For decades there was no direct flights between Taiwan to mainland China. Even though a direct flight from Taipei to Shanghai was slightly over one hour, you had to fly through Hong Kong or Macau, which added several hours to your trip.
In 2003, charter service between the two countries was permitted. It wasn’t until 2009, that commercial air service was permitted.
This is really the whole point.
When it comes to foreign affairs, most countries play a long game of chess. The US usually does, with occasional forays into short-term checkers.
Salesmen have a bad habit of believing they can alter reality just by saying whatever they wish was true enough times. Senior corporate execs are often prey to the same fallacy.
Trump’s action was either simply ignorant, willfully ignorant, or reckless. Not chess, not checkers, not even tic-tac-toe. He just walked by and bumped a game in progress, scattering some of the pieces.
I’m struggling to find a smart, good, or responsible option in there. I’m no fan of GWB, but I think most of his mistakes were honest ones. This is in a different category.
One hopes Trump’s behavior and actions will be different post Jan 20. Right now there’s some wiggle room in that officially he’s still just a reality TV host and real estate salesman. That changes bigly in about 5 weeks.
The problem is very historical and to do with “face”. Over the millennia China would expand its empire to encompass as much as possible, when the government was strong. When the government got weak, or was invaded and failed (as with Genghis Kahn and also in the late 1800’s-early 1900’s) The outer territories would split off from the central government.
So for China to admit that Taiwan was independent, or Tibet, or give up claims to the islands near Japan or the South China sea - would imply that the current government of China is “weak”. For obvious reasons, they would like to pretend this is not the case. They continue to insist that all historical Chinese territories belong to them, and that in time they will have full control.
Taiwan, as the embodiment of the former Chinese national government, has maintained a similar fiction. However, there have been rumblings for a while that they should recognize reality and give up any claim to being anything except an island nation of Taiwan. There are fears that any overt attempt to declare complete independence would trigger a military solution from mainland China. So Taiwan exists in this limbo.
China is like the cranky aunt who says “if SHE comes to the wedding, I won’t”. They make other countries choose to either recognize them, and therefore not Taiwan, or else no deal. Most countries go along with a polite compromise, they will carry on with Taiwan but not in public.
What Trump has done is throw the connection in China’s face, basically “you told us not to do this, and I did it.” I hope he doesn’t need China to buy Boeing, or buy US treasury bonds, or help vote and enforce sanctions on some country in the UN, etc. In international diplomacy, everything is connected. If we want China to not supply Iran, or North Korea, or whoever, well, they expect certain cooperation in return… not a Trump in a China shop.
You win the thread with that one. Bravo Good Sir!
You know, it’s possible if Obama had had a few “why the hell not” moments that Assad might not be retaking Aleppo right now. Just a thought.
So you’re saying that Aleppo would still be controlled by ISIS? I’m not sure that’s an improvement.
The thing is, if Trump were a competent businessman, he would know to buy cheap and sell dear (that’s kind of the fundamental basis for all business). We get a lot of stuff from China that’s really valuable to us. One of the things they ask for in return, that they value a lot, is that we pretend that they’re in control of Taiwan. They don’t care (much) if we do business with Taiwan; they just want us to pretend that we don’t. And that costs us almost nothing.
Someone who had any understanding of the art of deals would know that that’s a great one, and wouldn’t want to endanger it. But instead, we have Trump, who measures his success by the number of people he manages to piss off. And so, he’s endangering a really great deal, just so he can say that he’s the one who did it.
Was Aleppo ever controlled by ISIS?
Whether the RoC likes it or not, Taiwan is independent and has been for generations. Facts is Facts to paraphrase Ellis Parker Butler.
We really shouldn’t encourage this sort of ostriching.
I do note that many Presidents have met with the head of Palestine.
Or thousands of Americans could be dead.
As long as we’re throwing darts randomly, maybe if he had had a few such moments, cancer would be cured and we’d have a colony on Mars.
I thought they mentioned on CNN that Bob Dole is part of the lobbying for Taiwan and a part of the transition team; so he and others would have been influential in getting the call made, and encouraging Trump to talk to Taiwan. If so, this was done deliberately knowing what sort of insult it was to China.
When you make a move on the chessboard, it’s a very good idea to know how things will play out. I certainly hope, but do not expect, that this is the case with this move.
Historically?:dubious: Not always. China started taking over in 1683 from the Dutch (who took it from the natives), lost control to Japan in 1895, then the Kuomintang (KMT) took over and has held it ever since.
Since there has been agriculture on Taiwan since 3000 BC, at least, that means that China has controlled Taiwan for about 200 of the last 5000 years. So, historically? *Not so much. *
I think this has gone well beyond General Questions at this point. Let’s move it over to Great Debates.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
Good call.
And I must apologize for this post I made, before the move. I had mistaken which forum the thread was in, and so I made a post appropriate for GD but not for GQ.
It was really a GD question from the get-go. It’s 100% politics, either way.
They probably just call it “food” 
Not a good thought.
Imagine a surgeon taking that approach: “I’ll just cut out some pieces at random and see if the patient gets better.” Does that sound like a good idea?
That said, a surgeon with a “why the hell not” attitude can only kill one person. A statesman with a “why the hell not” attitude can kill millions of people.
Whoa…are Syria and Russia really supposed to be the surgeons saving the patients lives in this analogy??? Seriously? 
I don’t see how any of those examples are at all analogous to the China/Taiwain situation.
To use the Falklands as an example, there is nothing at all unconventional about it. There’s some islands in the Atlantic that belong to the United Kingdom. Argentina would prefer they belong to them. They attempted to annex them and lost the war. Nobody pretends that the situation now is anything but what it is; the Falklands are a British possession and Argentina wishes that was not so. I don’t see what’s terribly strange about that.
That’s not even a smidgen of what Little Nemo said.
aldiboronti suggested that Obama doing random stuff without thinking would have worked better in Syria than being careful as he was. And that Trump was also doing good by taking random tweet-swipes at China. Or maybe they were malicious instead of random. Either way they were not examples of thoughtful cautious cause-and-effect based thinking.
Little Nemo said that thinking that would work well is as stupid as thinking that a surgeon making random slashes on a patient would work well. Heck it might work!
It seems pretty clear to me.