The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPat Buchanan Archive
Is Trump Calling Out Xi Jinping?
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Like a bolt of lightning, that call of congratulations from Taiwan President Tsai Ing-wen to President-elect Donald Trump illuminated the Asian landscape.

We can see clearly now the profit and loss statement from more than three decades of accommodating and appeasing China, since Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger made their historic journey in 1972.

What are the gains and losses?

Soon after Nixon announced the trip in July 1971, our World War II ally, the Republic of China on Taiwan, was expelled from the UN, its permanent seat on the Security Council given to the People’s Republic of China’s Chairman Mao, a rival of Stalin’s in mass murder.

In 1979, Jimmy Carter recognized the regime in Beijing, cut ties to Taipei and terminated the Sino-American Mutual Defense Treaty of 1954. All over the world countries followed our lead, shut down Taiwan’s embassies, and expelled her diplomats. Our former allies have since been treated as global pariahs.

During the 1990s and into the new century, Republicans, acting on behalf of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Business Roundtable, voted annually to grant Most Favored Nation trade status for China. They then voted to make it permanent and escort China into the WTO.

What did China get out of the new U.S. policy? Vast investment and $4 trillion in trade surpluses at America’s expense over 25 years.

From the backward country mired in the madness of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution in 1972, China grew by double-digits yearly to become the foremost manufacturing nation on earth, and has used its immense earnings from trade to make itself a military power to rival the United States.

China now claims all the islands of the South China Sea, has begun converting reefs into military bases, targeted hundreds of missiles on Taiwan, claimed the Senkakus held by Japan, ordered U.S. warships out of the Taiwan Strait, brought down a U.S. EP-3 on Hainan island in 2001, and then demanded and got from Secretary of State Colin Powell an apology for violating Chinese airspace.

Beijing has manipulated her currency, demanded transfers of U.S. technology, and stolen much of what of U.S. did not over.

For decades, China has declared a goal of driving the United States out beyond the second chain of islands off Asia, i.e., out of the Western Pacific and back to Guam, Hawaii and the West Coast.

During these same decades, some of us were asking insistently what we were getting in return.

Thus Trump’s phone call seemed the right signal to Beijing — while we recognize one China, we have millions of friends on Taiwan in whose future as a free people we retain an interest.

China bristled at Trump’s first communication between U.S. and Taiwanese leaders since 1979, with Beijing indicating that Trump’s failure to understand the Asian situation may explain the American’s gaffe.

Sunday, Vice President-elect Mike Pence assured us that nothing of significance should be read into the 15-minute phone call of congratulations.

Trump, however, was less polite and reassuring, giving Beijing the wet mitten across the face for its impertinence:

ORDER IT NOW

“Did China ask us if it was OK to devalue their currency (making it hard for our companies to compete), heavily tax our products going into their country (the U.S. doesn’t tax them) or to build a massive military complex in the middle of the South China Sea?”

Trump then answered his own question, “I don’t think so.”

According to The Washington Post, the phone call from Taiwan to Trump was no chance happening. It had been planned for weeks. And people in Trump’s inner circle are looking to closer ties to Taiwan and a tougher policy toward Beijing.

This suggests that Trump was aware there might be a sharp retort from Beijing, and that his tweets dismissing Chinese protests and doubling down on the Taiwan issue were both considered and deliberate.
Well, the fat is in the fire now.

Across Asia, every capital is waiting to see how Xi Jinping responds, for a matter of face would seem to be involved.

On the trade front, China is deeply vulnerable. U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods would cause a sudden massive loss of income to factories in China and a stampede out of the country to elsewhere in Asia by companies now producing in the Middle Kingdom.

On the other hand, without China using its economic leverage over North Korea, it is unlikely any sanctions the U.S. and its allies can impose will persuade Kim Jong Un to halt his nuclear weapons program.

China can choke North Korea to death. But China can also step back and let Pyongyang become a nuclear weapons state, though that could mean Seoul and Tokyo following suit, which would be intolerable to Beijing.

Before we go down this road, President-elect Trump and his foreign policy team ought to think through just where it leads — and where it might end.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of the new book “The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority.”

Copyright 2016 Creators.com.

 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: China, Donald Trump, South China Sea 
Hide 54 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. Well done Mr. Buchanan. I support Mr Trump’s taking the call from Taiwan. We have been kowtowing to the Chinese, and they have been ordering us around for decades b/c we have been led by a bunch of spineless pussy globalist open borders lightweights who couldn’t sell snowblowers to the Canadians. Certainly we can have a phone call with Taiwan without offending China’s oh-so-precious ‘face’? If not, tough schitt. Lighten up China. How about we send home all Chinese students here in the US, if you want to make a stink of it? China has been enriching itself at our expense for decades, and Trump knows it and he is going to level things out a bit. He was elected to do things differently. Trump knows what he is doing and I expect that he’s about 4 steps out in front of everyone else, as usual. Trump knows that the Chinese are not businessmen from Tulsa, he has been there a few times, you know, and has done more than a little business with the Chinese and in China. I for one am tired of us rolling over and taking it up the backside from the Chinese.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    I support Trump taking the call from Taiwan, as well, but I would make clear to Taiwan that the USA will NOT send American soldiers to die to keep it independent of the PRC.

    If China invades or encircles/embargoes Taiwan, we could impose hefty tariffs on China's goods entering the USA and eject all Chinese students (who are not US citizens) from our universities, but not go to war.

    We also could prohibit Chinese from becoming US Citizens, but then, we should be doing that anyway. Even Trump hasn't threatened that, but we should push for it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /pbuchanan/is-trump-calling-out-xi-jinping/#comment-1673771
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Randal says:

    China bristled at Trump’s first communication between U.S. and Taiwanese leaders since 1979, with Beijing indicating that Trump’s failure to understand the Asian situation may explain the American’s gaffe.

    Sunday, Vice President-elect Mike Pence assured us that nothing of significance should be read into the 15-minute phone call of congratulations.

    ……

    According to The Washington Post, the phone call from Taiwan to Trump was no chance happening. It had been planned for weeks. And people in Trump’s inner circle are looking to closer ties to Taiwan and a tougher policy toward Beijing.

    This suggests that Trump was aware there might be a sharp retort from Beijing, and that his tweets dismissing Chinese protests and doubling down on the Taiwan issue were both considered and deliberate.

    I took the initial line – that it was an innocent error, at face value. However, the change of tack by the Trump camp now raises the question of which is the truth. Did the Trump camp initially pretend innocent error, while having been acting deliberately all along, as we are now supposed to believe? Or were they genuinely as innocent as they claimed, and are now trying desperately to re-spin the situation in the light of criticism, because they’d rather be viewed as cunning trouble-makers than as naïve bumblers, even when the naïve bumbling in question was pretty trivial and could easily have been put to rest and forgotten if they hadn’t doubled down on it.

    As always, it’s also possible that the Trump camp is not a unified actor on this – that Trump wasn’t aware of the significance of this call, but some of his advisers were and they deliberately put him into this situation by arranging the call without informing him properly of its ramifications.

    Time will tell. Trump has domestic reasons for building a confrontational relationship with China, over trade and its impacts on American workers. And as a dealmaker he might well think that by acting strong he can get a better deal out of China later. He might even be correct, if things are handled well.

    But he’s playing with fire, and I’m not sure how firmly he grasps this. More to the point, I’m not sure how aware he is that some of his advisers actually want the confrontation and not the deal.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Quartermaster
    All foreign relations are a species of "playing with fire." China is especially bad and Nixon's move to China was poorly thought out as to the long term geopolitical ramifications. Carter was even more stupid to break relations with the Republic of China in favor of Red China which has always been an enemy and regards the US as an enemy from the get go.

    G. Gordon Liddy was of the opinion that Nixon was a foreign policy genius. The problems we've been having with Red China for the last 40 years belie that evaluation.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. @Randal

    China bristled at Trump’s first communication between U.S. and Taiwanese leaders since 1979, with Beijing indicating that Trump’s failure to understand the Asian situation may explain the American’s gaffe.

    Sunday, Vice President-elect Mike Pence assured us that nothing of significance should be read into the 15-minute phone call of congratulations.

    ......

    According to The Washington Post, the phone call from Taiwan to Trump was no chance happening. It had been planned for weeks. And people in Trump’s inner circle are looking to closer ties to Taiwan and a tougher policy toward Beijing.

    This suggests that Trump was aware there might be a sharp retort from Beijing, and that his tweets dismissing Chinese protests and doubling down on the Taiwan issue were both considered and deliberate.
     
    I took the initial line - that it was an innocent error, at face value. However, the change of tack by the Trump camp now raises the question of which is the truth. Did the Trump camp initially pretend innocent error, while having been acting deliberately all along, as we are now supposed to believe? Or were they genuinely as innocent as they claimed, and are now trying desperately to re-spin the situation in the light of criticism, because they'd rather be viewed as cunning trouble-makers than as naïve bumblers, even when the naïve bumbling in question was pretty trivial and could easily have been put to rest and forgotten if they hadn't doubled down on it.

    As always, it's also possible that the Trump camp is not a unified actor on this - that Trump wasn't aware of the significance of this call, but some of his advisers were and they deliberately put him into this situation by arranging the call without informing him properly of its ramifications.

    Time will tell. Trump has domestic reasons for building a confrontational relationship with China, over trade and its impacts on American workers. And as a dealmaker he might well think that by acting strong he can get a better deal out of China later. He might even be correct, if things are handled well.

    But he's playing with fire, and I'm not sure how firmly he grasps this. More to the point, I'm not sure how aware he is that some of his advisers actually want the confrontation and not the deal.

    All foreign relations are a species of “playing with fire.” China is especially bad and Nixon’s move to China was poorly thought out as to the long term geopolitical ramifications. Carter was even more stupid to break relations with the Republic of China in favor of Red China which has always been an enemy and regards the US as an enemy from the get go.

    G. Gordon Liddy was of the opinion that Nixon was a foreign policy genius. The problems we’ve been having with Red China for the last 40 years belie that evaluation.

    Read More
    • Replies: @bluedog
    Oh I don't think China sees us as an enemy why should they after all China didn't come over here and hold a gun to the heads of the business/banking sector and say "your coming to China to do your manufacturing", but rather hey China we just love your cheap labor and we will get a senile old actor to change the tax laws so we can park our profits into off-shore accounts and be tax free even if it does destroy our manufacturing base and the middleclass.@@@@
    , @Randal
    I think that you are looking at the past through the distorting lens of the present, there. The pressing problem in Nixon's time was the Soviet Union. The US chose to build up China as a counter to that threat, and by the time the threat no longer existed too many US money lobbies were too interested in the easy profits from trading with and investing in high growth China to allow the US regime to change the policy, even if it wanted to.

    No doubt the Soviet threat was overstated by the 1980s, but overstating useful threats seems to be in the American dna.
    , @RadicalCenter
    "China is especially bad." Agreed.

    So then you also support an end to treating the Saudis as "allies", right?

    And an end, presumably, to US arms and funds for Islamists in Syria?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. bluedog says:
    @Quartermaster
    All foreign relations are a species of "playing with fire." China is especially bad and Nixon's move to China was poorly thought out as to the long term geopolitical ramifications. Carter was even more stupid to break relations with the Republic of China in favor of Red China which has always been an enemy and regards the US as an enemy from the get go.

    G. Gordon Liddy was of the opinion that Nixon was a foreign policy genius. The problems we've been having with Red China for the last 40 years belie that evaluation.

    Oh I don’t think China sees us as an enemy why should they after all China didn’t come over here and hold a gun to the heads of the business/banking sector and say “your coming to China to do your manufacturing”, but rather hey China we just love your cheap labor and we will get a senile old actor to change the tax laws so we can park our profits into off-shore accounts and be tax free even if it does destroy our manufacturing base and the middleclass.@@@@

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. Randal says:
    @Quartermaster
    All foreign relations are a species of "playing with fire." China is especially bad and Nixon's move to China was poorly thought out as to the long term geopolitical ramifications. Carter was even more stupid to break relations with the Republic of China in favor of Red China which has always been an enemy and regards the US as an enemy from the get go.

    G. Gordon Liddy was of the opinion that Nixon was a foreign policy genius. The problems we've been having with Red China for the last 40 years belie that evaluation.

    I think that you are looking at the past through the distorting lens of the present, there. The pressing problem in Nixon’s time was the Soviet Union. The US chose to build up China as a counter to that threat, and by the time the threat no longer existed too many US money lobbies were too interested in the easy profits from trading with and investing in high growth China to allow the US regime to change the policy, even if it wanted to.

    No doubt the Soviet threat was overstated by the 1980s, but overstating useful threats seems to be in the American dna.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. …but overstating useful threats seems to be in the American dna.

    And if not the DNA, then enshrined in the founding document at least.

    “…but you understand the game behind the Curtain too well not to perceive the old trick of turning every contingency into a resource for accumulating force in the Government.”

    From James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, 14 March 1794

    We have been told of phantoms and ideal dangers to lead us into measures which will, in my opinion, be the ruin of our country. If the existence of those dangers cannot be proved, if there be no apprehension of wars, if there be no rumors of wars, it will place the subject in a different light, and plainly evince to the world that there cannot be any reason for adopting measures which we apprehend to be ruinous and destructive.

    William Grayson, 11 June 1788 Arguing against the scare tactics being used to promote adoption of the constitution.

    Read more: William Grayson: We have been told of Phantomshttp://www.infoplease.com/t/hist/antifederalist/grayson01.html#ixzz3CsMi4gSo

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
    OT

    Your awareness of- and facility with- ancient, classic and Founding/American literature is exemplary.

    Thanks for the tutorials.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. Soon after Nixon announced the trip in July 1971, our World War II ally, the Republic of China on Taiwan, was expelled from the UN, its permanent seat on the Security Council given to the People’s Republic of China’s Chairman Mao, a rival of Stalin’s in mass murder.

    Funny how they’re an “ally” today and an enemy tomorrow, then back in the good graces again at least for the moment.

    Wasn’t Joey Stalin an enemy before he wasn’t, then an enemy again?

    The list of former allies that wind up on the “_hit list” is illuminating if not downright mind boggling.

    Japan was an ally in WW1 then we know what happened, and now look at ‘em. “Al Queda” and Saddam too.

    There must be a lesson here somewhere.

    CAIRO, Egypt, May 27,[1922]—The last hope of 30,000,000 Arabs to win freedom for their race without further bloodshed vanished when cables from Washington announced that the United States had concluded an agreement with Great Britain… The Arabs came into the war on the side of the allies against their Turkish co-religionists in- response to the allies’ promise of freedom…The Arab support “was determined and effective.”

    Newspaper article by Junius B. Wood on the American recognition of Britain’s mandate in Palestine, Chicago Daily News,27 May 1922 (also The Sunday Star, Washington)

    http://dcollections.oberlin.edu/cdm/compoundobject/collection/kingcrane/id/1686/rec/18

    The STAR, WASHINGTON DC, 30,000,000 Arabs Liberty Dreams Fade in U. S. -British Agreement Recognition Here of Britain’s Mandate in Palestine Ends Last Hope of freedom—Arab Leader Calls Western Diplomacy Fickle.

    Junius B. Wood

    He called it fickle; I call it downright schizophrenic.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    Agree. Wasn't it Madame Nhu who said "The only thing worse than having America as your enemy is having America as your friend" or some such thing?

    Though I guess you're really talking about Western nations in general, here, with the Arabs.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. @jacques sheete

    ...but overstating useful threats seems to be in the American dna.
     
    And if not the DNA, then enshrined in the founding document at least.

    “…but you understand the game behind the Curtain too well not to perceive the old trick of turning every contingency into a resource for accumulating force in the Government.”

    From James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, 14 March 1794

     


    We have been told of phantoms and ideal dangers to lead us into measures which will, in my opinion, be the ruin of our country. If the existence of those dangers cannot be proved, if there be no apprehension of wars, if there be no rumors of wars, it will place the subject in a different light, and plainly evince to the world that there cannot be any reason for adopting measures which we apprehend to be ruinous and destructive.

    William Grayson, 11 June 1788 Arguing against the scare tactics being used to promote adoption of the constitution.

    Read more: William Grayson: We have been told of Phantomshttp://www.infoplease.com/t/hist/antifederalist/grayson01.html#ixzz3CsMi4gSo

     

    OT

    Your awareness of- and facility with- ancient, classic and Founding/American literature is exemplary.

    Thanks for the tutorials.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    In the long run, China is nothing.

    US can move away from China and Chinese influence. For one thing, China-bashing is a permissible hatred in the US… along with Iran-bashing and Russia-bashing.

    What the West really needs to fear is the Many-Fist Destiny.

    All those black Africans with black fists are coming to the West.

    Globalism is facilitating this Many-Fist Destiny whose goal is to replace white populations with Diversity.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  10. CK says:

    I will make all of you a guarantee.
    By the end of his first term, the USA will be
    a partner in the one road one belt initiative.
    The USA, Russia, China, and Taiwan will all
    be experiencing strong, non-inflationary economic
    growth. The Doomsday clock will have
    been moved back to somewhere near noon
    from its current 11:57 pm setting.
    Call me out on this and I will pay off
    with coffee at any starbucks or superior
    to that miserable chain coffee shop in south-eastern
    PA.
    With Trump you shall no longer live in the WAPO, NYT, DNC zero sum world.
    The pie she is going to grow again. The great fear of politicians is that
    the pie grows. When the pie grows, the fear tool loses a lot of its
    salience. When there is no fear who needs government?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  11. Jason Liu says:

    Bad analysis. Trump is likely doing this to please his talk-radio base at home, who has largely shifted from Russia to China for enemy #1. This has been going on in policymaking circles for a decade or so, the general public is now catching up.

    Western perception of cross-strait relations are generally behind the times. Saber rattling and open animosity between the PRC/ROC died out in the 90′s. Now the status quo is basically accepted. Like Trump, Chinese rhetoric on Taiwan is usually for domestic consumption, not a serious gesture of hostility towards Taipei. When you say “Beijing bristled”, it’s really more a formality they are compelled act out to maintain the official One China position.

    Public attitudes towards Taiwan on the mainland ranges from condescension at worst, to open admiration for their more advanced economy. In general, people recognize the brotherhood between Han peoples, and talks of war, hatred, loathing etc are now confined to a small group of aging old-guards.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    Appreciate your perspective.

    Just one thing: it sure doesn't seem like US legislators and policymakers have shifted away from reflexive hostility and belligerence against Russia. Seems like they're trying to humiliate, sanction, harm, threaten, and boss around Russia AND Iran AND China to the extent possible all at the same time.
    , @Thirdeye
    Taiwan and South Korea have more value to China as autonomous conduits for business than they would as controlled territories, provided they do not threaten China's strategic sea lanes.
    , @ChrisD
    Wrong. Western policy has consistently portrayed Russia as enemy #1 for many years under the Dems and neocon hawks (see Victoria Nuland’s coup in Ukraine recently). China has been a secondary issue for the US, mostly a necessary trading ally who has taken the US for a ride. Even Obama and his cronies never stepped up to China when they began building a military/naval complex in the South China Sea. Trump has now pivoted, saying we need to get on with Russia but get tougher on China. This is a good strategy.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. @Buck Turgidson
    Well done Mr. Buchanan. I support Mr Trump's taking the call from Taiwan. We have been kowtowing to the Chinese, and they have been ordering us around for decades b/c we have been led by a bunch of spineless pussy globalist open borders lightweights who couldn't sell snowblowers to the Canadians. Certainly we can have a phone call with Taiwan without offending China's oh-so-precious 'face'? If not, tough schitt. Lighten up China. How about we send home all Chinese students here in the US, if you want to make a stink of it? China has been enriching itself at our expense for decades, and Trump knows it and he is going to level things out a bit. He was elected to do things differently. Trump knows what he is doing and I expect that he's about 4 steps out in front of everyone else, as usual. Trump knows that the Chinese are not businessmen from Tulsa, he has been there a few times, you know, and has done more than a little business with the Chinese and in China. I for one am tired of us rolling over and taking it up the backside from the Chinese.

    I support Trump taking the call from Taiwan, as well, but I would make clear to Taiwan that the USA will NOT send American soldiers to die to keep it independent of the PRC.

    If China invades or encircles/embargoes Taiwan, we could impose hefty tariffs on China’s goods entering the USA and eject all Chinese students (who are not US citizens) from our universities, but not go to war.

    We also could prohibit Chinese from becoming US Citizens, but then, we should be doing that anyway. Even Trump hasn’t threatened that, but we should push for it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. @Quartermaster
    All foreign relations are a species of "playing with fire." China is especially bad and Nixon's move to China was poorly thought out as to the long term geopolitical ramifications. Carter was even more stupid to break relations with the Republic of China in favor of Red China which has always been an enemy and regards the US as an enemy from the get go.

    G. Gordon Liddy was of the opinion that Nixon was a foreign policy genius. The problems we've been having with Red China for the last 40 years belie that evaluation.

    “China is especially bad.” Agreed.

    So then you also support an end to treating the Saudis as “allies”, right?

    And an end, presumably, to US arms and funds for Islamists in Syria?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. @Jason Liu
    Bad analysis. Trump is likely doing this to please his talk-radio base at home, who has largely shifted from Russia to China for enemy #1. This has been going on in policymaking circles for a decade or so, the general public is now catching up.

    Western perception of cross-strait relations are generally behind the times. Saber rattling and open animosity between the PRC/ROC died out in the 90's. Now the status quo is basically accepted. Like Trump, Chinese rhetoric on Taiwan is usually for domestic consumption, not a serious gesture of hostility towards Taipei. When you say "Beijing bristled", it's really more a formality they are compelled act out to maintain the official One China position.

    Public attitudes towards Taiwan on the mainland ranges from condescension at worst, to open admiration for their more advanced economy. In general, people recognize the brotherhood between Han peoples, and talks of war, hatred, loathing etc are now confined to a small group of aging old-guards.

    Appreciate your perspective.

    Just one thing: it sure doesn’t seem like US legislators and policymakers have shifted away from reflexive hostility and belligerence against Russia. Seems like they’re trying to humiliate, sanction, harm, threaten, and boss around Russia AND Iran AND China to the extent possible all at the same time.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Fredrik
    Don't know about Russia but I see that American policy makers from all sides seem to hate the Iranians.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. Thirdeye says:

    I often wonder if those bitching about China’s weak currency policy even think about what they’re wishing for. Do they really want strengthened consumer markets in China and a flood of Chinese capital going overseas?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  16. Thirdeye says:
    @Jason Liu
    Bad analysis. Trump is likely doing this to please his talk-radio base at home, who has largely shifted from Russia to China for enemy #1. This has been going on in policymaking circles for a decade or so, the general public is now catching up.

    Western perception of cross-strait relations are generally behind the times. Saber rattling and open animosity between the PRC/ROC died out in the 90's. Now the status quo is basically accepted. Like Trump, Chinese rhetoric on Taiwan is usually for domestic consumption, not a serious gesture of hostility towards Taipei. When you say "Beijing bristled", it's really more a formality they are compelled act out to maintain the official One China position.

    Public attitudes towards Taiwan on the mainland ranges from condescension at worst, to open admiration for their more advanced economy. In general, people recognize the brotherhood between Han peoples, and talks of war, hatred, loathing etc are now confined to a small group of aging old-guards.

    Taiwan and South Korea have more value to China as autonomous conduits for business than they would as controlled territories, provided they do not threaten China’s strategic sea lanes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    Never thought of it that way. Interesting. Why do you think so?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. @Thirdeye
    Taiwan and South Korea have more value to China as autonomous conduits for business than they would as controlled territories, provided they do not threaten China's strategic sea lanes.

    Never thought of it that way. Interesting. Why do you think so?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thirdeye
    Much of China's participation in tech industries is brokered through those two countries.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @jacques sheete

    Soon after Nixon announced the trip in July 1971, our World War II ally, the Republic of China on Taiwan, was expelled from the UN, its permanent seat on the Security Council given to the People’s Republic of China’s Chairman Mao, a rival of Stalin’s in mass murder.
     
    Funny how they're an "ally" today and an enemy tomorrow, then back in the good graces again at least for the moment.

    Wasn't Joey Stalin an enemy before he wasn't, then an enemy again?

    The list of former allies that wind up on the "_hit list" is illuminating if not downright mind boggling.

    Japan was an ally in WW1 then we know what happened, and now look at 'em. "Al Queda" and Saddam too.

    There must be a lesson here somewhere.


    CAIRO, Egypt, May 27,[1922]—The last hope of 30,000,000 Arabs to win freedom for their race without further bloodshed vanished when cables from Washington announced that the United States had concluded an agreement with Great Britain… The Arabs came into the war on the side of the allies against their Turkish co-religionists in- response to the allies’ promise of freedom…The Arab support “was determined and effective.”

    Newspaper article by Junius B. Wood on the American recognition of Britain's mandate in Palestine, Chicago Daily News,27 May 1922 (also The Sunday Star, Washington)

    http://dcollections.oberlin.edu/cdm/compoundobject/collection/kingcrane/id/1686/rec/18

     


    The STAR, WASHINGTON DC, 30,000,000 Arabs Liberty Dreams Fade in U. S. -British Agreement Recognition Here of Britain's Mandate in Palestine Ends Last Hope of freedom—Arab Leader Calls Western Diplomacy Fickle.

    Junius B. Wood
     

    He called it fickle; I call it downright schizophrenic.

    Agree. Wasn’t it Madame Nhu who said “The only thing worse than having America as your enemy is having America as your friend” or some such thing?

    Though I guess you’re really talking about Western nations in general, here, with the Arabs.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. Ivan says:

    The Chicom strategy is to get what they want through intimidation. Trump is upping the ante, we will see if the Chinese bite matches its bark. Trump is one of those fellows who hollers around, not a metrosexual like Obama. The Chinese think that only they have ‘face’, all others are to kowtow to them. Whatever the Americans think now of the Pacific and the Far East, the fact remains that the prosperity of East Asia, was under-girded by the Americans, who provided both security and were generous with the know-how of modern technologies. All of Taiwan’s electronics industry depended on the openness of the Americans to the transfer their knowledge. The Chicoms contributed zilch. Yet they now want to elbow out the Americans out of what is rightfully theirs?

    For all the talk of the Silk Road and the rest of the BS, the fact remains that China has no friends including the much heralded Putin. They have territorial and riparian issues with all of their neighbours. The one friend that they can rely on are the ex-Khmer Rouge murderers now in charge in Cambodia, all others are watching their backs including Putin.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    How many lives are Americans today willing to spend in Asia? Americans lost 38,000 and 58,000 lives in the Korean and Vietnam wars. Trump's appeal wasn't just due to his China bashing, but also his Japan and South Korea bashing, both of whom are supposed to be the allies the US is ostensibly supposed to be defending from China. There just isn't any interest among ordinary Americans in defending these countries, certainly not enough to spend 170,000 lives (which are the equivalent lives normed to today's larger US population). Which is why the previous interventions had to be framed in terms of fighting communism, and contemporary ones have to be framed in terms of a Chinese invasion of the US, not a defense of Taiwan or whatever.
    , @Buck Turgidson
    Well stated! WRT sacrificing US lives over Taiwan, whoa, no one said that here. I would not be in favor of that. Trump is not going to bomb Beijing, but neither is he going to roll over and let China throw its weight around in the region while we sit quiet like spineless pussies b/c we are scared of offending China and their oh-so-precious 'face.' Screw that. We have 'face' too. Doesn't mean we are going to war, though. our past leadership has been a bunch of stupid and spineless teenage girls, and China has just laughed at them and done whatever they want. Trump I believe is signaling that there is a new sheriff in town and things are going to be different now. We don't need to fight w China but we don't need to roll over for them, either. I like a relationship of mutual respect.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. Neal says:

    I’m getting a sense of deja vu with this. I remember all the tensions we have when G.W. Bush came to office. With the spy plane incident and all the early tough talks. And yet they all disappeared after 911 and the Iraq War. China disappeared totally from the radar.

    Are we having a repeat? Maybe this time it will be a major war with Iran (or Syria or a repeat in Iraq). And China will disappear from the news again.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  21. After some hard bargaining Trump will reach a meeting of the minds with China and with Russia. All three will benefit. There will be no need for war. He wants a “mad dog” at defense to strengthen his hand. Bubba, Dubya or Obumba could have done the same thing if any of them had been his own man.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  22. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Ivan
    The Chicom strategy is to get what they want through intimidation. Trump is upping the ante, we will see if the Chinese bite matches its bark. Trump is one of those fellows who hollers around, not a metrosexual like Obama. The Chinese think that only they have 'face', all others are to kowtow to them. Whatever the Americans think now of the Pacific and the Far East, the fact remains that the prosperity of East Asia, was under-girded by the Americans, who provided both security and were generous with the know-how of modern technologies. All of Taiwan's electronics industry depended on the openness of the Americans to the transfer their knowledge. The Chicoms contributed zilch. Yet they now want to elbow out the Americans out of what is rightfully theirs?

    For all the talk of the Silk Road and the rest of the BS, the fact remains that China has no friends including the much heralded Putin. They have territorial and riparian issues with all of their neighbours. The one friend that they can rely on are the ex-Khmer Rouge murderers now in charge in Cambodia, all others are watching their backs including Putin.

    How many lives are Americans today willing to spend in Asia? Americans lost 38,000 and 58,000 lives in the Korean and Vietnam wars. Trump’s appeal wasn’t just due to his China bashing, but also his Japan and South Korea bashing, both of whom are supposed to be the allies the US is ostensibly supposed to be defending from China. There just isn’t any interest among ordinary Americans in defending these countries, certainly not enough to spend 170,000 lives (which are the equivalent lives normed to today’s larger US population). Which is why the previous interventions had to be framed in terms of fighting communism, and contemporary ones have to be framed in terms of a Chinese invasion of the US, not a defense of Taiwan or whatever.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    There just isn’t any interest among ordinary Americans in defending these countries, certainly not enough to spend 170,000 lives (which are the equivalent lives normed to today’s larger US population). Which is why the previous interventions had to be framed in terms of fighting communism, and contemporary ones have to be framed in terms of a Chinese invasion of the US, not a defense of Taiwan or whatever.
     
    That isn't usually a problem for US regimes - they just push and push until they provoke something that can be framed as an outrage about which "something must be done". Or until they trigger an actual attack by their target, as with Japan and the preventive "Bush doctrine" attack the Japanese launched on Pearl Harbor after years of pushing, and after having had it made absolutely clear to them that the US was not going to allow them to build the kind of empire they had watched the European powers and the US build over the previous decades.

    As Buchanan has noted previously, one Japanese diplomat reportedly described the situation aptly, thus:

    "Just when we learn how to play poker, they change the game to bridge".
    , @Ivan
    Don't worry, the Americans are not going to fight for the Koreans or the Japanese. The point is moot since the Russians are the joker in the pack. The Taiwanese are fully capable of defending themselves. All this Chinese talk of their one and only holy national interests is just them talking from both sides of their mouth. Trump has method in his unpredictability, he has no reason to give up rhetorical advantage over the Chicoms.

    We can already see the Chicom response; studied indifference from official circles, while unleashing the running dogs in their controlled press. We saw this happen to the Japanese on two or three occasions in the past decade. As I said, the Chinese hope to get what they want by intimidation; Trump is not a wilting flower and I say good on him.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. epebble says:

    Saw this very interesting documentary on my local PBS station today:

    http://www.xmaswithoutchina.com/

    Confirmed my suspicion that life as we know it in U.S. will come to a total stop if imports from China is stopped. Our standard of living will move back to 1930.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    Sounds like a strong reason to manufacture more things here at home, and to diversify the countries from which we buy our imported goods. Sensible, America-first tariff and tax laws can gradually help us to move towards these goals.

    As for "needing" the goods we buy from China, normal, well-balanced people with a family life and healthy priorities for their time, don't "need" most of the things that Americans buy from China at Christmas or any other time. Including televisions.

    What we do actually have some need for, can be made here or in smaller countries that, unlike China, don't pose a serious threat to us militarily.

    Trump is right in his comments about subsidizing the defense of places like Korea, Japan, and Taiwan. But he's wrong if he suggests that we should keep defending them but merely get paid the full financial cost of doing so. Let them spend their own money on their own defense, raising their taxes or borrowing accordingly -- reducing the unfair competitive advantage their companies and workers currently have over ours.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. Thirdeye says:
    @RadicalCenter
    Never thought of it that way. Interesting. Why do you think so?

    Much of China’s participation in tech industries is brokered through those two countries.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. ChrisD says:
    @Jason Liu
    Bad analysis. Trump is likely doing this to please his talk-radio base at home, who has largely shifted from Russia to China for enemy #1. This has been going on in policymaking circles for a decade or so, the general public is now catching up.

    Western perception of cross-strait relations are generally behind the times. Saber rattling and open animosity between the PRC/ROC died out in the 90's. Now the status quo is basically accepted. Like Trump, Chinese rhetoric on Taiwan is usually for domestic consumption, not a serious gesture of hostility towards Taipei. When you say "Beijing bristled", it's really more a formality they are compelled act out to maintain the official One China position.

    Public attitudes towards Taiwan on the mainland ranges from condescension at worst, to open admiration for their more advanced economy. In general, people recognize the brotherhood between Han peoples, and talks of war, hatred, loathing etc are now confined to a small group of aging old-guards.

    Wrong. Western policy has consistently portrayed Russia as enemy #1 for many years under the Dems and neocon hawks (see Victoria Nuland’s coup in Ukraine recently). China has been a secondary issue for the US, mostly a necessary trading ally who has taken the US for a ride. Even Obama and his cronies never stepped up to China when they began building a military/naval complex in the South China Sea. Trump has now pivoted, saying we need to get on with Russia but get tougher on China. This is a good strategy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. @Ivan
    The Chicom strategy is to get what they want through intimidation. Trump is upping the ante, we will see if the Chinese bite matches its bark. Trump is one of those fellows who hollers around, not a metrosexual like Obama. The Chinese think that only they have 'face', all others are to kowtow to them. Whatever the Americans think now of the Pacific and the Far East, the fact remains that the prosperity of East Asia, was under-girded by the Americans, who provided both security and were generous with the know-how of modern technologies. All of Taiwan's electronics industry depended on the openness of the Americans to the transfer their knowledge. The Chicoms contributed zilch. Yet they now want to elbow out the Americans out of what is rightfully theirs?

    For all the talk of the Silk Road and the rest of the BS, the fact remains that China has no friends including the much heralded Putin. They have territorial and riparian issues with all of their neighbours. The one friend that they can rely on are the ex-Khmer Rouge murderers now in charge in Cambodia, all others are watching their backs including Putin.

    Well stated! WRT sacrificing US lives over Taiwan, whoa, no one said that here. I would not be in favor of that. Trump is not going to bomb Beijing, but neither is he going to roll over and let China throw its weight around in the region while we sit quiet like spineless pussies b/c we are scared of offending China and their oh-so-precious ‘face.’ Screw that. We have ‘face’ too. Doesn’t mean we are going to war, though. our past leadership has been a bunch of stupid and spineless teenage girls, and China has just laughed at them and done whatever they want. Trump I believe is signaling that there is a new sheriff in town and things are going to be different now. We don’t need to fight w China but we don’t need to roll over for them, either. I like a relationship of mutual respect.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    If there's no willingness to some degree of military sacrifice, then there's no credibility to Trump and America's claims. Furthermore, not "rolling over" to China entails "rolling over" for South Korea, Japan, et al.
    , @Ivan
    That is more or less what anyone looking at their options will think. The Chicoms are like the big bully in the bar, picking on the staff and glaring around. Along comes Trump, out-staring everyone like Lee van Cleef.

    https://youtu.be/K-sHOwbGeeQ

    , @dfordoom

    Doesn’t mean we are going to war, though
     
    The problem is that "getting tough" and "taking a firm line" in foreign policy can indeed lead to war. The Austro-Hungarian Empire decided to "get tough" with Serbia in 1914.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. Randal says:
    @Anonymous
    How many lives are Americans today willing to spend in Asia? Americans lost 38,000 and 58,000 lives in the Korean and Vietnam wars. Trump's appeal wasn't just due to his China bashing, but also his Japan and South Korea bashing, both of whom are supposed to be the allies the US is ostensibly supposed to be defending from China. There just isn't any interest among ordinary Americans in defending these countries, certainly not enough to spend 170,000 lives (which are the equivalent lives normed to today's larger US population). Which is why the previous interventions had to be framed in terms of fighting communism, and contemporary ones have to be framed in terms of a Chinese invasion of the US, not a defense of Taiwan or whatever.

    There just isn’t any interest among ordinary Americans in defending these countries, certainly not enough to spend 170,000 lives (which are the equivalent lives normed to today’s larger US population). Which is why the previous interventions had to be framed in terms of fighting communism, and contemporary ones have to be framed in terms of a Chinese invasion of the US, not a defense of Taiwan or whatever.

    That isn’t usually a problem for US regimes – they just push and push until they provoke something that can be framed as an outrage about which “something must be done”. Or until they trigger an actual attack by their target, as with Japan and the preventive “Bush doctrine” attack the Japanese launched on Pearl Harbor after years of pushing, and after having had it made absolutely clear to them that the US was not going to allow them to build the kind of empire they had watched the European powers and the US build over the previous decades.

    As Buchanan has noted previously, one Japanese diplomat reportedly described the situation aptly, thus:

    “Just when we learn how to play poker, they change the game to bridge”.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. Ivan says:
    @Anonymous
    How many lives are Americans today willing to spend in Asia? Americans lost 38,000 and 58,000 lives in the Korean and Vietnam wars. Trump's appeal wasn't just due to his China bashing, but also his Japan and South Korea bashing, both of whom are supposed to be the allies the US is ostensibly supposed to be defending from China. There just isn't any interest among ordinary Americans in defending these countries, certainly not enough to spend 170,000 lives (which are the equivalent lives normed to today's larger US population). Which is why the previous interventions had to be framed in terms of fighting communism, and contemporary ones have to be framed in terms of a Chinese invasion of the US, not a defense of Taiwan or whatever.

    Don’t worry, the Americans are not going to fight for the Koreans or the Japanese. The point is moot since the Russians are the joker in the pack. The Taiwanese are fully capable of defending themselves. All this Chinese talk of their one and only holy national interests is just them talking from both sides of their mouth. Trump has method in his unpredictability, he has no reason to give up rhetorical advantage over the Chicoms.

    We can already see the Chicom response; studied indifference from official circles, while unleashing the running dogs in their controlled press. We saw this happen to the Japanese on two or three occasions in the past decade. As I said, the Chinese hope to get what they want by intimidation; Trump is not a wilting flower and I say good on him.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Taiwan exists today because of US intervention. It lost the civil war on the mainland to the PRC.

    If the Americans have no intention of fighting for the Koreans, Japanese, Taiwanese, etc., then Trump and what other Americans say with respect to the US presence would just be bluff and bluster. Are you suggesting this is just an elaborate bluff and that there is no credibility to America's statements?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. ltlee says:

    Trump’s call with Tsai actually illustrates how US “free press” has d_mbed down US citizens, including President elect Trump and his advisor such as Stephen Moore. Why did previous presidents, from Carter to Obama, did not directly communicate with Taiwan’s leaders. The US could sell billion dollars of weapons and what not to Taiwan. But they would not call Taiwan’s leader nor accept their call. Are they not as smart as Trump?

    Of course not. Rather, they knew something that the free press did not talk bother to clarify: 1) Taiwan is not an independent country, and more important 2) it is not any kind of an ally of the US. To the extent that the US does not want to have military conflict with China, Taiwan is nothing but a liability. To be sure, Taiwan could be an independent country and an ally. The current US led world order maintained since Nixon went to China, however, precludes such a scenario.

    Is creating a new world order Trump’s intention? If so, he must have a more detailed plan on how he could achieve such a feat. Otherwise, his call is simplay an act of irresponsibility. Such behavior would predicably decrease America’s soft power.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  30. Bayan says:

    What do the people of Taiwan want? Do they want to join China? If not why not recogonise their independence? What is the big deal? It seems that China is stuck in the Communist vs Koumintang frame of a bygone era. Let Taiwan be independent like Singapore and get over with it. An independent Taiwan should be neutral and avoid military alliance with any world power.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  31. DB Cooper says:

    “China now claims all the islands of the South China Sea”

    The claims is not recent. China’s claim on the South China Sea islands dates back to the last imperial dynasty, the Qing dynasty. China actually fought a war against France when France attempted to annex those islands. This is the Sino-French war in the late 19th century. No other countries, Spain included (then the colonial power of the Phillipines) voice any objections on France attempted annexation. When the Phillipines changed hand and became an American colony, the American-Spain treaty includes the demarcation of the maritime boundary of the Phillipines and it does not overlapped with the islands China claimed. After WWII the United States loaned four warships to China (Republic of China at that time) to recover those islands occupied by the Japanese. China (Republic of China at that time) published its maritime boundary, the eleven dashed line. Phillippines started making claims on some of the islands only in the mid 1970s.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  32. what we got out of the trade is cheap goods at walmart. Hell, even high tech computer parts went down in price. this is my own wild guess: one of the major reasons was to get as much rare earth from china as possible before the chinese govt wise up. judging from news on rare earth exports, china’s govt is still in the dark.

    Read More
    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
    Surely you cannot believe there was ever an economic strategy in place based on the national interest? More likely is that a small minority sought to enrich themselves by shifting the manufacturing of consumer goods to a low-labour-cost China and US national interests be damned. Small minorities as such maintain their position of dominance by the method of divide and rule, as always.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Ivan
    Don't worry, the Americans are not going to fight for the Koreans or the Japanese. The point is moot since the Russians are the joker in the pack. The Taiwanese are fully capable of defending themselves. All this Chinese talk of their one and only holy national interests is just them talking from both sides of their mouth. Trump has method in his unpredictability, he has no reason to give up rhetorical advantage over the Chicoms.

    We can already see the Chicom response; studied indifference from official circles, while unleashing the running dogs in their controlled press. We saw this happen to the Japanese on two or three occasions in the past decade. As I said, the Chinese hope to get what they want by intimidation; Trump is not a wilting flower and I say good on him.

    Taiwan exists today because of US intervention. It lost the civil war on the mainland to the PRC.

    If the Americans have no intention of fighting for the Koreans, Japanese, Taiwanese, etc., then Trump and what other Americans say with respect to the US presence would just be bluff and bluster. Are you suggesting this is just an elaborate bluff and that there is no credibility to America’s statements?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ivan
    No one is proposing a hot war. But as I have maintained the Chicoms are pushing on everyone through intimidation. There are costs and benefits to every course of action. I suggest that they are not the only ones with 'interests'. Had their pride been of the real King Lear kind, they would not have accepted Japanese or Taiwanese investments.

    When I was in China about a decade ago, it was a source of amusement to me to see the usual Second World War programmes about Japanese perfidy and their atrocities, since the newsreels accompanying show only Nationalist soldiers in action, with the 'Long March' buggers nowhere to be seen.
    , @Ivan
    The PRC exists today because of the Soviet Union and the perfidy of the Yale set, consisting mainly of the foolish progeny of the missionaries. They have their own legitimacy problem.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Buck Turgidson
    Well stated! WRT sacrificing US lives over Taiwan, whoa, no one said that here. I would not be in favor of that. Trump is not going to bomb Beijing, but neither is he going to roll over and let China throw its weight around in the region while we sit quiet like spineless pussies b/c we are scared of offending China and their oh-so-precious 'face.' Screw that. We have 'face' too. Doesn't mean we are going to war, though. our past leadership has been a bunch of stupid and spineless teenage girls, and China has just laughed at them and done whatever they want. Trump I believe is signaling that there is a new sheriff in town and things are going to be different now. We don't need to fight w China but we don't need to roll over for them, either. I like a relationship of mutual respect.

    If there’s no willingness to some degree of military sacrifice, then there’s no credibility to Trump and America’s claims. Furthermore, not “rolling over” to China entails “rolling over” for South Korea, Japan, et al.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Buck Turgidson
    Not sure what is meant by 'America's claims.' Not sure a phone call w Taiwan means we need to send US troops to Taiwan (?).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. @epebble
    Saw this very interesting documentary on my local PBS station today:

    http://www.xmaswithoutchina.com/

    Confirmed my suspicion that life as we know it in U.S. will come to a total stop if imports from China is stopped. Our standard of living will move back to 1930.

    Sounds like a strong reason to manufacture more things here at home, and to diversify the countries from which we buy our imported goods. Sensible, America-first tariff and tax laws can gradually help us to move towards these goals.

    As for “needing” the goods we buy from China, normal, well-balanced people with a family life and healthy priorities for their time, don’t “need” most of the things that Americans buy from China at Christmas or any other time. Including televisions.

    What we do actually have some need for, can be made here or in smaller countries that, unlike China, don’t pose a serious threat to us militarily.

    Trump is right in his comments about subsidizing the defense of places like Korea, Japan, and Taiwan. But he’s wrong if he suggests that we should keep defending them but merely get paid the full financial cost of doing so. Let them spend their own money on their own defense, raising their taxes or borrowing accordingly — reducing the unfair competitive advantage their companies and workers currently have over ours.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    Trump is right in his comments about subsidizing the defense of places like Korea, Japan, and Taiwan. But he’s wrong if he suggests that we should keep defending them but merely get paid the full financial cost of doing so. Let them spend their own money on their own defense, raising their taxes or borrowing accordingly — reducing the unfair competitive advantage their companies and workers currently have over ours.
     
    If they had to spend their own money, they'd spend it cultivating some sort of relationship and accommodation with their large neighbor. They're not going to spend it to join up with a country on the other side of the ocean in an alliance to oppose China. That requires carrots and sticks from the US.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @RadicalCenter
    Sounds like a strong reason to manufacture more things here at home, and to diversify the countries from which we buy our imported goods. Sensible, America-first tariff and tax laws can gradually help us to move towards these goals.

    As for "needing" the goods we buy from China, normal, well-balanced people with a family life and healthy priorities for their time, don't "need" most of the things that Americans buy from China at Christmas or any other time. Including televisions.

    What we do actually have some need for, can be made here or in smaller countries that, unlike China, don't pose a serious threat to us militarily.

    Trump is right in his comments about subsidizing the defense of places like Korea, Japan, and Taiwan. But he's wrong if he suggests that we should keep defending them but merely get paid the full financial cost of doing so. Let them spend their own money on their own defense, raising their taxes or borrowing accordingly -- reducing the unfair competitive advantage their companies and workers currently have over ours.

    Trump is right in his comments about subsidizing the defense of places like Korea, Japan, and Taiwan. But he’s wrong if he suggests that we should keep defending them but merely get paid the full financial cost of doing so. Let them spend their own money on their own defense, raising their taxes or borrowing accordingly — reducing the unfair competitive advantage their companies and workers currently have over ours.

    If they had to spend their own money, they’d spend it cultivating some sort of relationship and accommodation with their large neighbor. They’re not going to spend it to join up with a country on the other side of the ocean in an alliance to oppose China. That requires carrots and sticks from the US.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    You make a sound point.

    But do we keep paying for part of their defense costs in perpetuity in the hope that they won't cultivate stronger ties with China? Maybe, but that's a fairly hefty commitment when we are in so much debt already and our own infrastructure is relatively decrepit or outdated.

    Also, as China's economic clout grows ever larger and larger than ours, won't Japan, South Korea, Philippines, etc., all naturally work to cultivate closer ties with China than with us whether we subsidize their defense or not? I am uneasy at that prospect, to say the least, but it seems likely and perhaps unavoidable. What do you think?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. KA says:

    What all over the world would have taken place if China and US did not enter into detente and in economic cooperation? Financialization of economy possibly would not have started and succeeded . Afghanistan war would not have produced the results it had by 1988 . Pakistan possibly would not have gone along with anti Russian war without China supporting US against Soviet . N Korea would not be a pariah isolated state and Iraq possibly would have not been attacked in 1990 or in 2003 ,neither there would have been any sanction. China could still have achieved remarkable success as India has in some sectors . Rising wage level consistent with home manufacturing would have produced less accumulation of wealth at the top and more union power at labor unit. Without the massive wealth creation for the top, we possibly would not have faced the militaristic narcissistic America we see today .

    The arrangement at the ist blush seems to have hurt America and benefited China It has befitted America but the money did not trickle down and was not spent on growth or infrastructure at home It was used for war abroad and for maintaining the dollar as reserve currency .
    Dollars generated by China and other lesser country from outsourcing of manufacturing have created an unique situation where America borrows but doenst obey any rules unlike the dollar borrowing by 2nd and 3 rd world countries from IMF and WB It is the dollar that is borrowed but with two opposite results . This arrangements also gives America unique power of not facing catastrophic inflation despite pumping of trillions of fake fiat paper money out of thin air in economy . This happens because the current arrangement allows America basically the power of producing “Gold” that is dollar whenever it wants . Dollar has not replaced that much cherished last minute safest haven that is Gold.It has become Gold .
    Without China , it would not have happened . Without dollar enjoying the power ,it is doubtful how much of American foreign policy conducted through sanctions and NGO promoted color revolutions would have succeeded .

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    I wish I could disagree with anything that you've written, but I can't.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. Fredrik says:
    @RadicalCenter
    Appreciate your perspective.

    Just one thing: it sure doesn't seem like US legislators and policymakers have shifted away from reflexive hostility and belligerence against Russia. Seems like they're trying to humiliate, sanction, harm, threaten, and boss around Russia AND Iran AND China to the extent possible all at the same time.

    Don’t know about Russia but I see that American policy makers from all sides seem to hate the Iranians.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    I share your perception. Presumably the (feigned) uniformity of the fear of the Iranian "threat" is mostly due to the overwhelming power, deep pockets, and ruthlessness of the Israel lobby and its wealthy domestic constituency.

    I wouldn't ever be inclined to trust a muslim people or government, but I don't want to continue needlessly attacking, droning, sanctioning, humiliating, and alienating muslim peoples either.

    We ought to work with Iran on common purposes such as combatting terrorism and piracy, and treat them with respect and courtesy.

    And if we are going to basically threaten economic ruin and possibly war against Iran for trying to develop nuclear weapons, then we should also demand that Israel give up the nuclear weapons it already has. I know, don't hold your breath, right?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. @Anonymous

    Trump is right in his comments about subsidizing the defense of places like Korea, Japan, and Taiwan. But he’s wrong if he suggests that we should keep defending them but merely get paid the full financial cost of doing so. Let them spend their own money on their own defense, raising their taxes or borrowing accordingly — reducing the unfair competitive advantage their companies and workers currently have over ours.
     
    If they had to spend their own money, they'd spend it cultivating some sort of relationship and accommodation with their large neighbor. They're not going to spend it to join up with a country on the other side of the ocean in an alliance to oppose China. That requires carrots and sticks from the US.

    You make a sound point.

    But do we keep paying for part of their defense costs in perpetuity in the hope that they won’t cultivate stronger ties with China? Maybe, but that’s a fairly hefty commitment when we are in so much debt already and our own infrastructure is relatively decrepit or outdated.

    Also, as China’s economic clout grows ever larger and larger than ours, won’t Japan, South Korea, Philippines, etc., all naturally work to cultivate closer ties with China than with us whether we subsidize their defense or not? I am uneasy at that prospect, to say the least, but it seems likely and perhaps unavoidable. What do you think?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. @KA
    What all over the world would have taken place if China and US did not enter into detente and in economic cooperation? Financialization of economy possibly would not have started and succeeded . Afghanistan war would not have produced the results it had by 1988 . Pakistan possibly would not have gone along with anti Russian war without China supporting US against Soviet . N Korea would not be a pariah isolated state and Iraq possibly would have not been attacked in 1990 or in 2003 ,neither there would have been any sanction. China could still have achieved remarkable success as India has in some sectors . Rising wage level consistent with home manufacturing would have produced less accumulation of wealth at the top and more union power at labor unit. Without the massive wealth creation for the top, we possibly would not have faced the militaristic narcissistic America we see today .

    The arrangement at the ist blush seems to have hurt America and benefited China It has befitted America but the money did not trickle down and was not spent on growth or infrastructure at home It was used for war abroad and for maintaining the dollar as reserve currency .
    Dollars generated by China and other lesser country from outsourcing of manufacturing have created an unique situation where America borrows but doenst obey any rules unlike the dollar borrowing by 2nd and 3 rd world countries from IMF and WB It is the dollar that is borrowed but with two opposite results . This arrangements also gives America unique power of not facing catastrophic inflation despite pumping of trillions of fake fiat paper money out of thin air in economy . This happens because the current arrangement allows America basically the power of producing "Gold" that is dollar whenever it wants . Dollar has not replaced that much cherished last minute safest haven that is Gold.It has become Gold .
    Without China , it would not have happened . Without dollar enjoying the power ,it is doubtful how much of American foreign policy conducted through sanctions and NGO promoted color revolutions would have succeeded .

    I wish I could disagree with anything that you’ve written, but I can’t.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. @Fredrik
    Don't know about Russia but I see that American policy makers from all sides seem to hate the Iranians.

    I share your perception. Presumably the (feigned) uniformity of the fear of the Iranian “threat” is mostly due to the overwhelming power, deep pockets, and ruthlessness of the Israel lobby and its wealthy domestic constituency.

    I wouldn’t ever be inclined to trust a muslim people or government, but I don’t want to continue needlessly attacking, droning, sanctioning, humiliating, and alienating muslim peoples either.

    We ought to work with Iran on common purposes such as combatting terrorism and piracy, and treat them with respect and courtesy.

    And if we are going to basically threaten economic ruin and possibly war against Iran for trying to develop nuclear weapons, then we should also demand that Israel give up the nuclear weapons it already has. I know, don’t hold your breath, right?

    Read More
    • Replies: @dfordoom

    We ought to work with Iran on common purposes such as combatting terrorism and piracy, and treat them with respect and courtesy.
     
    Treating another country with respect and courtesy would certainly be a radical change in US foreign policy.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. anon says: • Disclaimer

    Nice review of history, but where to start? How about when we created Taiwan. https://concept.journals.villanova.edu/article/view/1861/1748

    It is just debris from the Cold War. The Korean War, to be more specific.

    The media assumed that Trump just stumbled into these unspeakable, ‘settled’ issues. Or rather issues that were never settled and just postponed indefinitely.

    First, the Cold War was about commies. Communism. Plus totalitarianism. By the end of the cold war, markets won. Russia is no longer the USSR and China is not Red China. It’s just another Asian economy.

    Oh yea … NATO. Once again, we won. Why did it expand to the extent that we are talking Cold War 2 with a God fearing, Orthodox Christian nation?

    Just because. Someone thought it sounded like a good idea.

    So … Trade Taiwan aka Formosa aka ROC to settle the Korean War. Or not. But North Korea is a potential problem. And both of them are more of a problem to China than to the US.

    Just assume, for example, that the US Confederate government had created a government in exile. On an Island.

    Taiwan isn’t much of a country. Its the residue of the Chinese Revolution. But regardless. We won. We can’t live with success — as history has proved.

    Time to wrap up the Cold War. Korea. Taiwan or the details? We have no strategic interest in the details.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  43. Ivan says:
    @Anonymous
    Taiwan exists today because of US intervention. It lost the civil war on the mainland to the PRC.

    If the Americans have no intention of fighting for the Koreans, Japanese, Taiwanese, etc., then Trump and what other Americans say with respect to the US presence would just be bluff and bluster. Are you suggesting this is just an elaborate bluff and that there is no credibility to America's statements?

    No one is proposing a hot war. But as I have maintained the Chicoms are pushing on everyone through intimidation. There are costs and benefits to every course of action. I suggest that they are not the only ones with ‘interests’. Had their pride been of the real King Lear kind, they would not have accepted Japanese or Taiwanese investments.

    When I was in China about a decade ago, it was a source of amusement to me to see the usual Second World War programmes about Japanese perfidy and their atrocities, since the newsreels accompanying show only Nationalist soldiers in action, with the ‘Long March’ buggers nowhere to be seen.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. Ivan says:
    @Anonymous
    Taiwan exists today because of US intervention. It lost the civil war on the mainland to the PRC.

    If the Americans have no intention of fighting for the Koreans, Japanese, Taiwanese, etc., then Trump and what other Americans say with respect to the US presence would just be bluff and bluster. Are you suggesting this is just an elaborate bluff and that there is no credibility to America's statements?

    The PRC exists today because of the Soviet Union and the perfidy of the Yale set, consisting mainly of the foolish progeny of the missionaries. They have their own legitimacy problem.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. Ivan says:
    @Buck Turgidson
    Well stated! WRT sacrificing US lives over Taiwan, whoa, no one said that here. I would not be in favor of that. Trump is not going to bomb Beijing, but neither is he going to roll over and let China throw its weight around in the region while we sit quiet like spineless pussies b/c we are scared of offending China and their oh-so-precious 'face.' Screw that. We have 'face' too. Doesn't mean we are going to war, though. our past leadership has been a bunch of stupid and spineless teenage girls, and China has just laughed at them and done whatever they want. Trump I believe is signaling that there is a new sheriff in town and things are going to be different now. We don't need to fight w China but we don't need to roll over for them, either. I like a relationship of mutual respect.

    That is more or less what anyone looking at their options will think. The Chicoms are like the big bully in the bar, picking on the staff and glaring around. Along comes Trump, out-staring everyone like Lee van Cleef.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Buck Turgidson
    Well stated! WRT sacrificing US lives over Taiwan, whoa, no one said that here. I would not be in favor of that. Trump is not going to bomb Beijing, but neither is he going to roll over and let China throw its weight around in the region while we sit quiet like spineless pussies b/c we are scared of offending China and their oh-so-precious 'face.' Screw that. We have 'face' too. Doesn't mean we are going to war, though. our past leadership has been a bunch of stupid and spineless teenage girls, and China has just laughed at them and done whatever they want. Trump I believe is signaling that there is a new sheriff in town and things are going to be different now. We don't need to fight w China but we don't need to roll over for them, either. I like a relationship of mutual respect.

    Doesn’t mean we are going to war, though

    The problem is that “getting tough” and “taking a firm line” in foreign policy can indeed lead to war. The Austro-Hungarian Empire decided to “get tough” with Serbia in 1914.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Buck Turgidson
    Well, sure, of course it possibly could. But a phone call with Taiwan is putting us on a path to a war? Perhaps the media and dumbass hillary clinton would love that, but do you think that is likely? (esp since hilLIARy is not going to be president thank God). I myself think we're a long way from a hot war with China; they would not want this any more than we would. Our relationship with China in recent years has consisted of us hiding under our desk while China stole our lunch money. That could still lead to war. Is our foreign policy w China going to continue to be to tiptoe around them and give them everything they want b/c we are scared of them? I say we stand up for ourselves and let China know that they aren't going to be ripping us off and giving us wedgies and laughing at us.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. dfordoom says: • Website
    @RadicalCenter
    I share your perception. Presumably the (feigned) uniformity of the fear of the Iranian "threat" is mostly due to the overwhelming power, deep pockets, and ruthlessness of the Israel lobby and its wealthy domestic constituency.

    I wouldn't ever be inclined to trust a muslim people or government, but I don't want to continue needlessly attacking, droning, sanctioning, humiliating, and alienating muslim peoples either.

    We ought to work with Iran on common purposes such as combatting terrorism and piracy, and treat them with respect and courtesy.

    And if we are going to basically threaten economic ruin and possibly war against Iran for trying to develop nuclear weapons, then we should also demand that Israel give up the nuclear weapons it already has. I know, don't hold your breath, right?

    We ought to work with Iran on common purposes such as combatting terrorism and piracy, and treat them with respect and courtesy.

    Treating another country with respect and courtesy would certainly be a radical change in US foreign policy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. @Astuteobservor II
    what we got out of the trade is cheap goods at walmart. Hell, even high tech computer parts went down in price. this is my own wild guess: one of the major reasons was to get as much rare earth from china as possible before the chinese govt wise up. judging from news on rare earth exports, china's govt is still in the dark.

    Surely you cannot believe there was ever an economic strategy in place based on the national interest? More likely is that a small minority sought to enrich themselves by shifting the manufacturing of consumer goods to a low-labour-cost China and US national interests be damned. Small minorities as such maintain their position of dominance by the method of divide and rule, as always.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Astuteobservor II
    well, it is sort of like a knocked on effect. (made up numbers galore)profit margins went up by 50%, consumer prices went down by 10% consumers still benefit, just not as much as the business owners. the lower consumer prices are being used to justified the outsourcing. the thing is, there is no way to return the manufacturing jobs. it isn't like we are still 50% of the world economy after ww2, it is 2016. hell, car companies are moving their plants to mexico not because of labor cost but regulations. the factories are routinely shut down when they violate the laws or rules. do you want to destroy our environment for jobs?

    this is a monstrous topic for the experts, we don't know much to be talking about it in depth in the comments section.
    , @Jonathan
    I am very surprised that no one seems to realize that U.S. corporations were moving rapidly towards more and more automation and the use of robots. When China opened up and the corporations calculated (correctly) that it was cheaper to use Chinese labor when compared to buying automation equipment. This has been clearly visible in how automobiles were made with more and more automation. Even China is moving more towards automation and robotics. What is very surprising is that they have created robots to serve restaurant customers!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. @Anonymous
    If there's no willingness to some degree of military sacrifice, then there's no credibility to Trump and America's claims. Furthermore, not "rolling over" to China entails "rolling over" for South Korea, Japan, et al.

    Not sure what is meant by ‘America’s claims.’ Not sure a phone call w Taiwan means we need to send US troops to Taiwan (?).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. @dfordoom

    Doesn’t mean we are going to war, though
     
    The problem is that "getting tough" and "taking a firm line" in foreign policy can indeed lead to war. The Austro-Hungarian Empire decided to "get tough" with Serbia in 1914.

    Well, sure, of course it possibly could. But a phone call with Taiwan is putting us on a path to a war? Perhaps the media and dumbass hillary clinton would love that, but do you think that is likely? (esp since hilLIARy is not going to be president thank God). I myself think we’re a long way from a hot war with China; they would not want this any more than we would. Our relationship with China in recent years has consisted of us hiding under our desk while China stole our lunch money. That could still lead to war. Is our foreign policy w China going to continue to be to tiptoe around them and give them everything they want b/c we are scared of them? I say we stand up for ourselves and let China know that they aren’t going to be ripping us off and giving us wedgies and laughing at us.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. @NoseytheDuke
    Surely you cannot believe there was ever an economic strategy in place based on the national interest? More likely is that a small minority sought to enrich themselves by shifting the manufacturing of consumer goods to a low-labour-cost China and US national interests be damned. Small minorities as such maintain their position of dominance by the method of divide and rule, as always.

    well, it is sort of like a knocked on effect. (made up numbers galore)profit margins went up by 50%, consumer prices went down by 10% consumers still benefit, just not as much as the business owners. the lower consumer prices are being used to justified the outsourcing. the thing is, there is no way to return the manufacturing jobs. it isn’t like we are still 50% of the world economy after ww2, it is 2016. hell, car companies are moving their plants to mexico not because of labor cost but regulations. the factories are routinely shut down when they violate the laws or rules. do you want to destroy our environment for jobs?

    this is a monstrous topic for the experts, we don’t know much to be talking about it in depth in the comments section.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. Jonathan says:
    @NoseytheDuke
    Surely you cannot believe there was ever an economic strategy in place based on the national interest? More likely is that a small minority sought to enrich themselves by shifting the manufacturing of consumer goods to a low-labour-cost China and US national interests be damned. Small minorities as such maintain their position of dominance by the method of divide and rule, as always.

    I am very surprised that no one seems to realize that U.S. corporations were moving rapidly towards more and more automation and the use of robots. When China opened up and the corporations calculated (correctly) that it was cheaper to use Chinese labor when compared to buying automation equipment. This has been clearly visible in how automobiles were made with more and more automation. Even China is moving more towards automation and robotics. What is very surprising is that they have created robots to serve restaurant customers!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. denk says:

    When the man who pledges to ‘stop regime change, bring back the troops [cough cough]‘ and then in the same breath promises to ‘remake the world’s most powerful military into the world’s no 1 military‘, even a five year old ought to know this is a conman talking !

    I guess the 300 additional warships promised by this alleged ‘isolationist’ are needed to defend AEI poster girl Tsai Ying Wen’s [2] ‘freedom of speech’ to smooch up to the prez elect. [2]
    hehehehe

    ‘Trump is our man, he’s gonna to teach those Chicoms a lesson, they’ve been ripping us off for too long!’
    Chant the fucktards here who’r going to pay for this gigantic Pentagoon/MICC scam, the same pentagoon which couldnt account for $7000000000 bucks !

    As they say, there’s no cure for stupidity.

    Read More
    • Replies: @denk
    the same pentagoon which couldnt account for $7,000,000,000,000 bucks !
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. denk says:
    @denk
    When the man who pledges to 'stop regime change, bring back the troops [cough cough]' and then in the same breath promises to 'remake the world's most powerful military into the world's no 1 military', even a five year old ought to know this is a conman talking !

    I guess the 300 additional warships promised by this alleged 'isolationist' are needed to defend AEI poster girl Tsai Ying Wen's [2] 'freedom of speech' to smooch up to the prez elect. [2]
    hehehehe

    'Trump is our man, he's gonna to teach those Chicoms a lesson, they've been ripping us off for too long!'
    Chant the fucktards here who'r going to pay for this gigantic Pentagoon/MICC scam, the same pentagoon which couldnt account for $7000000000 bucks !

    As they say, there's no cure for stupidity.

    the same pentagoon which couldnt account for $7,000,000,000,000 bucks !

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Pat Buchanan Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
A simple remedy for income stagnation
Confederate Flag Day, State Capitol, Raleigh, N.C. -- March 3, 2007