this post was submitted on 13 Jan 2024
129 points (86.4% liked)

politics

18651 readers
4251 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 201 points 7 months ago (8 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 29 points 7 months ago (4 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 7 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] [email protected] 57 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 30 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago

"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.

[–] [email protected] 53 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 7 months ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 7 months ago (7 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 38 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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.”

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 20 points 7 months ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 7 months ago (3 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

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...?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (3 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Last I heard Puerto Ricans largely supported statehood, not independence.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

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

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago

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

[–] [email protected] 7 points 7 months ago

Putting international pressure on Taiwan to declare independence is not openly supporting them.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 7 months ago

Because you only get one message. There's no way to speak only to one group of people.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago

Because it’s completely fucking obvious and no president need say it.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 months ago

...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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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!

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago

Not the Onion?

load more comments
view more: next ›