Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsTrump risks war by turning the One China question into a bargaining chip
Trump risks war by turning the One China question into a bargaining chip
By Steven Goldstein
https://twitter.com/fairbankcenter
December 12 at 9:00 AM
President-elect Donald Trump has just said that he considers Americas One China policy a bargaining chip, to be traded off against other things that the United States wants from China. In his description:
In other words, the One China policy isnt a big deal its a bargaining issue, like many other issues. So is Trump right?
No. The big deal is this: The relationship between the Peoples Republic of China (PRC) and Taiwan is an ambiguous one, where the Peoples Republic claims Taiwan as part of its national territory but is prepared for the present to let Taiwan continue in existence, while Taiwan also has an interest in not clarifying its relationship with the Peoples Republic too precisely. Both the PRC and the United States adhere to the notion of One China, but they mean very different things by it. Undermining the status quo could lead to full-scale military conflict between the United States and China over an island that both see as vital to their national interests and whose unique status they have managed well up to this point.
....
Since 1979, the United States has looked to maintain the status quo between the PRC and Taiwan by saying that it will intervene if either side takes unilateral action to change the status quo (e.g. if the mainland tries to coerce Taiwan into unification, or Taiwan declares independence). It is officially neutral as to how the PRC and Taiwan ultimately resolve their differences, simply insisting that it has to involve a mutually agreed upon peaceful settlement. ... While the U.S. position is driven by a variety of political interests, Chinas position is driven by a desire for national unity that Chinas leadership has defined as existential and nonnegotiable. This means that the U.S. approach flouts essential elements of the Chinese position. Moreover, not only is Washington maintaining a relationship that contravenes Chinas One China policy, but it has apparently put itself in a position of setting the conditions for the resolution of the conflict. The reason this has not led to overt hostilities is because all sides have behaved with restraint to maintain a very fragile peace. They know full well how sensitive these differences are.
This is why Trumps suggestion that One China is another bargaining chip, which the United States can play or not play as it likes, is both misleading and risky. On the one hand, it apparently misses the subtle, but extremely significant, differences between the American one China policy and the Chinese one China principle. On the other, it endangers the central tenet of American policy in the area the maintenance of the status quo. The Trump transition team has already referred to Tsai Ing-wen as President of Taiwan. This publicly undermines the only aspect of the One China issue where the United States and China actually agree that Taiwan is not a state, while starkly exposing the reality of the quasi state-to-state relationship that the American One China policy obscures. By using Taiwans status as a negotiating ploy, Trump is doubling down on this dangerous strategy. Chinas vital national interests are in conflict with U.S. policy, and stable relations are fragile, because all the parties are unhappy with the present situation. If the incoming administration persists in its apparent careless indifference, it runs the risk of grossly destabilizing U.S.-China relations, and even risks war.
Steven M. Goldstein was a member of the Smith College Department of Government from 1968 to 2016. He is now the director of the Taiwan Studies Workshop and associate at the Fairbank Center at Harvard University. His most recent publication is China and Taiwan (Polity Press, 2015).
By Steven Goldstein
https://twitter.com/fairbankcenter
December 12 at 9:00 AM
President-elect Donald Trump has just said that he considers Americas One China policy a bargaining chip, to be traded off against other things that the United States wants from China. In his description:
I dont know why we have to be bound by a One China policy unless we make a deal with China having to do with other things, including trade. I mean, look were being hurt very badly by China with devaluation; with taxing us heavy at the borders when we dont tax them; with building a massive fortress in the middle of the South China Sea, which they shouldnt be doing; and, frankly, with not helping us at all with North Korea.
In other words, the One China policy isnt a big deal its a bargaining issue, like many other issues. So is Trump right?
No. The big deal is this: The relationship between the Peoples Republic of China (PRC) and Taiwan is an ambiguous one, where the Peoples Republic claims Taiwan as part of its national territory but is prepared for the present to let Taiwan continue in existence, while Taiwan also has an interest in not clarifying its relationship with the Peoples Republic too precisely. Both the PRC and the United States adhere to the notion of One China, but they mean very different things by it. Undermining the status quo could lead to full-scale military conflict between the United States and China over an island that both see as vital to their national interests and whose unique status they have managed well up to this point.
....
Since 1979, the United States has looked to maintain the status quo between the PRC and Taiwan by saying that it will intervene if either side takes unilateral action to change the status quo (e.g. if the mainland tries to coerce Taiwan into unification, or Taiwan declares independence). It is officially neutral as to how the PRC and Taiwan ultimately resolve their differences, simply insisting that it has to involve a mutually agreed upon peaceful settlement. ... While the U.S. position is driven by a variety of political interests, Chinas position is driven by a desire for national unity that Chinas leadership has defined as existential and nonnegotiable. This means that the U.S. approach flouts essential elements of the Chinese position. Moreover, not only is Washington maintaining a relationship that contravenes Chinas One China policy, but it has apparently put itself in a position of setting the conditions for the resolution of the conflict. The reason this has not led to overt hostilities is because all sides have behaved with restraint to maintain a very fragile peace. They know full well how sensitive these differences are.
This is why Trumps suggestion that One China is another bargaining chip, which the United States can play or not play as it likes, is both misleading and risky. On the one hand, it apparently misses the subtle, but extremely significant, differences between the American one China policy and the Chinese one China principle. On the other, it endangers the central tenet of American policy in the area the maintenance of the status quo. The Trump transition team has already referred to Tsai Ing-wen as President of Taiwan. This publicly undermines the only aspect of the One China issue where the United States and China actually agree that Taiwan is not a state, while starkly exposing the reality of the quasi state-to-state relationship that the American One China policy obscures. By using Taiwans status as a negotiating ploy, Trump is doubling down on this dangerous strategy. Chinas vital national interests are in conflict with U.S. policy, and stable relations are fragile, because all the parties are unhappy with the present situation. If the incoming administration persists in its apparent careless indifference, it runs the risk of grossly destabilizing U.S.-China relations, and even risks war.
Steven M. Goldstein was a member of the Smith College Department of Government from 1968 to 2016. He is now the director of the Taiwan Studies Workshop and associate at the Fairbank Center at Harvard University. His most recent publication is China and Taiwan (Polity Press, 2015).
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
0 replies, 869 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (1)
ReplyReply to this post