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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
…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.
