Trump Risks China Rift with Taiwan Call

Financial Times: Donald Trump risks China rift with Taiwan call

First US-Taiwanese presidential contact since diplomatic relations were cut in 1979

https://www.ft.com/content/fd19907e-b8d4-11e6-961e-a1acd97f622d

Related:

nytimes.com: Trump's Breezy Calls to World Leaders leave Diplomats Aghast

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/01/us/politics/trumps-off-the-cuff-remarks-to-world-leaders-leave-diplomats-aghast.html

I hear Trump singing "You say potato, I say patata...

He's thinking what's the big deal China Taiwan Hong Kong who cares, they all make great ties.

Morganna said:

I hear Trump singing "You say potato, I say patata...

He's thinking what's the big deal China Taiwan Hong Kong who cares, they all make great ties.

He needs some new ties anyway, as he is using scotch tape to keep the two pieces together at this point.

Trump apparently believes that it's easy for Xi Jinping to keep tight control over 1.3 billion people and 82 million party members, many of whom are strongly nationalistic and have been aching for any excuse to repatriate Taiwan peacefully or otherwise. If Trump wants to help Taiwan and other Asian nations promote trade and form a counterbalance to China in the region, he may want to read the TPP.

but then there's the chat with the Philippines...

joanne said:

but then there's the chat with the Philippines...

Duterte promised to kill 100,000 "criminals" in his first six months of office.

Oh boo hoo, he's upsetting the ChiCom dictators by talking to the leader of a regional democracy. Whatever will the Chinese do? Build artificial islands? Threaten her neighbors? Harass our naval forces in international waters? All these things she is doing and has been doing.

And it's about all she can do. A trade war? A SHOOTING war? Give me a break.

But oh, we should placate the regional sort of military power and keep buying their cheap plastic garbage because companies like to use their labor.

Time for China's leaders to stop acting like thugs. If they don't like the message, too bad. They have a hell of a lot more to lose in a snit than we do.

dave said:

If Trump wants to help Taiwan and other Asian nations promote trade and form a counterbalance to China in the region, he may want to read the TPP.

Jackson_Fusion said:

Oh boo hoo, he's upsetting the ChiCom dictators by talking to the leader of a regional democracy. Whatever will the Chinese do? Build artificial islands? Threaten her neighbors? Harass our naval forces in international waters? All these things she is doing and has been doing.

And it's about all she can do. A trade war? A SHOOTING war? Give me a break.

But oh, we should placate the regional sort of military power and keep buying their cheap plastic garbage because companies like to use their labor.

Time for China's leaders to stop acting like thugs. If they don't like the message, too bad. They have a hell of a lot more to lose in a snit than we do.

Let's say you're right and that taking a tougher line with China is in the best interest of the United States.

First of all, Donald Trump is not president yet. If he wants to tear up a policy of nearly 40 years, he can do that when he's president rather than leaving the current administration to clean up for his actions.

Second, is this the right way to be more assertive with China? What benefit are we deriving from this conversation? If we're going to make China angry, let's also gain some economic or military advantage.

Finally, let's not pretend that Trump's decision was the result of a long detailed analysis where he weighed the pros and cons of shifting course and looked closely as to why the One China policy has been honored by six presidents, including Ronald Reagan.

On a related note, the next time Trump refers to his admiration for General Patton, a reporter should show him photographs of Patton and three other Caucasian men of roughly the same age during WW2 without any identifying information. I'd be pretty surprised if Trump could pick out General Patton. Like most Americans, when he says George S. Patton, he means George C. Scott.

The notion that China has more to lose than the US does is not really true. China's large population ensures it can continue to grow and sell internally and prices will decrease due to oversupply. US consumers will walk into a Target or Walmart and there will be empty shelves. The cost of finding new sources for products will mean heavy price increases for consumers.

dave said:

The notion that China has more to lose than the US does is not really true. China's large population ensures it can continue to grow and sell internally and prices will decrease due to oversupply. US consumers will walk into a Target or Walmart and there will be empty shelves. The cost of finding new sources for products will mean heavy price increases for consumers.

What would it mean for China to lose the United States as an export market?

What would it mean for the United States to lose China as a source of cheap labor and manufacturing?

Jackson_Fusion said:

Oh boo hoo, he's upsetting the ChiCom dictators by talking to the leader of a regional democracy. Whatever will the Chinese do? Build artificial islands? Threaten her neighbors? Harass our naval forces in international waters? All these things she is doing and has been doing.

If China wanted they can easily destroy our navy in Asia.

https://www.cnas.org/publications/reports/at-what-cost-a-carrier

What will we do then? Use nukes? Because there is no way we can win a conventional war. But China also has nukes. Try winning that war.

However, China is mostly interested in trade. Becoming the economic super power. They're on their way there. The Yuan is now a reserve currency.

China will be happy to supplant us if we drop the TPP. Another step to becoming the economic superpower.

Cheap plastic garbage? You wish. My very reliable high quality cell phone is Chinese manufactured. The Ford Mustang transmission is manufactured in China and Mexico.

Your comments show a lack of world trade and who really benefits. Often its the America consumers who have flocked to products made in China such as Apple's products.

Sure you can have an import tariff. Do you really think China or any other country where we impose a tariff will pay? No. The added cost will be passed to the American consumer when purchasing needed products.

If we want, we can kill trade with Mexico, China, etc. Don't cry then when your store shelves start to show empty.

Jackson_Fusion said:

dave said:

The notion that China has more to lose than the US does is not really true. China's large population ensures it can continue to grow and sell internally and prices will decrease due to oversupply. US consumers will walk into a Target or Walmart and there will be empty shelves. The cost of finding new sources for products will mean heavy price increases for consumers.

What would it mean for China to lose the United States as an export market?

What would it mean for China to stop lending us money to buy their exports?

I think the main issue is that we have a president-elect who is making it a habit of continually talking out of his ***.

Jackson_Fusion said:

Oh boo hoo, he's upsetting the ChiCom dictators by talking to the leader of a regional democracy. Whatever will the Chinese do? Build artificial islands? Threaten her neighbors? Harass our naval forces in international waters? All these things she is doing and has been doing.

And it's about all she can do. A trade war? A SHOOTING war? Give me a break.

But oh, we should placate the regional sort of military power and keep buying their cheap plastic garbage because companies like to use their labor.

Time for China's leaders to stop acting like thugs. If they don't like the message, too bad. They have a hell of a lot more to lose in a snit than we do.

Maybe there won't the upset you desire.

The Republican governor of Iowa, a good friend of Chinese President Xi Jinping, will be the Trump appointed ambassador to China.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/12/07/trump-picks-iowa-gov-terry-branstad-a-friend-of-chinas-leader-as-beijing-ambassador/

Branstad has extensive ties to China and a personal friendship with Chinese President Xi Jinping that dates back decades.

Its money that talks, not cheap talk about Chicom dictators .

While Trump continues turning the US into an unhinged military regime making empty threats, China is filling in the vacuum left by the abandoned TPP.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-11/china-finds-new-fans-in-southeast-asia-as-u-s-turns-inward

Ah yes, the inconvenient truth about trade agreements - we enter into trade agreements because we cannot avoid the rest of the world - not because some elites want to get rich at the expense of blue collar workers. Maybe Trump can ask his buddy Vlad how well it works when a country ignores economic truth.

dave said:

While Trump continues turning the US into an unhinged military regime making empty threats, China is filling in the vacuum left by the abandoned TPP.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-11/china-finds-new-fans-in-southeast-asia-as-u-s-turns-inward

Can't wait for the 35% tax Trump is planning for Chinese imports American consumers. Wonder how he's going to walk that one back?

dave said:

Can't wait for the 35% tax Trump is planning for Chinese imports American consumers. Wonder how he's going to walk that one back?

He won't have to. He'll blame it all on the Chinese or someone else. And they will believe.

Why is that? Because this is what we're dealing with

EL PASO, Texas — Ramon De La Rosa predicts it’ll take President-elect Donald Trump just six months to make America great again.
The 73-year-old is eager to see Trump bring back jobs from places such as
China and stop taxing hard-working Americans to pay for food stamps and
other entitlement programs.

Wonder how that will work out for him when his Soc Sec and Medicare "entitlements" are reduced. But I'm sure he'll blame the Democrats for "bankrupting" those two entitlements.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-the-el-paso-border-trumps-appeal-with-latinos-defies-expectations/2016/12/09/9bc508c6-b01e-11e6-840f-e3ebab6bcdd3_story.html

A couple of days ago Louisiana had its senatorial election. The Republican, Kennedy, said in a TV ad:

“The swamp in Washington, D.C., has to be drained,” he said in a recent TV ad. “I can help. After all, we know a thing or two about swamps in Louisiana.”

Even though over last few weeks its been very obvious that Trump is filling the swamp, not emptying it. Kennedy, a 25 year governmental insider who was endorsed by Trump won 63% of the vote. A mandate. They haven't wised up.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/12/10/louisiana-republican-wins-final-unsettled-u-s-senate-race/

dave said:

While Trump continues turning the US into an unhinged military regime making empty threats, China is filling in the vacuum left by the abandoned TPP.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-11/china-finds-new-fans-in-southeast-asia-as-u-s-turns-inward

BBC China editor take on Trump abandoning TPP.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-38060980

The Chinese government will rejoice to hear Donald Trump promise that the US will quit the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) on his first day in the White House.

For years, Beijing has listened to the Obama administration say the 12-nation
regional trade deal was a way of bolstering American leadership in Asia.

China was not included in the deal, and President Barack Obama
went out of his way to remind the region that this was no accident. TPP
allows America - and not countries like China - to write the rules of
the road in the 21st Century, which is especially important in a region
as dynamic as the Asia-Pacific.

Nor was this ever just about the rules on trade. TPP was a core part of the Obama administration's strategic "pivot to Asia". US Defence Secretary Ash Carter said that alongside boosting US exports, it would strengthen Washington's key relationships in the Asia-Pacific, signal US commitment to the region
and promote American values.
...
America is an Asian power when it wants to be, Beijing will suggest,
while China is the power that never leaves. As Singaporean Prime
Minister Lee Hsien Loong warned bluntly on a visit to Washington in
August, TPP put America's "reputation on the line" with its partners in
the region.
"Each one of them has overcome some domestic political objection,
some sensitivity, some political cost to come to the table and make this
deal," Mr Lee said.

"If at the end, waiting at the altar, the bride doesn't arrive, I think that people are going to be very hurt."

The US running out will cause a serious loss of face in Asia.

If we abandon TPP, kill other trade deals, kill the Paris climate accord and the Iran nuclear deal, who will trust us? No one will want to deal in good faith with a polity that is arbitrary and capricious and that does not keep to its word.

Tillerson is pro-TPP and Trump makes up his mind based on the last person he speaks with, so we'll have to wait and see.

http://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/2053840/chinese-newspaper-slams-ignorant-trump-it-rules-out-one

“The one-China policy is not something that can be negotiated. It seems Trump knows only about business. He thinks he can put a price on everything.

“At that time [after Trump abandons the one-China policy] ... mainland China will put forward a series of decisive new Taiwan policies. We will prove that the United States no longer dominates the Taiwan Strait.”

BG9 said:

Jackson_Fusion said:

dave said:

The notion that China has more to lose than the US does is not really true. China's large population ensures it can continue to grow and sell internally and prices will decrease due to oversupply. US consumers will walk into a Target or Walmart and there will be empty shelves. The cost of finding new sources for products will mean heavy price increases for consumers.

What would it mean for China to lose the United States as an export market?

What would it mean for China to stop lending us money to buy their exports?

This one jumps out of all the hand wringing. You tell me! What happens when you stop buying assets denominated in one currency with your home currency?

Whoops one more

BG9 said:

Jackson_Fusion said:

Oh boo hoo, he's upsetting the ChiCom dictators by talking to the leader of a regional democracy. Whatever will the Chinese do? Build artificial islands? Threaten her neighbors? Harass our naval forces in international waters? All these things she is doing and has been doing.

If China wanted they can easily destroy our navy in Asia.

https://www.cnas.org/publications/reports/at-what-cost-a-carrier


What will we do then? Use nukes? Because there is no way we can win a conventional war. But China also has nukes. Try winning that war.

However, China is mostly interested in trade. Becoming the economic super power. They're on their way there. The Yuan is now a reserve currency.

China will be happy to supplant us if we drop the TPP. Another step to becoming the economic superpower.

Cheap plastic garbage? You wish. My very reliable high quality cell phone is Chinese manufactured. The Ford Mustang transmission is manufactured in China and Mexico.

Your comments show a lack of world trade and who really benefits. Often its the America consumers who have flocked to products made in China such as Apple's products.

Sure you can have an import tariff. Do you really think China or any other country where we impose a tariff will pay? No. The added cost will be passed to the American consumer when purchasing needed products.

If we want, we can kill trade with Mexico, China, etc. Don't cry then when your store shelves start to show empty.

Is this.... Serious? The Chinese navy can "easily" defeat the U.S. Navy?

Did you even read the paper you linked?

Do you think it's air craft carriers keeping China from leaping over the Taiwan Strait?

You said there is "no way" to win a conventional war. Assume you are right and China owns its coastline and claimed economic zone. How is China going to manage its shipping outside of it?

One problem with unsinkable carriers like the Chinese are building- they don't travel well.

And I suppose in a shooting war, the U.S. Treasury is just going to keep making payments on the debt the Chinese hold. Right?

Utterly ridiculous. It wouldn't be a walk over, but the PLA has zero point zero zero zero chance of defeating the U.S. Navy.

Thomas Friedman is that you?

there will be no war with China, thats a lose, lose situation for both countries and the world.

the problem with trade agreements is that they have taken away domestic control over trade and allowed third parties to make financial decisions that affect us individually. agreements where we have no say in what goes on in our backyards regarding environmental disasters.

however the talk of Trump not reading or wanting the daily PDB reports smacks back to our dear GWB not caring that Bin Ladin was determined to strike in the US.

hoops said:

however the talk of Trump not reading or wanting the daily PDB reports smacks back to our dear GWB not caring that Bin Ladin was determined to strike in the US.

Bin Laden you mean? Good ole Billy Jeff was all over that one for 8 years. Too bad GWB squandered all the hard work in 8 months.

Neither are running for anything of course, and WJC officially got his retirement papers a few weeks ago- oft overlooked with the excitement of his wife's surprise retirement party.

Bon voyage, you crazy kids!

There will not be a shooting war- but to be completely clear- China needs the United States much, much, much more than vice versa. Tip toeing around like the opposite is the case is denying reality.

I live is the real world.

Jackson_Fusion said:

BG9 said:

Jackson_Fusion said:

dave said:

The notion that China has more to lose than the US does is not really true. China's large population ensures it can continue to grow and sell internally and prices will decrease due to oversupply. US consumers will walk into a Target or Walmart and there will be empty shelves. The cost of finding new sources for products will mean heavy price increases for consumers.

What would it mean for China to lose the United States as an export market?

What would it mean for China to stop lending us money to buy their exports?

This one jumps out of all the hand wringing. You tell me! What happens when you stop buying assets denominated in one currency with your home currency?







Whoops one more

BG9 said:

Jackson_Fusion said:

Oh boo hoo, he's upsetting the ChiCom dictators by talking to the leader of a regional democracy. Whatever will the Chinese do? Build artificial islands? Threaten her neighbors? Harass our naval forces in international waters? All these things she is doing and has been doing.

If China wanted they can easily destroy our navy in Asia.

https://www.cnas.org/publications/reports/at-what-cost-a-carrier


What will we do then? Use nukes? Because there is no way we can win a conventional war. But China also has nukes. Try winning that war.

However, China is mostly interested in trade. Becoming the economic super power. They're on their way there. The Yuan is now a reserve currency.

China will be happy to supplant us if we drop the TPP. Another step to becoming the economic superpower.

Cheap plastic garbage? You wish. My very reliable high quality cell phone is Chinese manufactured. The Ford Mustang transmission is manufactured in China and Mexico.

Your comments show a lack of world trade and who really benefits. Often its the America consumers who have flocked to products made in China such as Apple's products.

Sure you can have an import tariff. Do you really think China or any other country where we impose a tariff will pay? No. The added cost will be passed to the American consumer when purchasing needed products.

If we want, we can kill trade with Mexico, China, etc. Don't cry then when your store shelves start to show empty.

Is this.... Serious? The Chinese navy can "easily" defeat the U.S. Navy?

Did you even read the paper you linked?

Do you think it's air craft carriers keeping China from leaping over the Taiwan Strait?

You said there is "no way" to win a conventional war. Assume you are right and China owns its coastline and claimed economic zone. How is China going to manage its shipping outside of it?

One problem with unsinkable carriers like the Chinese are building- they don't travel well.

And I suppose in a shooting war, the U.S. Treasury is just going to keep making payments on the debt the Chinese hold. Right?

Utterly ridiculous. It wouldn't be a walk over, but the PLA has zero point zero zero zero chance of defeating the U.S. Navy.

Thomas Friedman is that you?

You haven't understood what you read. In one sentence he did mention the PLA Navy but that's not the brunt of his paper.

Missiles. If you read it their missiles would wreak havoc whereas the planes from the carriers would not have the range to exert necessary force. The graphic from the paper you read but did not understand gives a hint of the issues.

Its economics that's keeping China from reintegrating its wayward province. Taiwan is China's number 4 trading partner. China is interested in economic dominance.

BG9 said:

Jackson_Fusion said:

BG9 said:

Jackson_Fusion said:

dave said:

The notion that China has more to lose than the US does is not really true. China's large population ensures it can continue to grow and sell internally and prices will decrease due to oversupply. US consumers will walk into a Target or Walmart and there will be empty shelves. The cost of finding new sources for products will mean heavy price increases for consumers.

What would it mean for China to lose the United States as an export market?

What would it mean for China to stop lending us money to buy their exports?

This one jumps out of all the hand wringing. You tell me! What happens when you stop buying assets denominated in one currency with your home currency?







Whoops one more

BG9 said:

Jackson_Fusion said:

Oh boo hoo, he's upsetting the ChiCom dictators by talking to the leader of a regional democracy. Whatever will the Chinese do? Build artificial islands? Threaten her neighbors? Harass our naval forces in international waters? All these things she is doing and has been doing.

If China wanted they can easily destroy our navy in Asia.

https://www.cnas.org/publications/reports/at-what-cost-a-carrier


What will we do then? Use nukes? Because there is no way we can win a conventional war. But China also has nukes. Try winning that war.

However, China is mostly interested in trade. Becoming the economic super power. They're on their way there. The Yuan is now a reserve currency.

China will be happy to supplant us if we drop the TPP. Another step to becoming the economic superpower.

Cheap plastic garbage? You wish. My very reliable high quality cell phone is Chinese manufactured. The Ford Mustang transmission is manufactured in China and Mexico.

Your comments show a lack of world trade and who really benefits. Often its the America consumers who have flocked to products made in China such as Apple's products.

Sure you can have an import tariff. Do you really think China or any other country where we impose a tariff will pay? No. The added cost will be passed to the American consumer when purchasing needed products.

If we want, we can kill trade with Mexico, China, etc. Don't cry then when your store shelves start to show empty.

Is this.... Serious? The Chinese navy can "easily" defeat the U.S. Navy?

Did you even read the paper you linked?

Do you think it's air craft carriers keeping China from leaping over the Taiwan Strait?

You said there is "no way" to win a conventional war. Assume you are right and China owns its coastline and claimed economic zone. How is China going to manage its shipping outside of it?

One problem with unsinkable carriers like the Chinese are building- they don't travel well.

And I suppose in a shooting war, the U.S. Treasury is just going to keep making payments on the debt the Chinese hold. Right?

Utterly ridiculous. It wouldn't be a walk over, but the PLA has zero point zero zero zero chance of defeating the U.S. Navy.

Thomas Friedman is that you?

You haven't understood what you read. In one sentence he did mention the PLA Navy but that's not the brunt of his paper.


Missiles. If you read it their missiles would wreak havoc whereas the planes from the carriers would not have the range to exert necessary force. The graphic from the paper you read but did not understand gives a hint of the issues.

Its economics that's keeping China from reintegrating its wayward province. Taiwan is China's number 4 trading partner. China is interested in economic dominance.

It's clear you've just awoken to the asymmetric approach China takes towards US carriers- and not just China. Lots of countries have developed these sorts of capabilities. Remember the excitement about the sunburn 20 years ago? The Exocet during the Falklands war? Different weapons, same goal.

I wonder when they'll make one that can hit submarines? Or perhaps the air bases in the Phillipines? Or Japan?

These super-weapons don't just zip around on the back of a truck waiting to hit stationary targets. They take a tremendous amount of infrastructure and data to do what they are built to do.... And it's not likely they'll be allowed to do so reliably.

China has nearly no ability to project force outside of its immediate back yard. Half the reason China gets so pissed, about the Spratleys in particular, is because they are completely hemmed in. If they ever tried to send an invasion force to their "wayward provinence" as you call it, "functioning liberal democracy" as I call it, they would end up with a bunch of troops bobbing in the Strait. And they know it, which is why this is such an absurd discussion.