The China Thread

[Sheilbh]

Simon Jenkins - the wrongest man in Britain

Literally every week this happens.

[Richard Hakluyt]

Simon Jenkins - the wrongest man in Britain

Literally every week this happens.

I decided to check on him and see what he did at university. As I expected/hoped, he did PPE at Oxford 

The purveyors of that degree ought to hang their heads in shame.

[HVC]

That's a weird mixture of subjects.

[The Larch]

That's a weird mixture of subjects.

It's the choice degree for British politicians, IIRC.

[Sheilbh]

And journalists (hell, it was Riz Ahmed's degree). There's an entire genre of books and articles about how Oxford and PPE are ruining the country by people who did PPE at Oxford (as they remind us regularly in their articles/books)

Simon Kuper is particularly bad at this - but literally on Sunday, Will Self had a piece: "PPE at Oxford has produced a Pernicious Political Elite - and me".

I feel like it's a very particular brand of humble-bragging.

[The Brain]

What's the allure of producing jack-of-all-asses?

[Josquius]

And journalists (hell, it was Riz Ahmed's degree). There's an entire genre of books and articles about how Oxford and PPE are ruining the country by people who did PPE at Oxford (as they remind us regularly in their articles/books)

Simon Kuper is particularly bad at this - but literally on Sunday, Will Self had a piece: "PPE at Oxford has produced a Pernicious Political Elite - and me".

I feel like it's a very particular brand of humble-bragging.

Meh. Just because you're one of the uber privelged elites doesn't mean you must use your power to keep the unfair system in place. Perfectly valid for people from the public school - oxbridge production line to point out it isn't right that people like themselves have so much privelege.
It could be argued even that it's the right thing to do when you get such an opportunity to take it to better being down the system.

Of course then there's examples like this where they do it poorly.

[The Minsky Moment]

Simon Jenkins - the wrongest man in Britain

Literally every week this happens.

I personally thought the visit was inadvisable, but Jenkins' piece is so awful the most logical explanation is that he is an agent provocateur in favor of it.

[Jacob]

I agree with the folks that argue that incrementally giving in to China's bullying on this increases danger, just like letting Russia fuck around with Ukraine encouraged Putin.

As Pelosi said, Congressional delegations to Taiwan are not rare. China decided to go all in on this one. But the US - and the world - should not let China dictate how other countries interact.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Congressional delegations to Taiwan are not rare, but the Speaker of the House hasn't visited in like 25 years. I think there's two-fold issues here--one is the fact that Xi is certainly looking to stir up trouble and stoke his "Wolf Warrior" position in preparation for his party congress which will see his third term confirmed. We cannot simply kowtow to a Chinese leader who wants to act bellicose for domestic political purposes.

On the flipside, we made a commitment as a country, to essentially recognize PRC as the government of China. As part of that, we did essentially betray Taiwan. That was something that maybe the American stomach couldn't handle, so we developed our posture of "supporting Taiwan's ability to defend itself" and "a desire for no-unilateral change in Status" and "perpetual peace in the Taiwan strait." But at core, we did turn our back on Taiwan for the PRC. As part of that normalization of relations with the PRC, we acknowledged that there is only one China.

If the baseline U.S. position back when the agreement occurred was thus that there was "one China, but we also will support Taiwan's ability to defend itself and oppose any bellicose change in status", the reality is it is on us to not attempt to undermine the "one China" part. PRC has a valid beef that we have, in some areas and in minor ways, been pushing things that could be interpreted as attempting to change the One China reality. I don't think we've done anything to warrant the response Xi is giving, but we did make a commitment to One China and I think it's not totally irrational that China is paranoid about any signs that we are attempting to renege on that.

[Jacob]

IMO, the West's commitment to "one China" is about as solid as China's commitment to human rights. It's something we say for reasons of convenience and to manage political realities, but it is not something we actually support.

So yeah, you're right it makes sense for China to be paranoid about it, because only they're bullying is what keeps it in place.

[The Minsky Moment]

The purpose of the visit is purely political; it's a way for Pelosi to shore up the national security credentials of congressional Democrats in a way that the GOP cannot object to and must support.  Otherwise it's an empty gesture.  The Taiwanese were not aching to hear Pelosi's oratorical prowess first hand.

The way it played out it did bring some benefit to the good guys, who are getting some free intel about current PRC naval and air capabilities.  PRC would have been better served making a curt and firm diplomatic protest and otherwise maintain an ominous silence.

The Chinese leadership is conservative in the small "c" sense - they are not eager to risk their position and the Party with an uncertain war with the West, especially after watching Russia's difficulties tangling with their supposed breakaway province.   At the same time, the Party has to maintain face as the guardian of national sovereignty domestically.  If Xi is forced to make a decision between the two priorities, its likely he will opt for domestic stability first, even at the risk of uncertain war.

I'm not categorically averse to some poking of the dragon, but only for a real return.

[The Minsky Moment]

The fact that US support for One China is mostly lip service only makes it more important to be seen to be maintaining the pretext.  The policy serves a purpose.  A decision to drop or revise it should not be made lightly, and should not be driven by 2022 midterm election politics.

[crazy canuck]

The fact that US support for One China is mostly lip service only makes it more important to be seen to be maintaining the pretext.  The policy serves a purpose.  A decision to drop or revise it should not be made lightly, and should not be driven by 2022 midterm election politics.

The One China policy is a bit more nuanced than that.  It does not concede that China has sovereignty over Taiwan.  It does concede that the Republic of China does not exist.  Pelosi's visit fits in that grey area.

[The Minsky Moment]

The communique states: "The US side declared: The United States acknowledges that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China. The United States Government does not challenge that position."

The communication itself does not concede PRC sovereignty over Taiwan.  However, the US subsequently recognized the PRC and withdrew diplomatic recognition from Taiwan.  That decision, when combined with the US government's agreement not to challenge the One China position, means that the US position is not to challenge PRC sovereignty.