My opinion- Taiwan is the dangle North Korea doesn't have.

NK has howitzers buried the hills easily on track of Seoul. That’s their dangle.

[walkingman]

11. OK - now I'm understanding. It goes right along with our consistent

bipartisan horrific foreign policy. Why would I expect anything else? Another example of our "exceptionalism". We need to defend American interests, but with the Departments of State, Justice, Commerce, the Treasury, and the intelligence services, not those of the Department of Defense.

[roody]

7. War is very profitable.

[taxi]

9. see H.R.2479 - Taiwan Relations Act

Taiwan Relations Act - Declares it to be the policy of the United States to preserve and promote extensive, close, and friendly commercial, cultural, and other relations between the people of the United States and the people on Taiwan, as well as the people on the China mainland and all other people of the Western Pacific area. Declares that peace and stability in the area are in the political, security, and economic interests of the United States, and are matters of international concern. States that the United States decision to establish diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China rests upon the expectation that the future of Taiwan will be determined by peaceful means and that any effort to determine the future of Taiwan by other than peaceful means, including by boycotts or embargoes is considered a threat to the peace and security of the Western Pacific area and of grave concern to the United States. States that the United States shall provide Taiwan with arms of a defensive character and shall maintain the capacity of the United States to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security, or social or economic system, of the people of Taiwan.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/96th-congress/house-bill/2479

[walkingman]

12. Thanks, I didn't know about that. It seems to provide a easy way

to justify our present day actions even 44 years later. Once we make a commitment it seems to never change regardless of the circumstances, kind of like the Patriot Act of 2001.

[taxi]

14. Yup

Some programs grow like beanstalks.

[Tomconroy]

15. Any interest in defending a democracy and the right of self determination?

[AZSkiffyGeek]

16. Apparently not...

[walkingman]

17. I believe we should defend democracy, including our own, but I am not

in favor of war unless there is no alternative. I especially do not like unnecessary provocation ever. There are no winners in war.....ever. I truly am interested in understanding our "strange" relationship with China when it comes to Taiwan but I think I am getting a little clearer understanding of the historical perspective. Honestly, I do not trust US foreign policy based upon our actions in the last half century.

[The Magistrate]

19. What Is Your View Of Chinese Policy Over That Period, Sir?

Even over, say, just the last half-century or so?

[walkingman]

20. I know very little about China policy. Born 1950, my first recollection of anything

China related was the Nixon visit in the early 70's which was I think the first official one in a long time. After reading an earlier post about the Taiwan Relations Act in '79 under Carter and the One China Policy that seems to start kind of a strange relationship to me. Then under Reagan seems to continue the mostly the same policy but to also sell weapons to them and of course Tiananmen Square. Then I think in the late 90s maybe early 2000 they began to manufacture almost everything in most of our stores.

Then after that I know very little. It seems we were so occupied by the Iraq/Afghanistan wars I didn't pay much attention to China.

I guess my opinions are mostly based on US foreign policy. Which I think is terrible for most of my adult life. We seem to go from welcoming globalization and then hating it. Then pushing for Nationalism as a political ploy to the point we alienated our allies. But through it all we always seem to find a bad guy to blame for what I think is mostly just bad foreign policy in one form or another.

After the end of the Cold War with Russia we seemed to push for an even larger military budget (versus a Peace dividend) which just gets larger and larger every year. I guess when you have a huge loss in manufacturing it has to be made up in one way or another and our military spending seems to have filled the void.

The reason I asked about Taiwan is because I suspect we are actively looking for another proxy war in some form or another - even beyond Ukraine and Taiwan seems a likely candidate. Like I said earlier - it seems to be in our DNA.

[The Magistrate]

21. Unfortunately, Sir, You Close On A Quite Sour Note

No one is looking for 'another' proxy war, and if your view of Russia invading Ukraine is that this is a 'proxy war' cooked up by war-mongers in Washington, then I might as well be talking to some shrill Congressional creature shrieking Biden is in the hip pocket of the CCP.

It seems to surprise many, but the United States is not the sole actor on the world stage. Other countries do act on their own hook. You seem to have gotten this far in critiquing US policy in the region without doing much to inform yourself on matters Chinese, and evidently have neglected to inquire into desires of the Taiwanese population and government.

Do you suppose the people of Taiwan have any particular desire to be ruled by the government current in Peking? Or do you imagine 'reunion' with the mainland is ardently desired by Taiwan's populace, and thwarted by US policy?

There is no real conundrum in US policy over the period. It was a staple of political thought for some time that close trade relations led to peaceful coexistence, and that increasing prosperity fostered growth of democracy. The Peking government was content to leave the status quo regarding Taiwan in place because it was a sort of 'goods laundering' facility. Chinese ventures, with some nominal participation by Taiwanese businessmen, could bill themselves as a Taiwanese concern, even though virtually all the business actually was conducted in China. Everyone knew the game, everyone had a good reason to look the other way.

China has no need of the service now, and Peking's government is free to return to the one thing all elements of China's politics are agreed on, or at least agreeable to: the elimination of any vestige of the 'unequal treaties' imposed on China during the waning days of Imperial rule, by which Western powers, with Japan as a junior partner, secured great privileges in China, and tracts of Chinese territory, for themselves. Just shy of a hundred years ago, Chiang Kai-shek, already at war with China's Communist Party, was roundly denounced as a Red revolutionary in Western capitols, because he declared his aim was ending these territorial and jurisdictional privileges. Mussolini got a leg up in the China arms market under Chiang in the thirties, because il Duce agreed to forego indemnities imposed in punishment for the Boxer Rebellion in 1900. In the Chinese view, the 'independence' of Taiwan is about the last trace remaining of the exactions and humiliations imposed in previous centuries by 'sea barbarians'.

[walkingman]

22. You seem very knowledgeable about the present situation - a few questions.

And please do not be offended because of my lack of knowledge or because I do not like US foreign Policy in general.

Do you see a contradiction between the One-China Policy of 1972 and the TRA?

Should the US be willing to put troops on the ground in defense of Taiwan?

Is Taiwan important to the US because we few it as defending democratic values vs the evil Communist China? Or is it defending as a trading partner? Or both?

To, I guess, once again end on a sour note....

I view Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan as unnecessary and not only very costly in terms of casualties but also bad foreign policy. I don't know much about Korea except that 70 years later we still have a huge military presence in the Korean Peninsula, but Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan were all wrong in my opinion.

[The Magistrate]

23. In Reply, Sir

On Korea and Afghanistan I disagree, the other two I consider unmitigated disasters, that of Iraq compounded because the shift of effort to Iraq from Afghanistan ended any chance of capitalizing on initial successes there. Korea is complicated, there is a lot of background, and atrocity was general once the invasion commenced. It can be necessary to do something without how it was done being necessary.

I see no contradiction between the policies diplomacy and economic interests are required to acknowledge. Personally I have no regard for strict form in such matters: relations between states are lawless anarchy, they can be couched as anyone pleases. Who is securely in power, who is making how much money and where, and how the military balance settles in advance of violence, this is all anyone need pay heed to.

I am agnostic on the subject of open US military involvement should China invade Taiwan. I feel no particular need to have a view on this, as I do not see such an invasion being practical for China, now and for the foreseeable future. It is certainly US policy at present to suggest Chinese military action against Taiwan will meet a strong response. A constellation of smaller near-by countries have their own reasons to dislike China expanding its influence to the east and south, and some of them are very much our friends and allies. That China aims to regain control of Taiwan does not mean it considers military action the sole, or even the best way to achieve this. The Peking government does not particularly want to accept that a political conquest is not achievable, and considers military posturing to display what might happen if it does finally decide that to be an essential element of its political program.

[walkingman]

24. I hope you are right on US military involvement but I don't trust our "leaders"

to make decisions based upon what is in US interests. I say that simply based on our past history. And I certainly do not trust Congress to have the courage to take a stand one way or the other which leaves us in a situation where we are venerable to a small group of decision makers.

This foreign policy posturing towards China seems to be a common method of justifying further increases in military spending which is, in my opinion, contradictory to the significant domestic problems that the American people face these days. We seem to have no problem when it comes to spending it just comes down to spending priorities.

Enjoyed the conversation and I learned a lot from everyone's input. It seems that our foreign policy might be based completely on political party - support of Ukraine as an example.

[The Magistrate]

25. A Pleasure Making Your Acquaintance

I expect we agree on many points, spending priorities in particular.

[soryang]

18. It's the old gunboat diplomacy

The Indo-Pacific Command wants Taiwan back inside the US western Pacific defense perimeter as part of the Indo-Pacific strategy. Japan also believes that an "independent" Taiwan is essential to its national security. Taiwan is the keystone in the first island chain strategy to block Chinese naval access to the Pacific.