Tsai Ing-wen – USA Gov Policy

President-elect Trump’s acceptance of a congratulatory call from Taiwan President Tsai Ing-wen, the first such communication between a U.S. leader and a free Chinese President since 1979, has opened an issue that has been ignored for far too long.

During the worst days of the Cold War, The U.S. was able to use Beijing’s distrust of the Kremlin’s leadership to its advantage. While never formally allied, both America and China had a common interest in containing the vast Soviet military.

But on December 21, 1991, the USSR officially ceased to exist. Beijing and Moscow ended their rivalry, and now those two have formed what may well be the world’s most powerful military alliance, one which is centered around the goal of weakening American influence. The original reasons for Washington’s tilt away from Taiwan and towards the Mainland have all but vanished, but its’ policy tilt in favor of Beijing continues as though frozen in time.

There are harsh realities of the U.S-China relationship that have been ignored for far too long:

Beijing unfairly burdens American companies seeking to do business in China. They have even demanded that U.S. internet giants, such as Facebook, accept censorship. (Disgracefully, it appears that some have accepted that immoral condition as a cost of doing business.)
The Chinese military is geared against the US and its allies. China has engaged in a massive peacetime military buildup, despite the absence of any credible threat. It’s rate of spending increases even exceeds that of either the United States or the Soviet Union during the height of the Cold War.
Beijing engages in an extraordinary amount of espionage against the civilian American government, the military, and private businesses within the United States.
China has engaged in aggressive behavior against its neighbors. The World Court at The Hague has ruled that Beijing’s takeover of areas rightfully belonging to the Philippines, for example, was illegal.
China has established military relations across the globe, including within Latin America, that pose a threat to the United States.
One of the chief threats to international safety has been the North Korean nuclear weapons program. China has the influence to stop this, but has refused to do so.
Shortly before the call was made, mainland Chinese nuclear bombers circled Taiwan.

This also increases the amount of natural viagra in india online secretion of Hgh by body. For an instance if you have to make an order via internet or website. levitra without prescription http://downtownsault.org/black-dragon-martial-arts-and-wellness-center-opens-in-downtown-sault-ste-marie-michigan/ There online sale viagra article is dedicated to all those couples who are looking to improve their sexual performance by changing the way one eats and exercise. The price of patented drug overnight delivery viagra is made with a preparation called Sildenafil Citrate. viagra 100mg works greatly to hit the erectile dysfunction concern.
The reaction to Trump’s acceptance of the call has been intriguing. When President Obama re-established relations with Cuba, a Communist nation which has been a key sponsor of international terrorism, ruled by a government that harshly represses its own people, and which had recently invited the Russian navy back in, the media and much of the political class on the left considered the move praise-worthy.

However, the relatively innocuous acceptance of a phone call from Taiwan, which has been unfailingly friendly towards the United States, a good world neighbor and a fair and open trading partner, has been inappropriately met with distress.

The Brookings Institute worried: “The news that President-elect Trump has spoken by phone to Taiwan’s President Tsai Ing-wen as part of the series of congratulatory calls on his election heightens concerns about Trump’s foreign policy deftness. There are serious risks posed by his failure to take briefings by government professionals, and he appears to have little respect for the potential damage of actions taken without understanding long-standing U.S. national security concerns.”

The Washington Post wrote: “Donald Trump’s protocol-breaking telephone call with Taiwan’s leader was an intentionally provocative move…”

The President-elect’s response to the criticism was issued via Twitter:

“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?”

Although the phone call was a minor move, it is, hopefully, the beginning of a more practical, realistic, and balanced policy towards Beijing.

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.