Thing to remember is that this stuff is usually at least half for domestic audiences.

US politics is wild, but one of the main themes of conservative media there is Biden supposedly being in China's pocket. Biden's approval ratings are dire and the Democrats are headed to a bad place at the midterms.

If I were in the Taiwanese leadership I would be very wary of this kind of thing, the US can't be relied on and as we've seen with the prolonged conflict in Ukraine, the United States' strategic interests don't always coincide with steadfastly safeguarding the territorial integrity of its allies.

JazzG wrote:
jones wrote:

Taiwan or the Republic of China is not a country acknowledged by the vast majority of countries on earth because of the PRC's One China policy. The US have acknowledged that policy since the days of Nixon and didn't send any relevant representatives to the country (ie start any diplomatic action to be conceived as acknowledging the country) in those 50 years.

Last year the first Taiwanese representative office ever in Europe opened in Lithuania causing massive diplomatic tensions. The same year Biden became president he invited a representative from Taiwan to his election party. And now Pelosi visiting Taipeh which has been countless times been warned against by people in mainland China and plenty of politicians in the US.

China is too powerful economically for them to be expected to invade Taiwan, much more likely they'll curb production in specific economic sectors or find other more nuanced ways than starting a war. But the US clearly now what they're doing, especially at a time like this it's absolutely pathetic how not only are these frauds left to do their kindling unchecked but that European politicians fall head over heel pledging their allegiance and warning China against diplomatic overreaction.

Newt Grinch was speaker of the House and went in the late Nineties to Taiwan so there is precedent of the US sending high ranking officials. Sounds like Biden wasn't too keen on the idea yet this issue has quite strong Bipartisan support with many Democrats and Republicans supporting this.

Why are the US frauds for sending someone? Do China stick to their international obligations and Treaties? Not very good timing though I will agree with that, the last thing the World needs is a conflict there.

Didn't know that Gingrich was there too, fair enough. Still don't see how that excuses the US getting in there, or how "China's international obligations and treaties" - which obligations, towards whom, related to Taiwan and Pelosi's visit there how? - make any difference to the clear provocation towards the PRC at this or any other moment in time.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/01/opinion/nancy-pelosi-taiwan-china.html

Even the NY Times agrees ffs.

Mirth wrote:

Anyway, I don't think there's anything fundamentally wrong with her visit like JazzG said

I'm not saying China will let the visit pass without any retaliation, I'm just saying it would not be a material one for a whole host of reasons.

Mirth wrote:

3) China raise tensions and Taiwan will have to recognise that an invasion at some point is a possibility (Most likely).

Nothing wrong with the visit but there will be retaliation and increased tensions?

Think people would do well to start scrutinising the first step in this instead of falling into the media narrative focussing on China's reaction. Does Pelosi's visit there prevent something bad from happening? Can anything good come out of it? If not, why do we focus on China's possibly bad, possibly disastrous reaction instead of focussing on the arsonist getting involved in the first place?

One bit I don't understand is Mirth's (1): what the region gains by a low key or limited response from China. I don't see how that outcome would affect Taiwan's status or China's longer term strategy.

The argument that the sanctions applied to Russia this year are also intended to signal to China a new kind of consequentialism holds more water. I don't think the US and its allies indulging in symbolic sabre rattling about Taiwan is much more than another kind of rhetoric.

jones wrote:

Didn't know that Gingrich was there too, fair enough. Still don't see how that excuses the US getting in there, or how "China's international obligations and treaties" - which obligations, towards whom, related to Taiwan and Pelosi's visit there how? - make any difference to the clear provocation towards the PRC at this or any other moment in time.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/01/opinion/nancy-pelosi-taiwan-china.html

Even the NY Times agrees ffs.

You mention that the US acknowledge the One China Policy so shouldn't send anyone there. I mean China are just as guilty aren't they? For example China haven't adhered to their international obligations when it came to Hong Kong. I'm not saying that China's brutal treatment of the people of Hong Kong means countries should recognize Taiwan but if you want to act like a dick then expect the same treatment back.

NY Times is an absolute garbage publication these days so I wouldn't give too much thought on their views. The cynic in me thinks both countries will both come out happy with her being there. America can show the world it stands with Taiwan in defiance of China. China will sanction a few companies and conduct military drills and hopefully this will all just calm down in a few weeks. President Xi wants another 5 year term so will need to look tough on this. But will also not want to start a war because unlike the Russia/Putin they are a lot more switched on and will be a lot more smarter and analyse all risks first. Like you mention in another post they'll be exploring other ways to damage Taiwan without resorting to Military action.

I do agree the timing isn't good, I don't think the West is in a good position to defend Taiwan so I'm intrigued to know the reason for her visit. Then again from what I've read China isn't in a good position to invade either.

jones wrote:

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202208/03/WS62e9da7ea310fd2b29e70020.html[quote]
The Chinese mainland will suspend the export of natural sand to Taiwan, starting from Wednesday, according to the Ministry of Commerce.

Wei Jianguo, who is now vice-president of the China Center for International Economic Exchanges, said Taiwan currently consumes around 90 million metric tons of natural sand in a year, among which one third are from the Chinese mainland.

Chinese mainland's suspension of natural sand exports to Taiwan will have an impact on the latter's chip manufacturing industry, according to a former vice-minister of commerce.

jonestradamus has done it again.[/quote]

2020 & 2021 0.64% and 0.75% of their imports have come from China according to https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/4615110 If that is the case, just more sabre rattling from China.

By Thomas Friedman who is one of NYTs main foreign policy writers. Its not like they brought in someone from left field to give them a different perspective.

Good point, glossed over the author

Seeing this the last few days all over German media, the weapon used to kill az-Zawahiri according to news reports. Not sure what's more disturbing, the weapon or how literally everyone including the German government again is congratulating the US talking about "being very happy" the guy got murdered.

As with Taiwan, I swear it's all about the domestic audience and defibrillating Biden's presidency.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202208/03/WS62e9da7ea310fd2b29e70020.html

The Chinese mainland will suspend the export of natural sand to Taiwan, starting from Wednesday, according to the Ministry of Commerce.

Wei Jianguo, who is now vice-president of the China Center for International Economic Exchanges, said Taiwan currently consumes around 90 million metric tons of natural sand in a year, among which one third are from the Chinese mainland.

Chinese mainland's suspension of natural sand exports to Taiwan will have an impact on the latter's chip manufacturing industry, according to a former vice-minister of commerce.

jonestradamus has done it again.

jones wrote:

Seeing this the last few days all over German media, the weapon used to kill az-Zawahiri according to news reports. Not sure what's more disturbing, the weapon or how literally everyone including the German government again is congratulating the US talking about "being very happy" the guy got murdered.

why shouldn't we be happy? it's a more precision weapon that prevents civilian casualties (the biggest problem most people have with drone strikes) and just cuts the people in half who deserve to be cut in half. no explosion or anything.

Because the US is just about the last country on earth I want to decide who deserves to be cut in half.

Also I was talking about "we" as in Germans and their government not your lot.

JazzG wrote:
jones wrote:

Didn't know that Gingrich was there too, fair enough. Still don't see how that excuses the US getting in there, or how "China's international obligations and treaties" - which obligations, towards whom, related to Taiwan and Pelosi's visit there how? - make any difference to the clear provocation towards the PRC at this or any other moment in time.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/01/opinion/nancy-pelosi-taiwan-china.html

Even the NY Times agrees ffs.

You mention that the US acknowledge the One China Policy so shouldn't send anyone there. I mean China are just as guilty aren't they? For example China haven't adhered to their international obligations when it came to Hong Kong. I'm not saying that China's brutal treatment of the people of Hong Kong means countries should recognize Taiwan but if you want to act like a dick then expect the same treatment back.

Literally every single country on earth acts like dicks seven days a week, doesn't mean you see the Prince of Brunei speak to secessionists in Catalonia, the parliament speaker of the DR Congo visit British or French overseas territories etc. What exactly does HK have to do with Taiwan or the US?

NY Times is an absolute garbage publication these days so I wouldn't give too much thought on their views. The cynic in me thinks both countries will both come out happy with her being there. America can show the world it stands with Taiwan in defiance of China. China will sanction a few companies and conduct military drills and hopefully this will all just calm down in a few weeks.

How is that result something that both come out happy with? A policy that the US breaks for the second time in 50 years and you try to somehow twist it into some cynical nefarious plan of China.

I think Burns explained it well enough, it's nothing whatsoever to do with "standing with Taiwan", just cheap domestic chest thumping for the Democrats. Brinkmanship politics at its worst.

2020 & 2021 0.64% and 0.75% of their imports have come from China according to https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/4615110 If that is the case, just more sabre rattling from China.

Fair enough, I assumed the figures would be higher since China is by far Taiwan's biggest trade partner. Not sure I fully believe those figures either tbh, not like they're ever going to announce they're fucked. As for the impact on the already impaired semiconductor industry I think the potential damage shouldn't be underestimated either way, provocational visits like these are always unnecessary during times where global supply chains are falling apart they're infuriating.

If even the Australian foreign policy establishment (albeit under new managers) is primly suggesting that "deescalation" might be desirable after Pelosi's visit, that's probably a sign it was a bit of a dumb, incendiary manoeuvre by the United States.

Like I said above, gestures such as this do nothing to change Taiwan's status or make it safer. Fortunately they probably don't do all that much to make it less safe either …

Sad to hear Gaza being bombed again. Tragic number of civilian and journalist casualties, food inflation crises in the last 6 months but the only thing thats made mainstream news is the collateral assassination of a supposed conspirator. Surely conducting military operations this way goes against all human rights conventions. Pelosi happy to label Russia a terrorist state, visit Taiwan but not dare be consistent with Palistine, Israel.

jones wrote:

Literally every single country on earth acts like dicks seven days a week, doesn't mean you see the Prince of Brunei speak to secessionists in Catalonia, the parliament speaker of the DR Congo visit British or French overseas territories etc. What exactly does HK have to do with Taiwan or the US?

And if the parliament speaker of the DR Congo visit British or French overseas territories you won't see missiles flying over as a response.

You don't have to look that far anyway. Nicola Sturgeon's met with the European Parliament in the past and, obviously, that hasn't gone down well in Westminster but acting like the response is a show of military force is a proportionate response seems odd to me.

I think Burns explained it well enough, it's nothing whatsoever to do with "standing with Taiwan", just cheap domestic chest thumping for the Democrats. Brinkmanship politics at its worst.

The question isn't about whether politicians are self-interested - that goes without saying. All these comments ignore the fact that Taiwan have agency too and what matters is how Taiwan view the relationship and, frankly, they are just as happy with the current dynamic as the Americans. Completely understandable too - in the past couple of years, China's seized territory from India without much comment in the West but its been noted by anyone that lives close to the Chinese border.

The entire dynamic between China, Taiwan and the remaining countries in the South China Sea is far more complicated than who's the victim here and who's the aggressor. It's possible to be both and everyone, including the smaller powers, are playing sides off each other.

Burnwinter wrote:

One bit I don't understand is Mirth's (1): what the region gains by a low key or limited response from China. I don't see how that outcome would affect Taiwan's status or China's longer term strategy.

The region's biggest player is China, not the United States. A lack of reaction would be a huge degree of comfort for most countries in ASEAN and India. However, it wouldn't be a positive outcome for China and therefore some retaliation would be necessary.

Seems like most of the response so far has been empty bluster - which is expected given that China's economy is undergoing a similar slowdown as the US.

Ultimately, I personally don't think there's anything unprecedented or antagonistic about the visit - should have just ignored the whole thing and preventing the Democrats/US from calling it a win.

jones wrote:

How is that result something that both come out happy with? A policy that the US breaks for the second time in 50 years and you try to somehow twist it into some cynical nefarious plan of China.

Yeah that is clearly what I am trying to do you, I don't know why you've got your knickers in such a twist about Pelosi going there? Six U.S. lawmakers went in April as well, were you outraged then as well?

jones wrote:

Fair enough, I assumed the figures would be higher since China is by far Taiwan's biggest trade partner. Not sure I fully believe those figures either tbh, not like they're ever going to announce they're fucked. As for the impact on the already impaired semiconductor industry I think the potential damage shouldn't be underestimated either way, provocational visits like these are always unnecessary during times where global supply chains are falling apart they're infuriating.

Interesting you doubt the figures coming from Taiwan yet initially blindly accepted the Chinese narrative. You might be right though, neither side is going to tell the truth.

Mirth wrote:

The question isn't about whether politicians are self-interested - that goes without saying. All these comments ignore the fact that Taiwan have agency too and what matters is how Taiwan view the relationship and, frankly, they are just as happy with the current dynamic as the Americans. Completely understandable too - in the past couple of years, China's seized territory from India without much comment in the West but its been noted by anyone that lives close to the Chinese border.

The problem is Mirth in the eyes of some, some countries can do no wrong and the Americans/British/EU can do no right. All the current and past super powers are nasty fuckers who will do unspeakable things to consolidate or increase their power.

Good point about China seizing territory from India, the Indian response has been pretty pathetic but that is to be expected from those running that country. More worried about making money and consolidating their own power. The government more interested in waging war against the minority religions and other pointless bullshit than worrying about the real threat on their doorstep.

And you're right the Chinese should have just ignored it as irrelevant, would have made her look like an idiot and made America look weak. Now you got rumours of UK officials visiting soon as well.

Mirth wrote:
jones wrote:

Literally every single country on earth acts like dicks seven days a week, doesn't mean you see the Prince of Brunei speak to secessionists in Catalonia, the parliament speaker of the DR Congo visit British or French overseas territories etc. What exactly does HK have to do with Taiwan or the US?

And if the parliament speaker of the DR Congo visit British or French overseas territories you won't see missiles flying over as a response.

You don't have to look that far anyway. Nicola Sturgeon's met with the European Parliament in the past and, obviously, that hasn't gone down well in Westminster but acting like the response is a show of military force is a proportionate response seems odd to me.

Except no missiles were shot anywhere were they?

As for Scotland and the EU - if it were known Strasbourg and Brussels were considering the UK their "biggest rival" and singled out in official policies as "to be strategically weakened" like Europe and the US are doing to China, then yeah sure compare it to Sturgeon visiting the European Parliament.

The question isn't about whether politicians are self-interested - that goes without saying. All these comments ignore the fact that Taiwan have agency too and what matters is how Taiwan view the relationship and, frankly, they are just as happy with the current dynamic as the Americans. Completely understandable too - in the past couple of years, China's seized territory from India without much comment in the West but its been noted by anyone that lives close to the Chinese border.

The entire dynamic between China, Taiwan and the remaining countries in the South China Sea is far more complicated than who's the victim here and who's the aggressor. It's possible to be both and everyone, including the smaller powers, are playing sides off each other.

I agree the Taiwanese people have agency, and definitely agree that everyone including the smaller nations are trying to play everyone off each other. Unlike JazzG I don't close my eyes before what either side does to suit any narrative, I have no time for anyone playing hegemon anywhere on earth.

However there has to be some weighing up between the evils you see at work in any place. The Sino-Indian border dispute has a long history, it's not like China just decided one day to strike just like India didn't suddenly out of nowhere decide to launch rockets at Pakistan in their border battles. These are all unfortunate developments but they happen in many places on earth, and they always should be diplomatically resolved by the countries immediately involved. If that's not possible there are plenty of diplomatic and legal ways to rule in either side's favour.

I struggle to think of many situations where the involvement of a superpower on the other side of the planet helped solve an issue like this in the last 50 years though. At that point the idea of "Taiwan's agency" becomes a matter for more scrutiny too, it's not like all people on the island are fans of the decision to play the US' unsinkable aircraft carrier or their governments' decisions to buy American weapons like there's no tomorrow. Even if they were it should be condemned either way.

JazzG wrote:

Interesting you doubt the figures coming from Taiwan yet initially blindly accepted the Chinese narrative. You might be right though, neither side is going to tell the truth.

"Interesting" that you agree with my view that both sides are possibly not telling the full truth in instances like these yet had to bring in dig after dig in there, "outraged", "blindly accept" etc. What exactly is that alleged narrative anyway, do you believe China is lying when they say they stopped exporting sand to Taiwan?

The problem is Mirth in the eyes of some, some countries can do no wrong and the Americans/British/EU can do no right. All the current and past super powers are nasty fuckers who will do unspeakable things to consolidate or increase their power.

This is a matter of the US sending high ranking politicians to an island off the Chinese coast, where tensions are running high. How exactly is anyone else except for the US responsible for their own actions?

You right wing clowns are the first to preach individual responsibility yet when someone criticises the US and EU for their blatant violations of diplomacy or international law you're very quick to bitch about people not being even handed in their criticism as if you ever saw any non-Western government pull the stunts the Western hemisphere does on the regular. I've come to despise the term whataboutism because it's been vacated of any meaning in recent years but if this isn't the most glaring case of it in some time.

But sure, it's really all an "agenda" "narrative" and whatever other nonsensical buzzword comes to mind, really this is just "some" pushing their anti-white view while mindlessly excusing everything else the goodies are doing. You're right about one thing, politics isn't some game where you pick sides, everyone everywhere in power will do whatever they can to keep their power and/or increase it no matter how evil it is. You're violently wrong in that everyone is equally "evil".