The China Thread

[The Minsky Moment]

Yeah, I admit that I'm not particularly clued into all the pageantry of international relations, but if I was China I'd take more umbrage at the multibillion military aid than at Nancy Pelosi.

The aid is part of the 70s era settlement of the "China question".  The US agreed to recognize the PRC as China but on the understanding that the US would support Taiwan in resisting unification by force.  That has been the status quo for over 40 years.  The PRC may not like it, but it does not represent a threatened change in policy.

[The Minsky Moment]

Part of why I think the multibillion dollars in military aid isn't as much of a flash point is because it was specifically addressed during our normalization negotiations with PRC. It was essentially agreed that "there would be no agreement on this matter, and both sides will continue to disagree." That means PRC will occasionally huff and puff, but because it's kind of a black and white area where both sides agreed to normalize in spite of that outstanding, unresolved disagreement, it has never been as useful for Beijing as other things in their grievance parties.

Yes, this.
What sets off the PRC is the perception that policy is changing in a way they don't like.  A continuation of a policy they don't like is not perceived the same way.

And yes the PRC are a bunch of hypocrites that try to revise prior understandings themselves - i.e. violating the HK accords; signing and then flagrantly violating the LOS convention, etc. They like to test the West by pushing the envelope but by the same token they recognize similar actions against them and push back when they perceive it.

[crazy canuck]

Yeah, I admit that I'm not particularly clued into all the pageantry of international relations, but if I was China I'd take more umbrage at the multibillion military aid than at Nancy Pelosi.

The aid is part of the 70s era settlement of the "China question".  The US agreed to recognize the PRC as China but on the understanding that the US would support Taiwan in resisting unification by force.  That has been the status quo for over 40 years.  The PRC may not like it, but it does not represent a threatened change in policy.

And so you are going to have to explain how Pelosi's visit is inconsistent with that.

[crazy canuck]

Part of why I think the multibillion dollars in military aid isn't as much of a flash point is because it was specifically addressed during our normalization negotiations with PRC. It was essentially agreed that "there would be no agreement on this matter, and both sides will continue to disagree." That means PRC will occasionally huff and puff, but because it's kind of a black and white area where both sides agreed to normalize in spite of that outstanding, unresolved disagreement, it has never been as useful for Beijing as other things in their grievance parties.

Yes, this.
What sets off the PRC is the perception that policy is changing in a way they don't like.  A continuation of a policy they don't like is not perceived the same way.

And yes the PRC are a bunch of hypocrites that try to revise prior understandings themselves - i.e. violating the HK accords; signing and then flagrantly violating the LOS convention, etc. They like to test the West by pushing the envelope but by the same token they recognize similar actions against them and push back when they perceive it.

It's a change of policy because the APRC says it is?  I don't buy it.

[The Minsky Moment]

The China recognized by the US government did not give permission to visit but Pelosi went anyways based on the permission granted by the China not recognized by the United States.  Hence the inconsistency.

[crazy canuck]

The China recognized by the US government did not give permission to visit but Pelosi went anyways based on the permission granted by the China not recognized by the United States.  Hence the inconsistency.

How so, you yourself said "The US agreed to recognize the PRC as China but on the understanding that the US would support Taiwan in resisting unification by force".  Pelosi's visit is entirely consistent with that understanding.

[Jacob]

The China recognized by the US government did not give permission to visit but Pelosi went anyways based on the permission granted by the China not recognized by the United States.  Hence the inconsistency.

Has the PRC's permission been sought and granted by previous visits from US representatives? I believe the Speaker of the House visited Taiwan some 25 years ago and other Congressional delegations visited much more recently (this year even?) - did the PRC grant permission in those cases?

[The Minsky Moment]

There was diplomatic back and forth in 97 but ultimately the PRC greenlighted the Gingrich visit as long as he didn't fly direct from China to Taipei.

[The Minsky Moment]

How so, you yourself said "The US agreed to recognize the PRC as China but on the understanding that the US would support Taiwan in resisting unification by force".  Pelosi's visit is entirely consistent with that understanding.

Despite the claims of Fox News, I don't think Nancy Pelosi has much explosive content. And the use of the House Speaker as ordinance seems disrespectful to the office not to mention dangerous to her health.

[crazy canuck]

How so, you yourself said "The US agreed to recognize the PRC as China but on the understanding that the US would support Taiwan in resisting unification by force".  Pelosi's visit is entirely consistent with that understanding.

Despite the claims of Fox News, I don't think Nancy Pelosi has much explosive content. And the use of the House Speaker as ordinance seems disrespectful to the office not to mention dangerous to her health.

The current state of US gun laws may have distracted you from the fact that one can support resistance without ordinance.

[The Brain]

As long as she's not used as ordnance.

[Jacob]

There was diplomatic back and forth in 97 but ultimately the PRC greenlighted the Gingrich visit as long as he didn't fly direct from China to Taipei.

Interesting.

[Jacob]

It makes strategic sense for both the US and the EU to commit to domestic chip manufacturing, absolutely.

Still, if I was in Taiwan those announcements would give me a sinking feeling of becoming more expendable

[The Larch]

It makes strategic sense for both the US and the EU to commit to domestic chip manufacturing, absolutely.

Still, if I was in Taiwan those announcements would give me a sinking feeling of becoming more expendable

I have no idea of the numbers of potential chip manufacturing outside of Taiwan being bandied about by the US or the EU, but I seriously doubt that they'll unseat Taiwan as the main producer by far of microchips in the world. I mean, Taiwan's TSMC is even part of some of these projects to increase manufacturing outside of Taiwan itself.

It's not about Taiwan becoming expendable, it's about the rest of the world's economy not being so overwhelmingly dependant on Taiwan manufacturing.

[DGuller]

I agree.  Taiwan is going to be important for the foreseeable future in the industry no matter what, it's just a difference between a massively disruptive event and a catastrophic shortage.