Of course, there's the argument that the TPP, as a passion project of Pres. Obama, is a political realignment of Asia against Chinese influence disguised as a trade deal--if so, that's literally the worst thing you could disguise it as in the United States, or at least that's how it looks.
I am firmly of this belief, except that it wasn't a disguise. It was a first step. My analysis is this: there are 12 countries in TPP, which means there are 11 countries other than the US. Many of those countries already have FTAs with the US (Canada, Mexico, Australia, Peru, Chile), while New Zealand has been in FTA negotiations with the US for years now. So for those countries, TPP is really just a renewal and normalization of those existing FTAs. The other "new" countries in TPP are Japan, Singapore, Malaysia, Vietnam, and Brunei. Other than Japan, none of those are particularly impressive economies, and their combined population is about 2/3s of the US population. (Also Japan already has extensive trade ties with the US already, see your Sony televisions and Nintendo Wii Us and Toyota Priuses.)
So, what exactly makes the US look at a free trade agreement originating between Brunei, Chile, and Singapore and say, "Boy, we better get in on that!"? Well. Of those new countries I listed, all of them are on coastal bodies of water adjoining China, and, in particular, 3 of them are on the South China Sea, where the US has no established military presence nor proxy ally. That's the objective I think: TPP is the beginnings of a counter-China blockade ringing the North, East, and South China Seas, with the end goal being US military bases in each of those regions to deter Chinese expansionism. The win-win is that China's neighbours are defended from Chinese ambitions, and the US cements its continued influence in East Asia, as well as producing a ready excuse for why US naval forces might be in the region (which is something that Chinese diplomats complain about constantly).
It's not a disguise any more than is typical in foreign diplomacy. You don't just announce that you're forming a military alliance against China, who wants in?! You slowly draw nations into your sphere of influence and progress your relationships up slowly from trade partners to cooperating nations to mutual defense pacts to outright alliance, and hope the Chinese don't notice (or at least are not given anything actionable, because the Chinese have most certainly noticed and would be quite relieved if TPP was cancelled, since it'd give them a continued free hand in East/Southeast Asia, especially with Duterte realigning the Philippines).
That sounds entirely plausible. I would actually still call that a "disguise", if not a particularly elaborate (?) one--maybe I'm just overestimating the implication of the word "disguise" (I think I heard it in one of the election threads and invariably call it that now). All foreign policy is conducted in disguises of sorts, I suppose. Whatever it was, there's very clear reasons why it was rejected by both candidates consistently seen as very friendly towards trade pacts, which was the point of the post--but for that same reason, maybe it won't go the way of the League of Nations after all.
I am, of course, fundamentally opposed to an American military presence in Taiwan for reasons I could go into for pages, primarily pertaining to Taiwan's own international security and cross-strait relations (there's a boring historical argument to be had as well). I'm pretty sure it's not a popular notion from an American perspective, and I'm extremely confident that it's an incredibly controversial and unpopular outcome for Taiwanese. But naturally Taiwan's situation is highly unique in East Asia and not applicable to the states that already have a United States military presence, ours having ended in 1979.
That sounds entirely plausible. I would actually still call that a "disguise", if not a particularly elaborate (?) one--maybe I'm just overestimating the implication of the word "disguise" (I think I heard it in one of the election threads and invariably call it that now). All foreign policy is conducted in disguises of sorts, I suppose. Whatever it was, there's very clear reasons why it was rejected by both candidates consistently seen as very friendly towards trade pacts, which was the point of the post--but for that same reason, maybe it won't go the way of the League of Nations after all.
I am, of course, fundamentally opposed to an American military presence in Taiwan for reasons I could go into for pages, primarily pertaining to Taiwan's own international security and cross-strait relations (there's a boring historical argument to be had as well). I'm pretty sure it's not a popular notion from an American perspective, and I'm extremely confident that it's an incredibly controversial and unpopular outcome for Taiwanese. But naturally Taiwan's situation is highly unique in East Asia and not applicable to the states that already have a United States military presence, ours having ended in 1979.
Well, my position on TPP as a Canadian is, "We sign it, or we're screwed." Either we're completely fucking screwed, when US business relocates out of Canada to other countries, or TPP effectively overwrites NAFTA anyways (since Mexico's in both), and then we have to abide by TPP provisions embedded in NAFTA except we didn't have any say in how those provisions were written. So there's really no choice as long as the US and Mexico are committed to TPP. But from the American perspective TPP hardly seems to be an economic priority.
In any event, I wouldn't consider it a disguise, because it's not like there's text buried in the TPP about US military bases in Singapore, which I'd bet would be where they'd be located first, due to Singapore's history as a British naval base, strategic position, and commercial ports. It's just... you know, like in Europa Universalis, you gotta get your relationship score higher before they'll sign an alliance with you, so you've first got to Improve Relations, then Sign Trade Deal, then Open Borders, and then Military Alliance! (I can't remember if trade deals are actually in EU....)
That sounds entirely plausible. I would actually still call that a "disguise", if not a particularly elaborate (?) one--maybe I'm just overestimating the implication of the word "disguise" (I think I heard it in one of the election threads and invariably call it that now). All foreign policy is conducted in disguises of sorts, I suppose. Whatever it was, there's very clear reasons why it was rejected by both candidates consistently seen as very friendly towards trade pacts, which was the point of the post--but for that same reason, maybe it won't go the way of the League of Nations after all.
I am, of course, fundamentally opposed to an American military presence in Taiwan for reasons I could go into for pages, primarily pertaining to Taiwan's own international security and cross-strait relations (there's a boring historical argument to be had as well). I'm pretty sure it's not a popular notion from an American perspective, and I'm extremely confident that it's an incredibly controversial and unpopular outcome for Taiwanese. But naturally Taiwan's situation is highly unique in East Asia and not applicable to the states that already have a United States military presence, ours having ended in 1979.
Well, my position on TPP as a Canadian is, "We sign it, or we're screwed." Either we're completely fucking screwed, when US business relocates out of Canada to other countries, or TPP effectively overwrites NAFTA anyways (since Mexico's in both), and then we have to abide by TPP provisions embedded in NAFTA except we didn't have any say in how those provisions were written. So there's really no choice as long as the US and Mexico are committed to TPP. But from the American perspective TPP hardly seems to be an economic priority.
In any event, I wouldn't consider it a disguise, because it's not like there's text buried in the TPP about US military bases in Singapore, which I'd bet would be where they'd be located first, due to Singapore's history as a British naval base, strategic position, and commercial ports. It's just... you know, like in Europa Universalis, you gotta get your relationship score higher before they'll sign an alliance with you, so you've first got to Improve Relations, then Sign Trade Deal, then Open Borders, and then Military Alliance! (I can't remember if trade deals are actually in EU....)
As I've said previously, in Taiwan, the TPP is welcome for its practical and economic benefits, much more than its potential political and military ones, disguised and undisguised. In simplest terms, the military benefits you've described, while sensible to the other countries (okay, not Chile) would actually serve to seriously endanger Taiwan, potentially worse than our own doing during the Chen government. Taiwanese security, including the American part of the equation, walks a very delicate line that the such a bloc would completely ignore. Then again, I'm comfortable with the harsh reality that what is in Taiwan's long-term security interests are not in those of our neighbors at times.
The Partnership (I keep calling it Pact, not sure why) is a big picture thing certainly, whereas Taiwan is arguably a small picture matter. Even its economic benefits aren't revolutionary for Taiwan, but highly evolutionary--had we secured membership into the AIIB's first round, we'd still have our ongoing concerns with China (any Chinese Taipei membership in the bank would've been predicated on those), we might not need the TPP at all, and without it, the Tsai government still has to have trade on the brain, at least as much as the Ma government did. TPP of course does nothing to help our isolation from other international organizations, which is fine, that's not the point of it after all.
0
TraceGNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam WeRegistered Userregular
edited November 2016
not exactly east asia but
Millions of residents in China's northwestern Xinjiang region have been ordered to surrender their passports to local police, in a move rights groups say is an attack on personal freedom.
The order came from the Shihezi Public Security Bureau Immigration Office in Xinjiang on October 19, which said that passports would be held by police after an "annual check."
If China is at all competent, and I think they are, hopefully they'll realize that all they have to do is offer to let Trump build a primo Beijing hotel for him to abandon all his tough guy talk.
It's sad when my primary hope for world stability is that Trump is so blatantly stupid and ignorant that it should be obvious none of the shit he does is actually part of a policy, he just doesn't know any better.
Kana on
A trap is for fish: when you've got the fish, you can forget the trap. A snare is for rabbits: when you've got the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words are for meaning: when you've got the meaning, you can forget the words.
To be fair, it's billions of dollars of increasingly mediocre equipment that leads to a lot of people calling for a domestic arms industry, apparently.
Also, the government in Taipei prefers Republicans to Democrats, they have since 1979. Though of course Donald Trump could change it.
Synthesis on
0
simonwolfi can feel a differencetoday, a differenceRegistered Userregular
Honestly I should brush up on a lot more of the historical nuances in US-Sino foreign relations. Anyone know of a good text for it aimed at an academic level?
To be fair, it's billions of dollars of increasingly mediocre equipment that leads to a lot of people calling for a domestic arms industry, apparently.
Also, the government in Taipei prefers Republicans to Democrats, they have since 1979. Though of course Donald Trump could change it.
Maybe under Trump we'll start selling the good stuff.
In all honesty, I'd love to know what happened in the room with this call. You know this call comes in every four years for every President-elect. Where was the National Security Adviser-to-be or the Chief of Staff-to-be or the Secretary of State-to-be not stopping this call?
In all honesty, I'd love to know what happened in the room with this call. You know this call comes in every four years for every President-elect. Where was the National Security Adviser-to-be or the Chief of Staff-to-be or the Secretary of State-to-be not stopping this call?
Given what the news has said, I would bet how it actually happened is Trump called the Taiwanese President from his cellphone while being chauffeured to work or something.
To be fair, it's billions of dollars of increasingly mediocre equipment that leads to a lot of people calling for a domestic arms industry, apparently.
Also, the government in Taipei prefers Republicans to Democrats, they have since 1979. Though of course Donald Trump could change it.
Maybe under Trump we'll start selling the good stuff.
I wonder if Trump will cause another Russo-Sino split. If he keeps pissing them off like this then they can't be happy at Russia for trying to get him elected.
So, catching the occasional chatter from the old country (and reading the Taipei Times and whatnot), I've speculated how this happened, and guessed it played out like this: someone in the president's office, perhaps Pres. Tsai herself, gave the order to call America. This is not new, it's the same way Pres. Tsai or Pres. Ma would've spoken to other American officials. Of course, there have been previous attempts to speak with American presidents and president-elects directly (rather than a proxy of the ROC's president), which have--at least officially--ended in failure (rejection), though Taipei doesn't advertise them naturally. The difference this this time, someone in Donald Trump's staff actually bridged the gap, somehow--for whatever unpredictable reason, the president-elect agreed to talk. Viola, ~40 year streak of noncommunication between heads of states ended.
Does that make any sense? Maybe not.
Of course, the response to this in Taiwan, at the present is "A welcomed if somewhat worrying surprise." The same could be said if the United States suddenly announced an unplanned arms deal. The same could even be said if this had happened six months ago when Tsai Ing-wen first took office, if Pres. Obama had taken one of her calls--the key difference being Barrack Obama's status upcoming departure from office, versus the upcoming (and unpredictable) tenure of Donald Trump. If Pres. Obama had taken the call (there's a decent chance that Tsai's office probably at least tried, knowing that it wouldn't work), I suspect we'd take those caveats and be celebrating Pres. Obama's "bravely standing up against Chinese bullying" and actually treating a foreign head of state like the leader she is, regardless of Beijing's party line. Instead, we're all mildly panicked what Donald Trump would break forty years of nice, safe practice and piss off Beijing.
Arguably, both are valid responses for either leader. If outgoing Pres. Obama had taken the call versus incoming Pres-elect Tsai, the response in Taiwan would basically be the same: a very welcome surprise followed by worried uncertainty. Maybe Tsai Ing-wen's office shouldn't have done this in the first place.
I wonder if Trump will cause another Russo-Sino split. If he keeps pissing them off like this then they can't be happy at Russia for trying to get him elected.
If he did, would we be happy or unhappy? Hmmm. In any case, there's Russian economic dependence on China (and also CSTO cooperation with China's Shanghai Cooperative Organization) to consider. Russo-Chines ties are as deep as Soviet-Chinese ties were before the split, though the balance of power is very different.
Of course, Russia has an excellent relationship with another country China has less-than-great relations with: the Republic of India.
Maybe Tsai Ing-wen's office shouldn't have done this in the first place.
I suspect that the call is always made and always rejected, as a diplomatic courtesy. We'll pretend we're a real country; you'll pretend we're not a real country; we'll meet somewhere in the middle.
I wonder if Trump will cause another Russo-Sino split. If he keeps pissing them off like this then they can't be happy at Russia for trying to get him elected.
Trump can't really cause something that already exists. They're not out-and-out on the outs right now, but China and Russia are not friends right now. They're both keenly aware that they're battling for influence in central and south Asia. China extracted a fair bit of blood in their oil deal with Russia, when OPEC and the EU had Russia over a barrel. Maybe Trump exacerbates or accelerates the split, but I'm pretty sure the split is coming regardless, and may result more from a general US decline/withdrawal led by Trump rather than Trump the man himself.
I wonder if Trump will cause another Russo-Sino split. If he keeps pissing them off like this then they can't be happy at Russia for trying to get him elected.
Trump can't really cause something that already exists. They're not out-and-out on the outs right now, but China and Russia are not friends right now. They're both keenly aware that they're battling for influence in central and south Asia. China extracted a fair bit of blood in their oil deal with Russia, when OPEC and the EU had Russia over a barrel. Maybe Trump exacerbates or accelerates the split, but I'm pretty sure the split is coming regardless, and may result more from a general US decline/withdrawal led by Trump rather than Trump the man himself.
It's made even more obscure by the fact that relations between Beijing and Moscow are much more stable than where they were--largely because relations in the 1990s were a literal trainwreck.
Last I heard Trump has taken no briefs from the State Department. And has stopped taking his intel briefs.
From the same reporters and outlets that put his chances at winning at less than 2%, and continuously fell into every single trap he placed for them for over a year and continue to do so?
Last I heard Trump has taken no briefs from the State Department. And has stopped taking his intel briefs.
From the same reporters and outlets that put his chances at winning at less than 2%, and continuously fell into every single trap he placed for them for over a year and continue to do so?
This ... is not a coherent argument at all. The ability of people to predict a future outcome is not related to their ability to report on what sources tell them.
Taiwanese domestic response to THE CALL has comfortably entered "overwhelmingly positive" territory, since the Chinese public response is largely as anticipated ("This isn't even the most irritated Beijing has been at Taipei this month"). A example of direct line of contact, no matter how brief, has been the goal for decades now, after all. If it had been Pres. Bush or Pres. Obama, it'd be extensively lauded too.
Stanley Kao, our de facto ambassador to the United States (though in reality he mostly just exists in a pool of other strangely-labeled representatives to American organizations), praised it major breakthrough--probably a direct reference to the generally disappointing last eight years or so (remember, despite being about as popular as ringworm internationally, the Bush government was seen as much more productive to US-Taiwanese relations than the Obama government, but that has a lot to do with Chen Shui-bian's "style of leadership"). Now of course the news is swirling with (rather unlikely) rumors of a meeting, in the style of the meeting with the Japanese PM, which the President's Office has dismissed.
Last I heard Trump has taken no briefs from the State Department. And has stopped taking his intel briefs.
From the same reporters and outlets that put his chances at winning at less than 2%, and continuously fell into every single trap he placed for them for over a year and continue to do so?
This is not a good argument in sense of the word. Polling numbers and predictions based on algorithms are not news reporting from sources with in the State department.
Pence is receiving the briefings. But Trump has not. One thing is not like the other.
Last I heard Trump has taken no briefs from the State Department. And has stopped taking his intel briefs.
From the same reporters and outlets that put his chances at winning at less than 2%, and continuously fell into every single trap he placed for them for over a year and continue to do so?
This is not a good argument in sense of the word. Polling numbers and predictions based on algorithms are not news reporting from sources with in the State department.
Pence is receiving the briefings. But Trump has not. One thing is not like the other.
So Pence took the deal to be the defacto president while Trump totally does not manage his businesses in a way to make a bunch of money? Not sure if that is good or bad news.
Just means that more of these screw ups are on the way for all international relations I guess. Uncle Sam is drunk, just hope he just spouts a bunch of racist things rather then grabbing for his gun.
Void Slayer on
He's a shy overambitious dog-catcher on the wrong side of the law. She's an orphaned psychic mercenary with the power to bend men's minds. They fight crime!
0
MayabirdPecking at the keyboardRegistered Userregular
The interesting story I saw on the Korea Times was the council and mayor of Daegu (her home town and conservative bastion), apologizing for supporting her election, and essentially saying that they will need to be more considered and progressive in their future endorsements.
I mean, Korea is still a very conservative country, but I can see it as an opportunity for some more progressive elements to come to the fore.
How was the ferry inicident related to President Park?
She was President at the time but when it went down no one seemed to know where she was and she basically didn't so anything it even appear in public for like 7 hours or something and without any explanation.
More or less a huge national tragedy occurred and she was AWOL.
How was the ferry inicident related to President Park?
She was President at the time but when it went down no one seemed to know where she was and she basically didn't so anything it even appear in public for like 7 hours or something and without any explanation.
More or less a huge national tragedy occurred and she was AWOL.
Hasn't it turned out that she was at some weird seance with her "spiritual advisor"? That is, nobody knew at the time where the hell she was, and when they figured it out, it was even worse.
How was the ferry inicident related to President Park?
She was President at the time but when it went down no one seemed to know where she was and she basically didn't so anything it even appear in public for like 7 hours or something and without any explanation.
More or less a huge national tragedy occurred and she was AWOL.
Hasn't it turned out that she was at some weird seance with her "spiritual advisor"? That is, nobody knew at the time where the hell she was, and when they figured it out, it was even worse.
There is that story, and another came out recently that she was getting her hair done or something along those lines. Either way, total failure on her part to clarify.
How was the ferry inicident related to President Park?
She was President at the time but when it went down no one seemed to know where she was and she basically didn't so anything it even appear in public for like 7 hours or something and without any explanation.
More or less a huge national tragedy occurred and she was AWOL.
Hasn't it turned out that she was at some weird seance with her "spiritual advisor"? That is, nobody knew at the time where the hell she was, and when they figured it out, it was even worse.
There are an incredible number of theories about where she was, though I don't think any have been substantiated.
A Japanese reporter was charged with defamation (which carries prison time in Korea) shortly after the incident for reporting on rumors that she was off with her lover during the time.
How was the ferry inicident related to President Park?
She was President at the time but when it went down no one seemed to know where she was and she basically didn't so anything it even appear in public for like 7 hours or something and without any explanation.
More or less a huge national tragedy occurred and she was AWOL.
Hasn't it turned out that she was at some weird seance with her "spiritual advisor"? That is, nobody knew at the time where the hell she was, and when they figured it out, it was even worse.
I wonder how much the religious demographics and prevalence of Presbytarianism and Catholicism in South Korea have affected the (at least in my estimation) rather fast turnaround for Pres. Park's downfall.
It's really, really hard to imagine this sort of thing happening in Taiwan. When tens of thousands demonstrate in front of the president's office, its because they're trying to push through a political measure without the painstaking deliberate period (whether it's a Chinese trade deal one one of the proposed gay marriage laws), not really any personal behavior from the head of state--even during the Chen government when the corruption charges were beginning to surface. There is, I think, an expectation that our leaders are very nonreligious--even for mainstream Buddhism and Confucianism, outside of very specific public duties. We had one Christian president, Lee Teng-hui, and a lot of effort was made to establish that he was not biased towards Christianity because God help him otherwise. It'd be pretty easy to forget he was a Presbyterian. But I'm pretty sure the second any of them had a "spiritual adviser" who wasn't the most mainstream of the mainstream national clergy the president's office would have that person fired and they'd never step anywhere near the president without causing a formal inquiry.
By contrast, almost a third of South Koreans are Christian. Every ROK president since the late 1980s has been a Christian except Park Geun-hye, I think. I wonder if the public was always a little suspicious of her religiosity. Or that could completely be a nonissue--beyond the fact that they are much more likely to be Christian than Taiwanese, or their geographic neighbors, are but I don't know much about religiosity in South Korea.
Posts
I am firmly of this belief, except that it wasn't a disguise. It was a first step. My analysis is this: there are 12 countries in TPP, which means there are 11 countries other than the US. Many of those countries already have FTAs with the US (Canada, Mexico, Australia, Peru, Chile), while New Zealand has been in FTA negotiations with the US for years now. So for those countries, TPP is really just a renewal and normalization of those existing FTAs. The other "new" countries in TPP are Japan, Singapore, Malaysia, Vietnam, and Brunei. Other than Japan, none of those are particularly impressive economies, and their combined population is about 2/3s of the US population. (Also Japan already has extensive trade ties with the US already, see your Sony televisions and Nintendo Wii Us and Toyota Priuses.)
So, what exactly makes the US look at a free trade agreement originating between Brunei, Chile, and Singapore and say, "Boy, we better get in on that!"? Well. Of those new countries I listed, all of them are on coastal bodies of water adjoining China, and, in particular, 3 of them are on the South China Sea, where the US has no established military presence nor proxy ally. That's the objective I think: TPP is the beginnings of a counter-China blockade ringing the North, East, and South China Seas, with the end goal being US military bases in each of those regions to deter Chinese expansionism. The win-win is that China's neighbours are defended from Chinese ambitions, and the US cements its continued influence in East Asia, as well as producing a ready excuse for why US naval forces might be in the region (which is something that Chinese diplomats complain about constantly).
It's not a disguise any more than is typical in foreign diplomacy. You don't just announce that you're forming a military alliance against China, who wants in?! You slowly draw nations into your sphere of influence and progress your relationships up slowly from trade partners to cooperating nations to mutual defense pacts to outright alliance, and hope the Chinese don't notice (or at least are not given anything actionable, because the Chinese have most certainly noticed and would be quite relieved if TPP was cancelled, since it'd give them a continued free hand in East/Southeast Asia, especially with Duterte realigning the Philippines).
I am, of course, fundamentally opposed to an American military presence in Taiwan for reasons I could go into for pages, primarily pertaining to Taiwan's own international security and cross-strait relations (there's a boring historical argument to be had as well). I'm pretty sure it's not a popular notion from an American perspective, and I'm extremely confident that it's an incredibly controversial and unpopular outcome for Taiwanese. But naturally Taiwan's situation is highly unique in East Asia and not applicable to the states that already have a United States military presence, ours having ended in 1979.
Well, my position on TPP as a Canadian is, "We sign it, or we're screwed." Either we're completely fucking screwed, when US business relocates out of Canada to other countries, or TPP effectively overwrites NAFTA anyways (since Mexico's in both), and then we have to abide by TPP provisions embedded in NAFTA except we didn't have any say in how those provisions were written. So there's really no choice as long as the US and Mexico are committed to TPP. But from the American perspective TPP hardly seems to be an economic priority.
In any event, I wouldn't consider it a disguise, because it's not like there's text buried in the TPP about US military bases in Singapore, which I'd bet would be where they'd be located first, due to Singapore's history as a British naval base, strategic position, and commercial ports. It's just... you know, like in Europa Universalis, you gotta get your relationship score higher before they'll sign an alliance with you, so you've first got to Improve Relations, then Sign Trade Deal, then Open Borders, and then Military Alliance! (I can't remember if trade deals are actually in EU....)
As I've said previously, in Taiwan, the TPP is welcome for its practical and economic benefits, much more than its potential political and military ones, disguised and undisguised. In simplest terms, the military benefits you've described, while sensible to the other countries (okay, not Chile) would actually serve to seriously endanger Taiwan, potentially worse than our own doing during the Chen government. Taiwanese security, including the American part of the equation, walks a very delicate line that the such a bloc would completely ignore. Then again, I'm comfortable with the harsh reality that what is in Taiwan's long-term security interests are not in those of our neighbors at times.
The Partnership (I keep calling it Pact, not sure why) is a big picture thing certainly, whereas Taiwan is arguably a small picture matter. Even its economic benefits aren't revolutionary for Taiwan, but highly evolutionary--had we secured membership into the AIIB's first round, we'd still have our ongoing concerns with China (any Chinese Taipei membership in the bank would've been predicated on those), we might not need the TPP at all, and without it, the Tsai government still has to have trade on the brain, at least as much as the Ma government did. TPP of course does nothing to help our isolation from other international organizations, which is fine, that's not the point of it after all.
Whelp, may the diplomatic wars with China begin!
Seriously, first president elect to call since the official ending of diplomatic ties 36 years ago.
and the irony of it being Trump just staggers me
It's sad when my primary hope for world stability is that Trump is so blatantly stupid and ignorant that it should be obvious none of the shit he does is actually part of a policy, he just doesn't know any better.
Also, the government in Taipei prefers Republicans to Democrats, they have since 1979. Though of course Donald Trump could change it.
Last I heard Trump has taken no briefs from the State Department. And has stopped taking his intel briefs.
That is interesting. Also interesting: the People's Liberation Army has 2.3M standing active personnel and a budget of $146B!
mumble mumble at least we have a navy
Maybe under Trump we'll start selling the good stuff.
You guys want Rail Guns?
Given what the news has said, I would bet how it actually happened is Trump called the Taiwanese President from his cellphone while being chauffeured to work or something.
I'll settle for attack helicopters that work in our climate.
Disclaimer: Boeing Defense Company is not responsible for user error resulting in loss of aircraft.
1/6TH of america's budget. USA USA
Does that make any sense? Maybe not.
Of course, the response to this in Taiwan, at the present is "A welcomed if somewhat worrying surprise." The same could be said if the United States suddenly announced an unplanned arms deal. The same could even be said if this had happened six months ago when Tsai Ing-wen first took office, if Pres. Obama had taken one of her calls--the key difference being Barrack Obama's status upcoming departure from office, versus the upcoming (and unpredictable) tenure of Donald Trump. If Pres. Obama had taken the call (there's a decent chance that Tsai's office probably at least tried, knowing that it wouldn't work), I suspect we'd take those caveats and be celebrating Pres. Obama's "bravely standing up against Chinese bullying" and actually treating a foreign head of state like the leader she is, regardless of Beijing's party line. Instead, we're all mildly panicked what Donald Trump would break forty years of nice, safe practice and piss off Beijing.
Arguably, both are valid responses for either leader. If outgoing Pres. Obama had taken the call versus incoming Pres-elect Tsai, the response in Taiwan would basically be the same: a very welcome surprise followed by worried uncertainty. Maybe Tsai Ing-wen's office shouldn't have done this in the first place.
If he did, would we be happy or unhappy? Hmmm. In any case, there's Russian economic dependence on China (and also CSTO cooperation with China's Shanghai Cooperative Organization) to consider. Russo-Chines ties are as deep as Soviet-Chinese ties were before the split, though the balance of power is very different.
Of course, Russia has an excellent relationship with another country China has less-than-great relations with: the Republic of India.
I suspect that the call is always made and always rejected, as a diplomatic courtesy. We'll pretend we're a real country; you'll pretend we're not a real country; we'll meet somewhere in the middle.
Trump can't really cause something that already exists. They're not out-and-out on the outs right now, but China and Russia are not friends right now. They're both keenly aware that they're battling for influence in central and south Asia. China extracted a fair bit of blood in their oil deal with Russia, when OPEC and the EU had Russia over a barrel. Maybe Trump exacerbates or accelerates the split, but I'm pretty sure the split is coming regardless, and may result more from a general US decline/withdrawal led by Trump rather than Trump the man himself.
It's made even more obscure by the fact that relations between Beijing and Moscow are much more stable than where they were--largely because relations in the 1990s were a literal trainwreck.
From the same reporters and outlets that put his chances at winning at less than 2%, and continuously fell into every single trap he placed for them for over a year and continue to do so?
This ... is not a coherent argument at all. The ability of people to predict a future outcome is not related to their ability to report on what sources tell them.
Stanley Kao, our de facto ambassador to the United States (though in reality he mostly just exists in a pool of other strangely-labeled representatives to American organizations), praised it major breakthrough--probably a direct reference to the generally disappointing last eight years or so (remember, despite being about as popular as ringworm internationally, the Bush government was seen as much more productive to US-Taiwanese relations than the Obama government, but that has a lot to do with Chen Shui-bian's "style of leadership"). Now of course the news is swirling with (rather unlikely) rumors of a meeting, in the style of the meeting with the Japanese PM, which the President's Office has dismissed.
This is not a good argument in sense of the word. Polling numbers and predictions based on algorithms are not news reporting from sources with in the State department.
Pence is receiving the briefings. But Trump has not. One thing is not like the other.
So Pence took the deal to be the defacto president while Trump totally does not manage his businesses in a way to make a bunch of money? Not sure if that is good or bad news.
Just means that more of these screw ups are on the way for all international relations I guess. Uncle Sam is drunk, just hope he just spouts a bunch of racist things rather then grabbing for his gun.
It'll be both.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/12/07/world/asia/rodrigo-duterte-philippines-drugs-killings.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=photo-spot-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
I'm honestly a bit shocked by how rapidly she's fallen. This whole thing has unfolded over only two months.
She lost a lot of support with the ferry incident. Curious how SK will follow this up. She road a very strong anti-Japan pro-Nationalist sentiment.
I mean, Korea is still a very conservative country, but I can see it as an opportunity for some more progressive elements to come to the fore.
She was President at the time but when it went down no one seemed to know where she was and she basically didn't so anything it even appear in public for like 7 hours or something and without any explanation.
More or less a huge national tragedy occurred and she was AWOL.
Hasn't it turned out that she was at some weird seance with her "spiritual advisor"? That is, nobody knew at the time where the hell she was, and when they figured it out, it was even worse.
There is that story, and another came out recently that she was getting her hair done or something along those lines. Either way, total failure on her part to clarify.
There are an incredible number of theories about where she was, though I don't think any have been substantiated.
A Japanese reporter was charged with defamation (which carries prison time in Korea) shortly after the incident for reporting on rumors that she was off with her lover during the time.
I wonder how much the religious demographics and prevalence of Presbytarianism and Catholicism in South Korea have affected the (at least in my estimation) rather fast turnaround for Pres. Park's downfall.
It's really, really hard to imagine this sort of thing happening in Taiwan. When tens of thousands demonstrate in front of the president's office, its because they're trying to push through a political measure without the painstaking deliberate period (whether it's a Chinese trade deal one one of the proposed gay marriage laws), not really any personal behavior from the head of state--even during the Chen government when the corruption charges were beginning to surface. There is, I think, an expectation that our leaders are very nonreligious--even for mainstream Buddhism and Confucianism, outside of very specific public duties. We had one Christian president, Lee Teng-hui, and a lot of effort was made to establish that he was not biased towards Christianity because God help him otherwise. It'd be pretty easy to forget he was a Presbyterian. But I'm pretty sure the second any of them had a "spiritual adviser" who wasn't the most mainstream of the mainstream national clergy the president's office would have that person fired and they'd never step anywhere near the president without causing a formal inquiry.
By contrast, almost a third of South Koreans are Christian. Every ROK president since the late 1980s has been a Christian except Park Geun-hye, I think. I wonder if the public was always a little suspicious of her religiosity. Or that could completely be a nonissue--beyond the fact that they are much more likely to be Christian than Taiwanese, or their geographic neighbors, are but I don't know much about religiosity in South Korea.