Don't You Forget About Me?

My great-grandmother Verjine and her three brothers, around the time when their father was dragged away by Turkish soldiers and never heard from again. All they were trying to do was leave Smyrna.

Armenian Genocide Remembrance Day came and went on April 24th, and despite my best intentions, I couldn't write a thing. I tried to pen something article-like, thinkpiecey, memoirish. But no matter how much I called the black dog of fate, he would not come.

So instead I'll just ditch all the prose about what Armenians might think and feel on this day get on with what I really want to say: 

Restorative justice, international recognition, a meaningful apology -- these things matter. But what really upsets me every year on this date is the way that Turkey and a handful of its allies go balls-out posting ahistorical trash and victim-blaming Armenians, and the way that this rhetoric is alive and well today. Not just from Turkey, but deployed by China against dissidents and perceived "separatists". It terrifies me that seeing the exact same language and tactics portend fresh death.

Every year, there's also a small chorus of spectators to this show who ask whether Armenia shouldn't just get over it, pursue peace with Turkey today, let the past be the past. 

There's historical precedent for this: the Treaty of Lausanne was one big fat Letting Turkey Get Away With It, all because Turkey threw a temper tantrum. Of course, that temper tantrum turned into a war. 

Okay, but so what? Well, if we Let Turkey Get Away With It, we continue to tacitly condone a blueprint for anyone so inclined to commit atrocities and Get Away With It. And if there's a decent chance that the world will decide to ignore your genocide "for international peace and stability" or "we can't do anything about their domestic turmoil" or some such, then exactly what is stopping governments who are so inclined to just...well, commit genocide?

I'm not being hyperbolic here: I don't know if that oft-cited Hitler quote asking "who...speaks today of the Armenians?" is apocryphal (though it's probably real), but there's no way he wasn't aware of the genocide and the implications of Turkey's impunity. 

But let's talk about what's happening right now. Every year without fail, the Turkish government puts out some horrifying press release denying the genocide, without ever explicitly naming the accusations against it. 

I'm especially irritated by the part where Turkey says it does not need to be lectured about its own history by anyone. Bitch, that's my history too. I'll talk about it all I like.

This isn't new. Even before 1915, Abdul Hamid II was denying the Hamidian massacres while simultaneously making excuses for them:

In a rare interview, granted to a representative of the London Times, he declared that the reports of Armenian massacres were 'gross exaggerations.' To the mild inquiries of the English and French Ambassadors, the Sultan's Ministers replied politely, or sometimes not so politely, that the situation of the Armenians was an 'internal matter', and that, in any event, it had resulted from Armenian provocation."

If you realized that, without context, you might have mistaken all this for some Chinese wolf warrior lying about the Uyghur genocide or threatening Taiwan, congratulations. You've got the point.

And if you're wondering how an event they deny perpetrating at all could have also been "provoked", well, lies don't need internal logic. They just need to get pesky foreign countries off your back about all those crimes against humanity. Making sense is a nice-to-have, but it's not a need-to-have.

Back then, all of this -- the side-by-side denial and justification of massacres, the debate about whether Armenians deserved to not be killed en masse, was called the Armenian Question.

You know, kind of like how China and assorted bloviators refer to the Taiwan Question today. As though the words themselves weren't dehumanizing. Even people who should be smart enough to know better sign off on this sort of language as though the humanity of Taiwanese people -- of any people -- is a fucking question. As though this construct has any merit at all.

It is not, and it does not, Bonnie.

This sort of language is a precursor to genocide. 

Turkey's various allies help out -- not just through overt genocide denial, but in making it sound like it was committed by Armenians against Turks:

I cannot stress this enough. China is using the same sort of manipulative language that Turkey employs in its genocide denial when it insists that Hong Kong dissidents are "secessionists" for being unhappy that they didn't get the autonomy through 2047 that they were promised. (Some actually are secessionists, but they're not wrong.) It isn't that different when it calls Taiwanese whom they have never governed "separatists" who will be sent to re-education camps -- you know, the same way Turkey called Armenians "separatists" and then sent them to die in the desert.

Turkey continues to tell the world that recognizing the Armenian genocide is a "mistake". China tells the world to look away from its harassment of Taiwan -- apparently said harassment is fine, but challenging it is a "provocative activity". 

China is, in other words, creating pretexts.

Sometimes, they're post-texts. The Uyghurs whom they themselves terrorize are "terrorists",  and anyone who speaks up merely "interferes in China's internal affairs". The Uyghur genocide, of course, has already begun. China's lies terrorized Turkey into silence, even after the Premier League Genocide Denier itself had called it a genocide! This is some Circle of Life shit, except, you know, the opposite of that.

Anyway, this is already getting longer than I want it to be.

When people say victims of past atrocities and their descendants should leave such things "in the past", move on, focus on a contemporary peace, they miss the point. Not only is it wrong to lecture victims on the point at which they should be "over it" for your convenience, but it's not really about the past at all. It's not even about the future. It's about right now.

When I read sad testimonials and historical discussions about the Armenian Genocide, which are common around April 24th, I'm struck by how much the tactics and language employed back then continue to be employed not only by Turkey in its ongoing genocide denial, but by other countries looking to Get Away With It just as Turkey did.

Often, they do. In what way is China meaningfully hurting from its genocide of the Uyghurs? To what extent is it incentivized to stop? Or to leave Taiwan alone, never engaging in the slaughter it so frequently promises? The answer is not at all. Even people who want to deter China still treat Taiwan like a "question"!

China does these things -- it follows the same blueprint -- because we've learned so little. They're doing it because they can Get Away With It. 

This is what April 24th means to me. This is why it matters. Not because of the past, but right now. I'm less concerned with what happened a hundred years ago than the fact that China is using the same playbook, inventing the pretext now for a genocide in Taiwan.

In 1915, Turkey was able to exterminate Armenians from Anatolia. The world knew, but when Turkey told them to shut up and do nothing, they obliged. When Turkey insisted it never happened -- or that it did, but the "Armenian Question" was an "internal matter" and "provoked" by "terrorists", most countries tacitly accepted this. It took until 2021 for the United States to recognize the Armenian Genocide.

Today, China is erasing Uyghurs and their culture from East Turkestan. The world knows, but China tells them to shut up and do nothing, and that's exactly what they do. They insist it's not happening, or an "internal matter", or stopping "terrorists", and most countries are tacitly allowing it.

What year will it be when China decides it can invade Taiwan and ship anyone who resists off to a death camp? How much time do we have before calling Taiwanese "separatists" and the "Taiwan Question" an "internal matter" turns into labeling them "terrorists"? Will telling the world to shut up and do nothing work yet again?

Turkey wants you to forget. Don't. China doesn't want you to notice that they're using the same tactics, the same rhetorical flourishes. Notice.

Armenians were never a question, but they were a warning. And the Taiwan Question is not real -- it's a pretext.

Every missile pointed at my house proves that Kishore Mahbubani is wrong.

I read Kishore Mahbubani's genocide denialist, anti-Taiwan garbage so you don't have to.

Before I start, I just want to note that the author of the piece that just defiled my eyes is also the author of a book titled -- and I am not shitting you -- Can Asians Think? 

My husband picked it up at a used bookstore and hated it (because, duh), and the guy before him had scribbled a single word on one of the pages: wanker.

I never finished it to find out if Asians could, indeed, think, because who needs a book to answer a question like that? However, I can now honestly say that while Asians can think, Singaporean wanker Kishore Mahbubani is not exactly the greatest example of this.

Anyway, let's get started.

I was planning to take a week or two off blogging because I've been so busy with online teacher training, but this article in the National Interest is just begging to have some feces flung at it, so here we are I guess. 

I've waded through the whole thing so if you care about Taiwan, East Turkestan, Hong Kong, Tibet or any part of Asia outside of China and also want to keep your blood pressure in check, you don't have to.

If President Joe Biden were to propose to China an economic deal that would benefit the American economy (and American workers) and also benefit China, China would enthusiastically embrace such a deal.

Probably, but Mahbubani implies it might actually a good idea to propose such a deal, with a country that is actively committing genocide and threatening America's strategic partners, like Taiwan. I would consider such a deal to be akin to agreeing to work with the Nazis.

Second, China is not a threat to American security. China isn’t threatening a military invasion of America (and its armed forces are an ocean away); or a nuclear strike on America (with its nuclear warheads being one-fifteenth the size of America’s). China is also not threatening American military supremacy in regions like the Middle East. Indeed, China isn’t even the enemy of American defense budgets.

It's interesting that he mentions the Middle East, but leaves out the Pacific. By actively threatening Taiwan, salami-slicing the South China Sea (pissing off Vietnam and the Philippines), fighting with India, claiming the Senkakus and eyeing the Ryukyus, supporting the Myanmar junta, China absolutely is shuffling closer to a move toward dominance in the Pacific and the rest of Asia. The US might not do much about Myanmar, but they do care about that island chain. Either Mahbubani doesn't realize this, or he does and is deliberately omitting it. 

If Haines is right in saying that China is a threat to America’s security, the logical conclusion would be that China would be happy to see a reduction in America’s defense budget, America’s aircraft carriers, jet fighters, naval bases. Actually, China would be unhappy. Chinese strategic planners are absolutely thrilled that America is wasting so much money fighting unnecessary wars as well as maintaining a huge and bloated defense budget that weakens America’s competitive edge in more critical areas, like education and research and development.

To be clear, I'm not a fan of the US's massive defense budget. Friends have said it's necessary to maintain sufficient military supremacy to, say, protect Taiwan. I'm not a military analyst, I don't know, but ideologically speaking I don't care for it. However, Mahbubani is wrong. 

Mostly China is happy the US fights unnecessary wars because they offer a convenient palette with which to paint the Taiwan situation, making it look like the US standing against a potential invasion would be just another "unnecessary war" that we'd be better off staying out of.

Finally, Haines says that China is a threat to American “values across a range of issues.” This statement would be true if China were either threatening to export its ideology to America or threatening to undermine the electoral process in America. Neither is happening.

Have you asked any Chinese, Uighur, Tibetan or Hong Konger in the US whose families in China have been threatened (which also happens in other countries) if they believe that's true? Any of those groups, or any Taiwanese who's had to fight to have their issues platformed on university campuses with Confucius Institutes? Have you asked any of the airlines who changed their designations of Taiwan/Taipei to "China" at China's behest? Because I bet you they'd say the attempt to import CCP values to the US is very obviously a thing. 

The first misconception is that since China is run by a communist party, it must, like the former Soviet Union, be on a campaign to prove that communism is superior to democracy....Yet Americans also believe in empirical evidence. That evidence shows that China has stopped supporting fellow communist parties for decades.

That's because China isn't communist (neither am I, so don't come at me). Of course the CCP, despite its name, doesn't care about exporting communism. It cares about exporting the values of acknowledging China's global supremacy. This is easier to do if a country is, in fact, a dictatorship, but that's not a prerequisite.

If you think they are not trying to export CCP values, however, you are wrong. It hasn't hit America yet, but it's happening elsewhere.

I'm not pissed at China because they're "trying to export communism". I doubt it would work if they were. I'm pissed at China because they have fucking missiles pointed at my fucking house.

China’s real mission is to rejuvenate Chinese civilization, not waste time exporting communist ideology. 

It's really interesting that he chose to use these words. It's the exact phrase -- "rejuvenate Chinese civilization" -- that the CCP tends to approve of in translation. Anyone paying half a bit of attention knows what "rejuvenate Chinese civilization" means: destroy Uighur and Tibetan culture. Force authoritarianism on Hong Kong. Invade and subjugate Taiwan. Basically, do a lot of shitty things to a lot of people who either do not want them, do not consider themselves Chinese, or both. Do you support this, Kishore? Really? The violent subjugation of millions? 真的？

Plus, rejuvenate from what? Their own fuck-ups from about 1945 on? Because the "century of humiliation" was a long time ago (despite how frequently the Chinese government brings it up). There's more to rejuvenate from thanks to the Great Leap Forward than the Opium Wars.

If they're indeed still trying to "rejuvenate" from the late 180os, or even the domestic postwar mess they themselves created, doesn't that indicate that the CCP has failed rather than succeeded?

The second misconception is that when China becomes the number one economic power in the world, replacing America, it will, like America, go on a universalizing mission and export the Chinese “model,” just as America exported the American “model.” Here’s a perfect example of America’s total ignorance of its adversary. The most basic fact that Americans should know about the Chinese people is that they do not believe that anybody can be a Chinese in the way that Americans believe that anybody can be an American. The Chinese believe, quite simply, that only Chinese can be Chinese. And they would be puzzled if anybody else tried to become Chinese.

Two things. First, one need not "be Chinese" to import "the Chinese model", this is a non-sequitur. They seem quite happy to support a similar model in Myanmar, without ever thinking the people crushed by the junta are Chinese. 

Second, while it's true that by and large "Chineseness" is not an identity one can just take on the way one can immigrate to America and be "American", the CCP does have an objective of assimilation. Tibetans and Uighurs aren't Chinese under the most commonly understood construct of "Chineseness", and I don't think either group considers itself Chinese, but the CCP sure does seem eager to crush and assimiliate them -- to the point of literal genocide. 

And they are quite eager to insist that anyone they say is Chinese...is. This extends to millions of citizens of foreign countries who are, say, Swedish or Australian. They'll even abduct them on foreign soil, as they did with Swedish citizen Gui Minhai in Thailand.

They double down on Taiwanese being Chinese, even though the vast majority Taiwanese don't identify that way. So it sure does look from my Taipei apartment that China does think that people who are not Chinese can be -- must be -- Chinese. 

Actually, if the truth be told, Beijing doesn’t give a fig whether a country is a democracy or autocracy. It only cares whether it can work effectively with a given country. 

It sure does seem to care that Taiwan remains a democracy, Kishore. And doesn't seem keen to work with it so much as subjugate it.

Hence, if the birthplace of Western democracy, Greece, decides to join the Belt and Road Initiative and welcome Chinese investment in its Port of Piraeus, China doesn’t care whether Greece is a democracy or not.

It's interesting that you mention Greece -- far away -- but ignore Taiwan. And CCP support of the junta in Myanmar. And although it's technically part of China, the desire for democracy among Hong Kongers. Are you unaware that China is deeply unpopular across Asia, among its own neighbors? 

You might call yourself a "friend of America" earlier in the piece, but you are no friend of Asia.

Step three would be to reverse all the steps that the Trump administration took in the trade war with China. Why reverse them? They didn’t weaken the Chinese economy. Indeed, they may have damaged America’s economy instead.

They probably did damage America's economy more than China's, but we don't actually know that because there's no such thing as wholly reliable data from China. Besides, why would you want to work with a country that commits genocide? (I realize the US does just that with other countries, and even aids them -- including aiding the pummeling of Yemen and the Israeli treatment of Palestine, but ideally it wouldn't do so anywhere.)

 

Step four would be to rejoin the Trans-Pacific Partnership free trade agreement which former President Barack Obama had wisely initiated to ensure that the East Asian economic ecosystem, the largest one in the world, would not be centered on China. Step five would be to match the Chinese punch-for-punch by signing free trade agreements with every country or region that China has signed with. For example, one important arena for U.S.-China competition will be Southeast Asia, where there are still major reservoirs of goodwill towards America among its 700 million people. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) matters. In 2000, Japan’s combined gross national product was eight times larger than ASEAN’s combined GDP. By 2019, it was only 1.6 times larger. By 2030, ASEAN’s economy will be bigger than Japan’s. Hence, America should immediately sign a free trade agreement with ASEAN.

I'm including this because it's the first paragraph in a long string of garbage that I actually sort of agree with.  I don't think "free trade" is necessarily a fix for everything, but neither do I demonize it (as I said, I'm not a communist). It would be smart for the US to strengthen ties with the parts of Asia that are not China, period. Whether free trade is the best vehicle for this is a spin-off discussion of that.

But, is it not super weird that he completely ignores Taiwan, the country that would benefit most from stronger ties with the US? 

This is, probably, the most important point that American strategic planners should reflect on: at the end of the day, the outcome of the geopolitical contest between America and China will not be determined by the number of aircraft carriers or nuclear weapons. Instead, it will be determined by which society is doing a better job at taking care of its bottom fifty percent. As of now, China is leading by a mile....

Um...is it though?

Instead of tripping over myself to talk about why I don't think this is true, here's a tweet from an economist I think has the right of this issue:

There are plenty of countries in the world that do a better job at taking care of the poor, the working class, and the middle class than America does.

China is not one of those countries.

— Noah Smith 🐇 (@Noahpinion) July 31, 2021

I'll also add that while poorly regulated capitalism put America's bottom fifty percent where they are, that Chinese state control of the economy (not quite communism -- state capitalism) is what dragged most of China into poverty, and far worse poverty at that. Should we give the CCP a medal for attempting -- badly -- to pull people out of poverty that they themselves put into poverty?

There are four parts to this critical piece of advice: a country that knows what it wants (1), coping successfully with its internal problems (2) and global responsibilities (3), and which has a spiritual vitality (4). Vis-à-vis the Soviet Union, America was ahead on all four counts. Today, vis-à-vis China, America is behind on all four counts.

Look, America doesn't have much of a moral high ground. It's been awhile since we committed all-out genocide on our own land, although we have done so. We've not exactly been a moral compass on genocides abroad, to put it lightly.

But how can you look at the genocide of the Uighurs and threats to subjugate Taiwan and support for the mass repression and death in Myanmar, and call that "spiritual vitality", "dealing successfully with internal problems" and "global responsibility"? 

The government actively encourages their own people to say it's fine to massacre all Taiwanese as long as they take the island. Does that sound spiritually vital or globally responsible to you? They solve "internal problems" through gulags. Does that sound like a good method?

If so, what the everloving fuck is wrong with you?

Yet, Biden would be crucified politically if he were to lift trade sanctions against China that have harmed American businesses and farmers. The Biden administration will need strong political cover if it wants to rebalance relations with China and strive to achieve a more normal relationship with China, devoid of self-defeating tariffs and sanctions.

Okay, but why would you want to rebalance relations with a country that commits literal genocide and is threatening to invade and subjugate another important strategic partner?

Kennan’s wise advice, stated above, also emphasized that America should be mindful of the impression that America creates “among the peoples of the world.”

Right. So we should stand against genocide and subjugation. Meaning we should not be kind to China. That would be a good impression to make. One I could get behind.

America can now use the same empirical test to see whether the “peoples of the world” support America over China. Unfortunately, unlike the Soviet Union, China has not invaded or occupied any neighboring state.

You think the use of present perfect saves you, Kishore, but it doesn't. Your use of "complex" to weasel your way out of any sort of moral accountability for your stance signals what we're about to read.

Also, the world doesn't quite favor China as much as you want to make it seem.

Regardless, I'd like to say hello from Taipei, where I am pissed at China because they are threatening to invade the country I call home, a neighboring state. They have missiles pointed at my house. They want to massacre my friends. Does Taiwan not exist to you? Is it too inconvenient for your argument? Apparently so:

Nonetheless, America has accused China of behaving “aggressively” in three territories: Hong Kong, Xinjiang, and Taiwan. The issues involved in each of the three are different. Indeed, they are complex. However, most American commentaries make a simple black and white case that China’s actions in these three territories are wrong and, as a result, the “world” disapproves of China’s actions in these areas.

First, Taiwan is not a territory of the PRC. So now we know where you stand -- you are a filthy subjugationist. You honestly think a military invasion of Taiwan would be acceptable?

Fuck you, Kishore. Just...fuck you. I don't have better words. 

Fuck you. 凸

Second, I'm writing this as I'm reading it, but I hope to any gods in heaven that he is not about to launch into a defense of the genocide of the Uighurs or subjugation of Hong Kong.

Let's find out together! 

Whenever any American uses the phrase which suggests the “world disapproves of China,” they should say privately to themselves this phrase: “1.5 billion Muslims, 1 billion Hindus, 1.4 billion Africans, 600 million Latin Americans, 500 million Buddhists (or the vast majority of the world’s population) disapproves of China’s actions. By using this phrase, instead of “the world,” they would see clearly that they have made an empirically false statement. Most countries in the world do not support American criticisms of China in either Hong Kong or Xinjiang. As indicated above, there is an empirically verifiable way for America to determine whether the “world” supports American criticism of China’s actions in Hong Kong, Xinjiang, or Taiwan. America could table a resolution on any of three issues in the UN General Assembly. If it were to do so, America would find itself in the same situation as the Soviet Union in the Cold War. It would struggle to get thirty to forty countries out of 193 countries to support its point of view.

First, oh my god, you actually are weinering your way out of denouncing actual literal genocide in Xinjiang, repression in Hong Kong and an invasion of Taiwan by both-sidesing the issue, as if these things are acceptable if most of the world is willing to turn a blind eye. Seriously, fuck you.

I thought you were saying that the US should  be mindful of the "impression" it creates.

Doesn't that logically mean it should create the impression that it won't stand for genocide just because other countries are willing to ignore it? I know we haven't got a solid track record here, but it's high time we changed that, rather than adding to our past misdeeds.

Besides, the governments of those countries in the UN aren't willing to stand against these horrors not because they're not morally wrong, but because of all that fat Chinese investment in their countries. It's equivocation to say that the world is turning to China for financial reasons, but then that China's actions are not necessarily morally wrong because the world won't vote in the UN to say they are, when that is precisely because of those financial incentives. They are not the same thing, and you know they're not.

As for the people, most people who don't care about these things either live very far away and are preoccupied with their own issues; this is human nature. Others are simply unaware. But let's not substitute the actions of governments represented in the UN for beliefs of people. They don't exactly map, and you know that. 

Plus, I can think of one country that is not in the UN that should be. I live there, and China has its fucking missiles pointed at my fucking house. But you seem to think it would be fine for China to massacre this country's citizens the way it massacres its own. 

In theory, if China was suppressing its Muslims, the most outraged community would be the fifty-seven countries that are members of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation.

So you really are engaging in genocide denial. Great. You're also a filthy genocide denier. There is something so absolutely slimy and disgusting about implying a genocide doesn't exist if an insufficient number of people oppose it.

I note that Mahbubani doesn't go into any of the actual evidence that there is indeed a genocide. Of course he doesn't, that would destroy his argument that China is a normal nation just trying to help its people, not engaging in crimes against humanity. Rather, he dismisses it as probably not real because the world isn't doing enough to stop it. 

That is not an argument. If you think it is, go back to school.

Besides, I don't think you have to be Muslim to stand against the genocide of Muslims.

Yet not one Muslim country supported America or the West on Xinjiang. In response to the statement by the twenty-three countries condemning China, fifty-four countries backed a counter-statement defending China’s actions in Xinjiang.

Did we not just discuss China throwing fat stacks around the world? The Muslim world has been a big beneficiary of all this cash (well, the wealthiest have been, the debt traps tend to screw everyone else), but that just makes China as bad as the US on ethical foreign policy. It doesn't mean that the genocide isn't real. Just because the rest of Africa didn't do anything about the genocide in Rwanda in the '90s doesn't mean it didn't happen. Please stop conflating money and morals, and please stop pretending that genocide can be ethically acceptable if enough people are willing to turn a blind eye to it.

Let me show you what this argument actually is: until 1941 the US was -- or claimed to be -- uninterested in getting involved in the war in Europe. Newspapers in the 1930s had praised or defended Hitler for quite some time before that. By Mahbubani's logic, the Holocaust was therefore morally acceptable until the very moment the world decided it was not, and in fact it could be argued was not happening until the world realized it was. You could argue that the Armenian genocide didn't happen because nobody did much to stop it. Come on. Even infants have more object permanence than this absolute trashfire of a case. 

The real issue here is not the merits of the case on Xinjiang, Hong Kong, or Taiwan. The real issue is the stark difference between America’s standing in the world vis-à-vis its primary competitor in the Cold War, namely the Soviet Union, and its standing in the world vis-à-vis China. 

Why do I suspect you're only saying that because you know that on the merits of these issues, you lose?

Most countries want to have good relations with America. Yet most countries also want to have good relations with China. Hence, if any American administration, driven by domestic political pressures, steps up its geopolitical contest with China, it will find itself relatively isolated internationally. Few countries would enthusiastically support America in this contest.

Trying to keep yourself at an academic remove from essentially greenlighting genocide and the invasion and subjugation of a democracy is not a good look, Kishore. 

It's becoming clearer, in fact, that more countries are seeing the ethical impossibility of dealing with the CCP. From the investment deal with Europe tanking to Japanese officials finally saying that Taiwan mattered to them, to everyone else who stands to lose if Taiwan falls, I actually do think the US could find allies in this if the situation became desperate. 

And who would make it that desperate? China.

Bet you won't say that, though. 

The European countries, especially France and Germany, are among America’s closest allies. Yet they too will be ambivalent about joining any American crusade against China, even though they share some American concerns about China’s behavior.

There's truth in that, but you keep trying to tie it to some argument that therefore we shouldn't do anything for Taiwan, Hong Kong or Xinjiang. That these actions on the part of the CCP are acceptable because they've essentially bribed the world into not caring. Or that if most of the world doesn't care, it's okay to simply pretend something is not morally wrong. 

I would not have wanted you around in the late 1930s, because you probably would have been on Team Appeasement.

If geopolitics is also about geography, China’s investment in Africa is a geopolitical gift to Europe as it reduces African migration to Europe. An old adage says that one should not look a gift horse in the mouth.

Wait, why would it bad to have more Africans in Europe? I'd say Europe might benefit from more open immigration policies. What are you implying?

Besides, Chinese investment in Africa isn't all rosy, and don't you yourself call for "nuanced understandings"? Shouldn't this be one of them? I'm all for international cooperation and investment and assistance to marginalized groups and nations, and I admit the West doesn't have the best track record of offering aid with good terms attached. But the answer to that isn't to just let China offer even worse terms. It's to offer better ones.

Iran also demonstrates how China plays a long-term game of chess (or more accurately, the Chinese game of wei qi) while America plays checkers. 

Okay, but that -- and a lot of the "the Chinese think" language in this piece -- sure feels Orientalizing. From an Asian. Weird. 

Indeed, exactly fifty years ago, then-Secretary of State Henry Kissinger visited China. He raised many issues with Chinese premier Zhou Enlai. Zhou Enlai only raised one: Taiwan. Why? Americans have forgotten the century of humiliation China suffered from 1842 to 1949. The Chinese haven’t.

They might, if the CCP didn't keep bringing it up. And why do they keep bringing it up? Because it suits their political agenda. 

Also, if Henry Kissinger did something regarding China, you can be reasonably sure it was the wrong move.

The separation of Taiwan from the homeland represents the last living legacy of this century of humiliation. 

Only because the CCP says it does.

And you don't seem to care what the Taiwanese think. Do their opinions about their own country matter to you at all, Kishore?

The PRC has never ruled Taiwan and this "separation" is of a country that was joined, under another government and not all that strongly, for about 4 years. Before that, Taiwan was a colony of Japan, and before that, a colony of an entirely different Chinese government. For most of those centuries, only about a third of it was actually controlled by Qing colonizers. Regardless, the transition from empire to aspiring (though failing) democracy to state capitalist dictatorship does matter. This "inalienable part of China" line of thinking is a fabricated one, tailored to suit the CCP's political agenda.

You seem to have bought the line that Taiwan is inalienably part of China. Do you even care that most Taiwanese haven't? Why do China's views on Taiwan matter more than Taiwanese views about their own country?

Hence, it would be foolhardy for any Chinese leader not to work out extreme options if America walks away any further from the One China policy. China will look for a suitable “Achilles’ heel” in America. As I document in my book, Has China Won? The Chinese Challenge to American Primacy, the role of the U.S. dollar as the global reserve currency is one area of vulnerability. This issue is complicated. Yet there’s no doubt that America’s standing in the world will fall sharply if the U.S. dollar loses its global reserve currency status.

Again with the academic remove to obscure the fact that you are essentially endorsing wiping a thriving democracy that does not want to be a part of China and will face mass persecution and massacre (yes, massacre) off the map. 

It would also be foolhardy for China to invade Taiwan, but you don't seem too concerned about how unwise a move it would be.

God, you're worse than Kissinger and I still cannot wait until that eldritch horror exits this world.

Many Americans will not be daunted by this prospect. Since many Americans tend to have a black and white view of the world, where they believe they represent right over wrong, or good over evil, they will console themselves by saying that America is carrying out a noble global mission of defending freedom, democracy, and human rights against an evil, authoritarian, despotic regime, which is oppressing its own people. 

Sure, okay, but in this case there actually is a right and a wrong. In this case, despite the "complexity" of the issues, the ethical path actually is clear. 

To pretend it's not and mock those who say it is is, again, to hide behind both-sidesist garbage.

In any case I am "not daunted by" the prospect of fighting for what's right not because my view of the world is black and white, but because China has fucking missiles pointed at my fucking house.

This brief representation may seem to be a caricature of American views. However, it’s not unfair in suggesting that many Americans, including thoughtful Americans, have a black and white view of the relationships between America and China.

No. 

I have a black and white view of the fucking missiles pointed at my fucking house.

 

It will not be long before China becomes equally stigmatized as another “evil empire.”

It already is an "evil empire". It's not wrong to call a thing by its name.

It is committing atrocities across multiple territories, most of which it has no supportable claim to (East Turkestan and Tibet should not be part of China) and is threatening to invade the democracy next door.  By advising that we ignore this, you are advising that we continue America's own ethical void.

Yet most countries in the world just see China for what it is: a normal country.

"Normal countries" do not commit genocide and threaten to invade their neighbors, you absolute turnip.

 

Americans may wish to dismiss these growing signals of respect for China just as opportunistic moves by countries that just want to benefit from the Chinese economy.

Yes. That's pretty much what it is. We're talking about governments here, not people, and governments can be swayed just as easily by morally-void money stacks, if not more so.

Before falling into a smug attitude of moral superiority, Americans should consider the possibility that the rest of the world is capable of arriving at a sophisticated and nuanced understanding of China.

It's not moral superiority. I want them to remove their fucking missiles pointed at my fucking house.

Anyway, the word "nuanced" (along with "complex" and "rejuvenate" and "national humiliation") is another keyword showing someone's drunk Xi Jinping's juice.

How about this instead: it's possible to have a nuanced understanding of China as a place, set of interrelated cultures, people and history, but see in very stark terms that the CCP is in fact evil, and it's not "jejune" to point this out.

Or this: any "nuanced" understanding of the situation requires also understanding the Taiwanese perspective, among others such as Uighur, Hong Konger and Tibetan perspectives. Namely, that Taiwan is self-governing, does not want to be a part of China, and it is wrong to invade neighboring states. If you call for "nuance" but all you offer is CCP talking points, then the one lacking that nuance is you.

Yet, even as China has become more powerful, it continues to embrace the Western-originated, rules-based order generated by the UN Charter and the UN family of institutions. Anyone who doubts this should read the UN Charter again. Its principles support China.

China is on the Security Council. Of course its principles support China. The UN's "principles" include being utterly useless, and turning a blind eye to invasion, apartheid and genocide. The UN should not be the basis for your ethical code, ever. 

And it has not embraced the "rules-based order" so much as tried to use it to its advantage by keeping Taiwan out.

Equally importantly, China is creating a stable and well-ordered society that is significantly improving the lives of 1.4 billion people.

I don't think the ones in jail in Hong Kong or in death camps in East Turkestan have had their lives improved. But they're inconvenient to your argument so once again you ignore them.

A peer-reviewed, credible academic study done by the Harvard Kennedy School has documented and explained how support for the Chinese government has gone up from 86 percent in 2003 to 93 percent in 2016.

I've read the study and while I'll admit it has a veneer of credibility and is peer-reviewed, that doesn't change the fact that real political research can't actually be done in China. What Chinese citizen would tell a bunch of foreign researchers what they really think of their government?

Besides, a few generations of government control of messaging all the way through school is likely to achieve such results. How and whether one can actually have and express an opinion is transmitted to new generations very differently in China -- for political reasons, not cultural ones. That the operation has likely been successful does not give the government moral cover. 

And it doesn't remove the fucking missiles pointed at my fucking house. 

President Xi Jinping is a man of few words.

Yeah, and most of them seem to be defending genocide and subjugation. You seem okay with that.

I hope he becomes a man of zero words, as soon as possible. 

“China does not, first, export revolution; second, export poverty and hunger; third, cause troubles for you.”

Unless you're Taiwanese (or caught in a BRI debt trap).

 

Most countries in the world would agree with the spirit of Xi’s statement.

Sure, but he intends to do all of those things to Taiwan. Maybe listen to Taiwan, where people know the cake is a lie?

As long as China takes care of its people and doesn’t disrupt the world order...

And dismantle the fucking missiles pointed at my fucking house, perhaps?

...the rest of the world will be able to get along with China.

I'd rather they stood with Taiwan and against, you know, genocide.

Truly, this article is so bad -- from the slimiest kind of genocide denial to the outright dismissal of any sort of Taiwanese perspective -- that if I ever have to read anything like it again I might have a fucking stroke. 

Guest Post: The Left has been wrong on China since the Trump-Tsai phone call

I'm still on hiatus -- my advisor's forthcoming feedback on my draft will determine how much longer that will last. But, in my absence, I thought it would be interesting to open up Lao Ren Cha to other voices, especially Taiwanese voices, with a possible series of guest posts.

This is my first experiment in guest posting, from Eric, a Taiwanese Canadian, written as a reaction to this article on the left's silence on genocide in China. It generally fits with the editorial line here at Lao Ren Cha ("editorial line" being fancy talk for "my opinions") while introducing a new style and perspective into the mix. Enjoy! 

- Jenna


With the recent change in mainstream media narrative on the Chinese regime, accelerated by the coronavirus pandemic, one would not expect too much of a political cost for raising objections to its actions. Threats and attacks on neighbors, technology theft, fentanyl exports, loan shark diplomacy, concentration camps, genocide, live organ harvesting, systematic societal control — anyone who has been paying attention should have long recognized the threat to liberal values posed by this regime, yet the headlining leaders of the Liberal Left have been derelict for some time on this file. Sadly, this is not a surprise to those of us who have been watching this space for a while and have long lamented this problem.

For anyone who has generally progressive views and supports Taiwan and its continuing existence as a free and democratic country this contradiction is particularly painful, as many writers in Taiwan have noted. I have always been and continue to be a supporter of most of the values espoused by the moderate Liberal Left: social justice, environmental protection, universal human rights, yet I have little faith in international institutions and believe in healthy defense, training and advanced weaponry--peace through strength. Realizing that you have loved ones, friends, places and things that you value under constant threat of annihilation enforces pragmatism.

Personally, becoming deeply skeptical of the capital-L Liberal Left (as an ideological brand or label defined by its leading voices rather than a fuzzy set of held values) was a long time in the making, as I watched liberal papers such as the Guardian give voice to awful regime apologists, saw socially progressive celebrities and politicians look down in meek silence or even take pro-Beijing stances, or journalists unthinkingly regurgitating official narratives, making it easier for Beijing to calculate in its own favor as it continued to trample over every value they purported to hold dear. 

For me, the last straw was the response when President Donald Trump accepted a phone-call from Tsai Ing-Wen shortly after winning her 2016 election as President of Taiwan, and the cacaphony of supposedly progressive voices from that corner screaming bloody murder, warning of apocalypse and doom should anyone cross Beijing, heaven forbid the leader of the United States, for all of his faults, should take a symbolic phone call from the democratically elected, female President of one of the most free, liberal and progressive democracies in the world and risk angering a brutal regime that enslaves its own citizens and threatens others. 

That so many failed to even see this hypocrisy or consider that even a broken clock might be right twice a day made me lose much of my faith in peoples' ability to think critically, on both sides of the political spectrum. The biggest heartbreak came from the disappointment of seeing well-known people who I liked and admired unthinkingly retweeting such Chicken-Littlism and the false narratives that go with it or adding to the chorus.

Before anyone can accuse me of naiveté for thinking Trump did this out of the goodness of his heart, of course political and national interests are always considered, and I am OK with that. The minor symbolism of taking the call was enough.

So here we are, more than 4 years later and yet it seems for many, none the wiser. Just a few months ago, those same commentators were defending the WHO despite clear evidence that they had actively and knowingly caused the COVID19 epidemic to get worse, all in deference to China. While Trump was wrong to pull out of the WHO (how can the USA advocate for Taiwan’s inclusion if it’s not even there?), holding a benefit concert that made the WHO look like the victim in all this was laughable. 

Liberals often pride themselves on their critical thinking skills, and yet swallow CCP narratives that a phone call to a democratic leader friendly to the US is a diplomatic crisis. They pride themselves on logic and facts, yet threw a concert to support an organization that was proven to spread lies that harmed global health. They pride themselves on standing for access to human rights…unless the people fighting for those rights are far away. The right thinks masks are mind control devices, poverty will go away if you ignore it, and that it’s acceptable to put children in cages. How are they right about China while we writhe in indecisiveness? How are we losing the moral high ground on this?

The world did not end in war over a phone call. Universities still compromised their values for unsustainable profits, financiers continued to try to reap profits from the Chinese market, cadre money still got laundered in real-estate and commodities still got sold. On the other hand, the pandering obsequiousness with which the UN, governments, corporates and media treated the CCP regime, abetted by the silence of the Liberal Left, resulted in a pandemic that killed thousands, wrecked countless lives and made the world more dangerous and unstable.

And still, the biggest call to action on the left seems not to be the ongoing genocide in Xinjiang, standing with Hong Kong, or supporting Taiwan, but fear that standing up to the CCP is simply too scary to contemplate. A lot of this stems from thinking everything the right says must be wrong, so they must be wrong about China. 

Honestly, they are indeed wrong about almost everything, and Trump is not a reliable ally. Nobody who calls Xi Jinping a “good friend” and doesn’t seem fazed by concentration camps could ever be. But, when it comes to the CCP, the Liberal Left is the one the wrong. Trump is terrible, but when he criticizes China, he’s not wrong just because he’s Trump. 

At this time, I wonder if it would be too small-minded of me to contact those who unknowingly supported the stance of the CCP regime in admonishing the US President for taking Tsai's call four years ago, and see if their view had changed in hindsight. I fear, however, that I would be disappointed.  

Fortunately, critical voices are starting to come out on the Left, surprisingly from parts of Europe, of all places, with the German Green Party or Czech Pirate Party, for example. In the US Congress, important legislation regarding Hong Kong, Taiwan and Xinjiang passed unanimously — meaning Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives alike, supported it. There is still time to push Joe Biden away from Obama-era China doves and towards policy advisors who are more realistic about the CCP, and to embrace bipartisan efforts in congress.

We still don't know if even this pandemic is enough to overcome inertia and make people realize that they are affected by what happens in Asia (the last Federal election in Canada was a hold-your-nose-and-vote affair), but hopefully change will come. Regardless, the left-right dichotomy, with its simplifications and polarizing power, has shown that it is no longer useful for the messy, chaotic world we live in.

Taiwan needs backup, but Trump is not your friend

I can't stand John Bolton, a man for whom the epithet "the worst" could have been invented for. John Bolton is the absolute worst. 

But, although hearing anything from him makes me ill, it is important that we all digest the comments in his Wall Street Journal op-ed (without forgetting that he refused to testify before Congress because he is the worst). At the very least, I hope they will put to bed any notion that Trump is any sort of friend to Taiwan or Hong Kong.

Yes, this is a real belief - even people I know who can't stand Trump say "but he is good for Taiwan" or "I do like how he's strong on China". The Wall Street Journal is here to tell you that you are wrong:

I hoped Trump would see these Hong Kong developments as giving him leverage over China. I should have known better. That same month, on the 30th anniversary of China’s massacre of pro-democracy demonstrators in Tiananmen Square, Trump refused to issue a White House statement. “That was 15 years ago,” he said, inaccurately. “Who cares about it? I’m trying to make a deal. I don’t want anything.” And that was that.
Beijing’s repression of its Uighur citizens also proceeded apace. Trump asked me at the 2018 White House Christmas dinner why we were considering sanctioning China over its treatment of the Uighurs, a largely Muslim people who live primarily in China’s northwest Xinjiang Province. 

At the opening dinner of the Osaka G-20 meeting in June 2019, with only interpreters present, Xi had explained to Trump why he was basically building concentration camps in Xinjiang. According to our interpreter, Trump said that Xi should go ahead with building the camps, which Trump thought was exactly the right thing to do. The National Security Council’s top Asia staffer, Matthew Pottinger, told me that Trump said something very similar during his November 2017 trip to China. 

Trump was particularly dyspeptic about Taiwan, having listened to Wall Street financiers who had gotten rich off mainland China investments. One of Trump’s favorite comparisons was to point to the tip of one of his Sharpies and say, “This is Taiwan,” then point to the historic Resolute desk in the Oval Office and say, “This is China.” So much for American commitments and obligations to another democratic ally. [Emphasis mine].

I quoted at length because not everyone can jump over the paywall.

Let me make one thing clear. Taiwan does not need a savior. Taiwan does not want some world-ruining, self-interested fake white knight galloping in to defend a damsel in distress with his big manly sword. That is ludicrous. 

President Tsai has been continuously strengthening Taiwan's military capabilities since she was elected (something her predecessor failed to do), and her popularity stems in part from her strong message of standing as a bulwark against China. She has been clear that Taiwan has the capability to repel a first wave of invasion from China. It can defend itself - for a time. 

It seems clear that Taiwan, in general, doesn't want to stand alone against China. I also believe Taiwan is aware of the limitations of its indigenous defensive capability, and at what point help might be needed. 

What Taiwan needs is support. Backup. On Taiwan's terms, as much as possible. And it's not in a position to slap away any hands offering it.

That's what differentiates this issue from every other mess the US has blundered into: the fact that Taiwan, generally speaking, wants the help, that it can defend itself to a degree, and that it has a functioning government that can get us through any conflict started by China, and guide us after it.

The current Congress has been good for Taiwan, passing plenty of legislation which is heartening to see after so many years of a supposed ally actively attempting to undermine Taiwan's ability to defend itself. That Congress is bipartisan, with Democrats voting for this legislation as much as Republicans. Even leftie darling Bernie Sanders has said he’d stand up to China. The support Taiwan needs is bipartisan and pan-political. It does exist. 

We need to keep building that bipartisan support, and reaching out to better potential allies and friends, rather than slapping hands away. 

Trump himself, however, has been a liability. Yes, he signed the bills passed by a bipartisan legislature, but he had to - they’d passed unanimously. In every other way he has done harm. 

In his selfishness, inconsistency and inability to execute even the fundamental duties of his office, he is not a friend. He compared Taiwan to the tiny, inconsequential tip of a Sharpie, and asked Taiwan’s biggest enemy for help winning the next election: 

One highlight came when Xi said he wanted to work with Trump for six more years, and Trump replied that people were saying that the two-term constitutional limit on presidents should be repealed for him. Xi said the U.S. had too many elections, because he didn’t want to switch away from Trump, who nodded approvingly.

Let me repeat: he is not your friend. 

Xi Jinping is our generation's Hitler and the Communist Party of China is a terrorist organization which cannot be trusted to adhere to any negotiations or agrements. I don't even think this is a mere opinion - I mean, the literal concentration camps are currently in use. Trump told him they were fine. We need to deal with Xi the way we dealt with Hitler, and that does not include appeasement, turning a blind eye to blatant annexationism, asking the New Hitler to help you get re-elected and - oh yeah, did I mention the concentration camps?

Standing in the street, arms linked, wouldn't have stopped Hitler. A protest on Ketagalan Boulevard won't stop a Chinese air assault (it will give it a target). Nobody wants a war, and Taiwan will not start one (nor, I hope, allow one to be started in its name). 

But Taiwan simply needs to be able to defend itself. There are few outcomes worse than war, but annexation by China is one of them. 

We are not going to get to choose if China decides to start a war, and deciding that backup from imperfect sources is unacceptable (or may even be the cause of that war) is irrational. If there is a war, the cause will be China, period. I can't say it will happen, but we have to accept that it is possible. It would be great to exclaim that because Taiwan is being treated like a pawn, that we simply shouldn't play the game. Refusing to play is underrated! Sadly, in this case, we don't get a choice. 

I don't want a war, but if I have to meet PLA soldiers in the streets with a baseball bat, well, it'd be great to have some backup. I can't speak for others, only myself, and only Taiwan can decide how it will meet that threat. As of now, however, its strategy seems clear: build defensive capability as much as possible, and reach out to the rest of the world for helping hands, because they might be needed. It's not Taiwan's fault that not all help comes from a perfect source.

But just because not all alliances are ideal does not mean that Trump is any sort of helping hand. Taiwan may need backup, but he will never be the one to consistently provide it. Taiwan may need friends (and may not always get to choose who they are), but he will never be one.

The people you need to help you fight Hitler is absolutely not the guy who says concentration camps are okay. 

Which US presidential contenders are best for Taiwan?

The subtle chaos of this absolutely insane photo collage is intentional. 

There's been a lot of debate online about the various US presidential candidates, and which one is most likely to stand up to China, or have a strong Taiwan policy. However, there's no comprehensive breakdown of each candidate and their views on China alongside any analysis of what that might mean for Taiwan. So I thought I'd make one.

It's almost impossible to answer this, as only one candidate - Andrew Yang - has actually been asked about Taiwan. This is because of racism (not that he was asked, but that the other candidates haven't been). While it's possible to glean some hint of who is best for Taiwan from what they say about Asia, China, the Hong Kong protests and the Uighur human rights crisis, it's mostly speculation.

I love speculation, so let's do this!

I've included all Democratic contenders and Donald Trump - the chances of his being dumped by his own party during the nomination process are nil, and minor party and independent candidates won't take enough of the vote to make a difference. That said, it's worth noting that every non-major party candidate I looked at had an absolutely terrible China policy. In a fairer world, I'd include everyone on any ballot, but I just don't want to write about lost causes like Brian Carroll and Howie Hawkins. I have better things to do with my time.

There's not much order here, though more popular candidates appear toward the top and low-polling ones are lower down. Warning - this gets quite long. 

Donald Trump

We're only starting here because he's the current president.

I've noticed a distinct tendency of online commentary to lean towards him being "strong" and "consistent" on China and "good" for Taiwan, but overall I have to disagree. It is true that he's done things regarding China - like actually critically engage them on trade - that Democrats and (probably) establishment Republicans simply would not dare to do, but most of this bluster has been on economic grounds, not human rights issues. And it's true that the people he's put in office, from repugnant John Bolton to admirable Randall Schriver, have generally been good for Taiwan. These are absolute facts.

However, I find it hard to believe that these appointments were made because Trump has a real interest in Taiwan, even as a poker chip or tradable commodity. His interests extend to power, money, sex and food as they relate to himself and his favored children only, and arguably he's not good at any of them. (If you want to add "golf", that's included in power and money.)  He appointed people he was recommended to appoint, and that those people have been friendly to Taiwan was most likely a coincidence. There's no presidential intentionality there.

And he's not consistent on China. Quiet down - no, he isn't. For every bit of tough talking or every bill signing of legislation that helps Taiwan, there's been some instance of him calling Xi a "great leader" who is doing an "amazing job" or saying Hong Kong is an "internal matter" for China to solve on its own. Yes, he later signed the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act (HKHRDA, sponsored by both Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren), and that's great. He's also signed the Taiwan Travel Act. That's fantastic too. Many good things have happened for Taiwan and the region under Trump...but that doesn't mean he is consistent. 

Even the Trump-Tsai phone call was not a sign of consistent Taiwan support - soon after, Trump appointed a Beijing-friendly ambassador to China, and the US had to reassure China that it was not revising its "One China" policy (as distinct from China's own One China Principle). 

Final call: great things have happened for Taiwan in US politics while he's been in office, but that's not due to him or any views he holds (as he doesn't really seem to hold any which aren't self-serving.) He's not the best choice for Taiwan.

Joe Biden

At first glance, Biden seems like a poor choice for Taiwan (spoiler alert: he is...mostly.) A lot of his foreign policy stances are reminiscent of Obama's, and he's said China is "not competition" for the US. Not necessarily because he thinks the US can engage productively with an aggressive, authoritarian China, but because he thinks they can't even run their own country right. He further said he "wanted [them] to succeed" and pointed to some completely arbitrary issues as their biggest challenges.

That said, it's an astoundingly naive thing to say - China is absolutely a global threat, and as a huge economy with deep trade links and most importantly, having the explicit goal of unseating the US as the global hegemon, they are competition. If you want to end the entire notion of global hegemony, not just the US's, they're a general threat, too.

There's more to it than that, however, and it's not fair to dismiss him with "soft on China, NEXT" without really looking at his actions. 

He was one of the only Democratic contenders to have congratulated Tsai on her presidential election win last month (the only other one I can find who did so was Pete Buttigieg). And he specifically called for stronger US-Taiwan links: 

“You are stronger because of your free and open society,” Biden, the former U.S. vice president, said in a tweet congratulating Tsai. “The United States should continue strengthening our ties with Taiwan and other like-minded democracies.”

All of that is great, and honestly, we could do worse (see: Mike Bloomberg and Tulsi Gabbard). However, it's a bit vague and I'm going to need to see specifics to counter all the anti-Taiwan crap in his history, outlined below.

Historically he has not been strong on Taiwan, saying (though not generally publicly) that he would not support the Taiwan Security Enhancement Act and that no American would send their children to die fighting for Taiwan.

He's also said this, in 2001:

The US won't come to Taiwan's aid should China attack the country for making a unilateral declaration of independence, US Senator Joseph Biden said on Monday....

...Biden said the Taiwan Relations Act remained the key document governing America's commitments to Taiwan -- remarks widely seen as an attempt to counter a promise by US President George W. Bush that America would do "whatever it took" to defend the country. 

Biden in his speech argued for the retention of what he called the "studied ambiguity'' of the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act, whereby the US would remain ambiguous on whether it would help Taiwan repel a Chinese attack.
That act, he said, told Taiwan "you are no longer an independent country. You are no longer an independent nation-state. We've agreed that you are going to be part of China and that you will work it out." 

Biden also punctuated his comments with a clear warning: "So don't go declaring independence, because we are not willing to go to war over your unilateral declaration of independence."

Yikes. Why does no-one remember this? Well, as Brendan pointed out, if you deduce the date the quote was made...hm.

Methinks Joe Biden, in 2001, did not actually understand the point of the TRA or any of the related menagerie of assurances or communiques. If he did, he'd understand that the point was not "you're going to be unified, the only question is how to negotiate that peacefully", at least not after it became clear that the ROC government these policies were created for did not actually represent the Taiwanese people. 


On China these days, he isn't actually as bad as he often comes across: 

Biden has framed China’s rise as a “serious challenge,” criticizing its “abusive” trade practices, warning that it may pull ahead of the United States in new technologies, and criticizing its human rights record. However, he says President Donald J. Trump’s confrontational approach is counterproductive, alienating allies that should be recruited in a broad front to pressure Beijing.

There's more on Biden's China views on that page, and it's worth reading in full. That said, US politicians' use of "we need a broad front of allies to do this", while valid, tends to be a way to paint a palatable veneer on the subtle art of not doing a goddamn thing. 

And, if he is campaigning on "want another Obama-like moderate from the aughts? Vote for me!" then that doesn't bode well:

Traveling to Beijing in February 2009, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton signaled that the administration would not let its traditional support of human rights “interfere with the global economic crisis, the global climate change crisis and the security crisis.”....

Washington needed to show China that it welcomed China’s rise, he said on Oct. 5, 2009. In exchange, China should assure America that its rise “will not come at the expense of the security and well-being of others.” Steinberg called for “strategic reassurance” on both sides of the Pacific.

The Chinese saw the olive branches as a sign of weakness. “Strategic Reassurance? Yes, Please!” went the headline in the People’s Daily. The United States should reassure China, it said, by ending all arms sales to Taiwan and all military surveillance activities off China’s coast.

Later Obama would warn Trump against messing too much with the US's overall China/Taiwan policy. I'm going to quote at length here because the details matter:

And with respect to China -- and let's just take the example of Taiwan -- there has been a longstanding agreement, essentially, between China, the United States, and, to some degree, the Taiwanese, which is to not change the status quo. Taiwan operates differently than mainland China does. China views Taiwan as part of China, but recognizes that it has to approach Taiwan as an entity that has its own ways of doing things. The Taiwanese have agreed that as long as they're able to continue to function with some degree of autonomy, that they won't charge forward and declare independence. 

And that status quo, although not completely satisfactory to any of the parties involved, has kept the peace and allowed the Taiwanese to be a pretty successful economy and a people who have a high degree of self-determination. But understand, for China, the issue of Taiwan is as important as anything on their docket. The idea of one China is at the heart of their conception as a nation. 

And so if you are going to upend this understanding, you have to have thought through what the consequences are, because the Chinese will not treat that the way they'll treat some other issues. They won't even treat it the way they treat issues around the South China Sea, where we've had a lot of tensions. This goes to the core of how they see themselves. And their reaction on this issue could end up being very significant. 

That doesn't mean that you have to adhere to everything that's been done in the past. It does mean that you've got to think it through and have planned for potential reactions that they may engage in.

Although Obama's actual words were more well-considered than some Taiwan advocates wanted to believe, I still feel they were not strong enough in support of Taiwan, and still repeated the same old lie that the status quo "works" for Taiwan, rather than acknowledging that Taiwan has essentially been bullied into accepting something that doesn't actually work well for them, as the least bad option.

Of course, we can't judge Biden entirely on the foreign policy weaknesses of Obama, but as his Vice President, he was right there during all those mistakes, giving us no reason to believe he'd tried to advise a different path.

Final call: Biden isn't as bad on China as he initially comes across any longer, but he will probably be weak on Taiwan if elected, given his history. If the chips are down and Taiwan needs backup, I don't trust him to be the one to provide it. That said, he the only candidate I've heard so far who says we should strengthen our ties with Taiwan - it's just that I don't trust him on the follow-through, given what he's said in the past.

And no, I'm not interested in hearing about Hunter Biden in China because it just isn't important enough and there's no evidence that it matters.


Elizabeth Warren

I'll admit up front, she's my favorite.

There are some potential downsides to a Warren presidency for Taiwan - she hasn't directly been asked or spoken about Taiwan, for example, it's hard to map support for Hong Kong or the Uighurs onto an obvious incentive to support Taiwan. As far as I know, she did not congratulate President Tsai on winning in January. She did not vote for the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), choosing not to cast a vote at all. Among other things, the NDAA:

....describes Taiwan as a vital partner critical to a free and open Indo-Pacific region, and reaffirms U.S. commitment to the Taiwan Relations Act and Six Assurances. It also calls for enhanced Taiwan-U.S. cooperation on cybersecurity, and directs the U.S. defense secretary to submit a report on the feasibility of establishing a high-level, interagency working group in this regard.

Please remember, however, that the NDAA is an omnibus defense spending bill, and Warren chose not to vote for it because of the high level of spending. The Taiwan language is just one part of a much larger bill, and this is not necessarily significant. (That said, she did vote for the NDAA for 2018 [passed in 2017], but not the one for 2019 [passed in 2018]). 

However, all of her other bona fides are strong.

She's probably the most hawkish Democrat running, and yet someone who wants to de-escalate unnecessary conflicts while having a strong inclination toward American engagement and support of democracy and human rights abroad. This could be read as being pro-hegemon (with the US as hegemon), and honestly, there's something to that interpretation. Or as The Atlantic once put it:

Instead of separating the pursuit of progressive ideals from the maintenance of American dominance, Warren tries—uncomfortably—to square the two. Unlike Sanders, she doesn’t challenge the narrative of a virtuous cold war in which America rose to superpower status while at the same time spreading liberty and prosperity. She embraces it. 

On the other hand, you could say she's in favor of US engagement, including potential military engagement, where human rights are concerned, but wants to end self-serving and pointless US engagements. Although I am beginning to despise the word "nuance" as it's so often used to criticize anyone who criticizes China, I prefer this gentler - shall we say more nuanced - interpretation. In other words:

"She has this theme for domestic policy which is about corruption and deep structural change and inequality," said Ilan Goldenberg, former chief of staff to the Special Envoy for Israeli-Palestinian Negotiations in the Obama State Department who has been advising the Warren campaign since the summer. "She wants to apply that to foreign policy writ large."

What does this have to do with Taiwan? Well, this is the best possible view of foreign policy for Taiwan that you might get from a liberal. And I say this lovingly, as a liberal. Conservatives have typically been more hawkish and militaristic, but only insofar as it benefits the US.  It's never really about democracy and human rights at all. More peacenik radical liberals want disengagement on a massive scale, seeing most US involvement abroad as hegemony, not help (and to be honest, in the past they've generally been correct about this). Warren is somewhere in the middle, and that's what Taiwan needs. A liberal who is genuinely concerned about fostering liberalism abroad (not US hegemony or regimes whose power benefits the US per se), and who is willing to engage on that front. Taiwan's core call for support is a moral one, rooted in asking the US and other nations to make good on their claims of commitment to global freedom and human rights.

To this end, it's worth listening to what one of Warren's foreign policy advisors has to say.

Does Warren actually make good on her version of American influence abroad? It's hard to say, but I'd wager that she might be the real deal. Her no-vote on NDAA shows she's not just another military blowhard, and she's said all the right things on China (more on that below). However, some of her language mirrors Biden's in terms of leading a plucky band of liberal democracies to get the job done:

What we have seen in Hong Kong in recent months is a tribute to the ideals that our country should stand for. The people of Hong Kong are standing up to demand a voice in how they are governed, and their protests represent an organic movement by the people inspired by the ideals of democratic government. They deserve the support of the United States and the world.

China’s actions in Xinjiang are a violation of international law and of basic human rights. I have supported efforts to respond strongly to these acts, including export controls on technology used for surveillance of China’s Muslim communities and targeted sanctions on those who are directly responsible for these policies of oppression. The United States should also mobilize the international community to hold China’s leadership accountable for its abuses.

For the reasons stated above, I'm wary of such language. It makes sense on one level, but on another, international affairs are not a real-world heist flick in which you need a "crew" to get the job done. Sometimes the right thing to do is simply right, period, and you can't wait for all your less action-oriented friends to come around when they are still debating whether Huawei should be allowed to hand all their citizens' data over to China.

That said, she's already started to make good, by co-sponsoring the HKHRDA and otherwise calling for concrete support of Hong Kong: 

The United States must send a clear message that it and its partners expect China to live up to its commitments—and that they will respond when China does not. To send that message over the situation in Hong Kong, the United States should take two steps. 

First, it must stop exports of police gear to Hong Kong. Protesters have asked for an independent investigation into the credible claims that the Hong Kong police have used excessive force. Until the report of such an investigation is released, the United States should stop all exports of U.S. security, police, or surveillance equipment to Hong Kong. 

Second, it should provide temporary protected status or deferred enforced departure to Hong Kong residents. As the country did following Beijing’s 1989 crackdown on Tiananmen, the United States should protect Hong Kong residents involved in protests and who travel to the United States until they are confident that they will not be punished for exercising the right to peaceful assembly. 

The current situation must be resolved peacefully through dialogue. And China needs to know that the United States has options if it resorts to force in Hong Kong.

She also co-sponsored the Uyghur Human Rights Policy Act. She has said regarding Chinese actions in Xinjiang:

Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, a democratic candidate for the upcoming 2020 U.S. presidential election, also weighed in on Twitter, referring to China’s treatment of the Uyghurs and other Muslim minorities as “cruel, bigoted … [and] a horrifying human rights violation,” and calling on Americans to “stand up to hatred and extremism.”

Notably, Warren is "the only senator running for president who signed a bipartisan letter to Trump administration officials in April urging greater export controls and Magnitsky sanctions against Chinese officials overseeing the Xinjiang policy." Here's the letter. The wording is quite strong, and she is indeed the only Democratic contender to have signed it. Not only that, she (along with Sanders) signed a letter way back before Trump's first visit to China reminding him of his obligations under the TRA.

On a less grand note, she voted against confirming Terry Branstad as ambassador to China. Branstad is described as an "old friend" of Xi Jinping, whose appointment was speculated to have been aimed at assuaging Chinese anger over stronger US gestures toward Taiwan. She voted for the Taiwan Travel Act and TAIPEI Act (both of which passed the Senate unanimously - the TTA is now law; I believe the TAIPEI Act is currently working its way through the House).

Final call: what Taiwan needs is a hawkish Democrat who is genuinely interested in freedom and human rights around the world, without the baggage of endless wars that benefit no-one except the US defense industry. I can see why some criticize her more conventional approach, but we need a president who might - just maybe! - stand up for Taiwan for the right reasons. She hasn't said a thing about Taiwan that I can find, but her overall foreign policy philosophy is one that I can get behind. I do think she is the best possible choice.

Bernie Sanders

This will be shorter, as a lot of what I said about Warren can also be said about Sanders. He did not vote for the NDAA (like Warren, he didn't vote against it, either). He signed that same letter - linked above - reminding Trump of the US obligations outlined in the TRA. As the Taiwan Travel Act and TAIPEI Act both passed the Senate unanimously, he would have voted for both. He voted against Terry Branstad. Like Warren, he co-sponsored the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act and the Uyghur Human Rights Policy Act. (I'm a bit sick of finding links - all of this can be easily looked up).

But the two candidates do differ. Unlike Warren, Sanders is much more of a foreign policy dove. To quote The Atlantic again:

In the tradition of Henry Wallace, George McGovern, and Jesse Jackson, Sanders has decoupled progressive ideals from American dominance. In a speech last year in Missouri, he cited America’s coups against Mohammad Mossadegh in Iran and Salvador Allende in Chile as evidence that “far too often, American intervention and the use of American military power … have caused incalculable harm.” Sanders also promoted the United Nations as a key vehicle for solving global problems. Then, last month, in a speech at Johns Hopkins, he included both U.S. adversaries such as Russia and close U.S. allies such as Saudi Arabia and Israel as part of a “new authoritarian axis,” and suggested that combatting it would require a “global progressive movement.”

In his two speeches, Sanders called for a more peaceful, more just, and more environmentally sustainable world, but he never suggested that achieving those goals required maintaining America’s global dominance. In fact, he avoided the subject of great-power competition entirely. He mentioned China only three times: twice as a potential partner in fighting climate change and once as a potential partner in denuclearizing North Korea.  

This leads me to believe his instinctive inclination, should the need to concretely stand up for Taiwan arise - including the possibility of supporting Taiwan in a military conflict with China, would be to avoid engagement. At a time when Taiwan needs strong assurances of support, this is not the best approach.

What's more, having been in the Senate longer than Warren, we have some idea what his past choices have been, when it comes to concrete help for Taiwan. And unfortunately, he has generally opposed it. He voted against selling F-16s to Taiwan in 2011, and against "missile defense cooperation" (developing a ballistic missile system in Asia capable of protecting Taiwan) in 1997, arguably at a time when newly-democratized Taiwan desperately needed such an assurance.

Those are old bills, but that overall inclination against engagement generally and helping Taiwan in concrete, specific ways does not bode well.

Sanders has praised Taiwan's health care system, meaning he is aware of what the country has achieved, but I have to say that's not really enough to compete with Warren's more engaged, China-hawk approach.

On China, Sanders is alarmingly naive (a lot of this can be cross-checked here as well). And yes, this gets long because the details matter:

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) offered praise for China while stating in an interview that he believed the U.S. could have a positive relationship with the country, saying it had made "more progress in addressing extreme poverty than any country in the history of civilization." [Me: yeah, and they've also done the most to create extreme poverty of any country in the history of modern civilization. Jeez.]

The Democratic presidential candidate offered a nuanced view of Beijing, criticizing it for a move toward authoritarianism and stating that it looked out for its own interests first, but also saying it had made progress in helping its own people over the last several decades. [Nope. See above.]

"China is a country that is moving unfortunately in a more authoritarian way in a number of directions,” Sanders told Hill.TV’s Krystal Ball. "But what we have to say about China in fairness to China and it’s leadership is if I’m not mistaken they have made more progress in addressing extreme poverty than any country in the history of civilization, so they’ve done a lot of things for their people.” [No, they haven't. Ask anyone in Wuhan. They could have addressed that epidemic before it became an emergency but chose to cover it up instead.] 

Sanders said the the United States would have "hoped that they would move toward a more Democratic form of government," and criticized China for "moving in the opposite direction."  [Weak.]

Beijing has come under criticism recently for battles between police and demonstrators in the semi-autonomous city of Hong Kong. 

At the same time, Sanders said he did not believe China represented an "existential threat" to the United States.  [China's exact plan is to threaten the United States. Not its existence, but its global influence. I don't love the US, but that's still a bad thing.]

"Their economy now is struggling but I think it is absolutely possible for us to have a positive working relationship with China," said Sanders, who has been battling with former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) for support in the Democratic primary. [If you really think that is possible, you do not understand China.]

Final call: although his actual voting record in recent years has been more favorable to supporting those fighting the CCP for access to human rights, his words on China and isolationist approach trouble me and his long-term voting record bothers me more. Although he might not be disastrous for Taiwan, he is not the strongest pick. Even Joe Biden - Joe Biden! - has made stronger statements of support for Taiwan than Sanders.


Andrew Yang

I've already written extensively about this, and won't repeat myself.

Here is what Yang has said about Taiwan:

Perhaps his lengthiest public comments on Taiwan so far came in October, when he told CBS reporter Nicole Sganga that ‘the Taiwan issue has been with us for decades’ and that a ‘positive continuation of the status quo should be one of our top priorities’, including ‘a relationship that works for both Taiwan and China’.

He's wrong of course - the status quo is a bad deal for Taiwan that it has been forced to accept for lack of better options. It's taking crumbs when you deserve a meal. It's giving the bully only half your lunch money. 

Even more frighteningly, this steaming pile of absolute garbage was written by Ann Lee, a foreign policy advisor to Andrew Yang. Here is some garbage for you:

For some, this includes designating Iran, Russia and China as enemies because the US doesn’t have total control over these countries, and stirring up Islamic extremism because all three of these countries have large Muslim populations that can be turned into terrorists against their own countries. 

By creating Islamic extremism in these territories, the home-grown Muslim terrorists could then battle these foreign governments on behalf of the US, thus reducing the need to sacrifice American soldiers.

You read that right: an advisor to Yang thinks that the US is to blame for "Islamic extremism" in Xinjiang...not Chinese persecution of Uighur minorities.

Yikes.

He has said some positive things - speaking out against the genocide of the Uighurs, China's aggressive stance on Taiwan, and troubling authoritarianism. Here's a quote:

The treatment of the Uighurs in China is unacceptable, and we need to be a part of the chorus of voices across the world calling the situation out for what it is. It’s also troubling to see China take a more aggressive stance throughout the region, whether towards Hong Kong, Taiwan, or in the South China Sea. 

China obviously has great ambition, and their system of government is becoming increasingly authoritarian as they develop more technologies that allow them to monitor and control their population. It’s important that we work with our allies to combat the spread of this authoritarian capitalism, and provide a model for democratic capitalism.

He's also said some of the right things on Hong Kong:

I applaud the NBA for saying very clearly that they would not discipline Daryl Morey* or any of the employees for exercising their free speech rights. I think that was the appropriate stance. I think it's appropriate for a company to stand up for its own values and then pay something of an economic price. You know, it's easy to stand up for your values if there's no price involved. [Emphasis mine.] And so I applaud the NBA for not bending to Chinese demands when it came to disciplining Daryl Morey.

That said, he's also got the mindset that one can actually play China's games:

If we want to both manage the relationship and serve our own values, we have to find a combination of carrots and sticks that help bring the Chinese to the table to address not just what's going on in Hong Kong but our own intellectual property rights, the trade issues that we have, climate change, North Korea, artificial intelligence. It is one of the most important relationships that may well define the 21st century. And it's something that I'm excited to get to work on.

Carrots and sticks, lol. Cute. I hope he figures out soon that the only way to win against China is not to play their game. Sadly, he's still playing:

We're going to live up to our international commitments. We're going to recommit to our partnerships and alliances, including NATO. And it was James Mattis that said "the more you invest in diplomats and diplomacy, the less you have to spend on ammunition." That has to be the path forward to help build an international consensus not just against Russia, but also to build a coalition that will help us put pressure on China, in terms of their treatment of their ethnic minorities, and what's going on in Hong Kong.

I like the overall idea of this, but again, it treats China as though it can be a reasonable negotiating partner. It can't. The CCP wasn't built that way. It doesn't exist that way, and so that kind of diplomacy will fail.

However, to be fair, that's just a slightly weaker repackaging of what a lot of Democratic candidates are saying. 

Final call: I don't care if he has Taiwanese ancestry. I want the best person for Taiwan, and that may not be someone whose heritage can be traced here. I don't think he's the best choice. Like the others, he's not a total wash, but he's a bit weak on China, thinks the status quo is "positive" (LOL), and genuinely seems to think China can be treated as a rational negotiating partner, rather than seeing the truth: that the CCP are Nazis and we need to deal with them like Nazis. 


Pete Buttigieg

As above, Buttigieg was one of the only Democratic candidates to congratulate Tsai Ing-wen on her election win. 

His China stance is strong-ish:

The Chinese Communist Party’s repressive treatment of the Uighurs and other minorities, and growing pressure on Hong Kong, are symptomatic of a broader, and intensifying, “systems” competition. Beijing seems committed to consolidating and legitimizing authoritarian capitalism as an alternative to the democratic capitalism embraced by the United States and its closest allies and partners. 

Where necessary and feasible, we should seek cooperation with Beijing, such as in addressing climate disruption, maintaining strategic stability, combatting terrorism, and managing conflict through international peacekeeping. But the United States must defend our fundamental values, core interests, and critical alliances, and accept that this will often entail friction with China. [Yes! Good! Correct!]

For too long we have underestimated China’s ambitions, while overestimating our ability to shape them. We must instead focus on repairing our democracy and reinvesting in our economic and technological competitiveness; inoculating open societies from corrupt, coercive, or covert political interference; strengthening, rather than straining, our alliances in order to put collective pressure on China for unfair economic practices, human rights abuses, and intimidation of countries that stand up for their sovereignty; realigning defense and other national security investments to reflect China’s military modernization and full-spectrum statecraft; and reducing vulnerabilities from economic interdependence by disentangling the most sensitive sectors of our economies--in an orderly, not chaotic, fashion--and ensuring that American and allied resources and technologies do not underpin authoritarian oppression and surveillance. 

There's more of that "we need to get the world to come together and stop China" talk. I don't disagree, it's just that what I said above still holds true: you can't always wait for your friends to back you when you stand up for what's right, and "let's build a consensus on this" is often used as a synonym for "let's do nothing about this".

Here's another way Buttigieg might be offering up a more palatable "let's do nothing and pretend we succeeded":

Here is where Buttigieg parts ways with Warren and Sanders, for whom China’s authoritarianism and corruption are explicitly linked to rising authoritarianism and corruption at home. For Buttigieg, China’s authoritarianism instead presents an opportunity for self-renewal: “The single best thing we can do to roll back authoritarianism abroad is to model the strength of inclusive democratic capitalism right here in the United States.”

Yeah, okay, cool, but you know that China does not give a single solitary shit about what the US models in its own society, right? And that it will censor any US efforts at "modeling" anything so that its own citizens won't be inspired, yes?

The CCP are Nazis. They do not care how great you are. They only care about their own control. 

Final call: Buttigieg talks strongly enough on China, but I don't think he's strong at all on the follow-through. Not the best choice.

Mike Bloomberg

Oh, god.

He hasn't said a thing about Taiwan - really few candidates have - but here are some of his words on China:

The former New York mayor and his company Bloomberg LP are heavily invested in China and in the idea of accommodating the Chinese government – even if that means turning a blind eye to its realities. Bloomberg’s closeness to the Chinese leadership is surely an asset for his business, but it reveals a huge weakness in his bid to be president of the United States. 

Bloomberg laid bare his blinkered view of how the Chinese leadership operates in a September interview with PBS’s Firing Line: “The Communist Party wants to stay in power in China and they listen to the public,” Bloomberg said. “Xi Jinping is not a dictator. He has to satisfy his constituents or he’s not going to survive.”

I mean, of course this is an absolute joke. Here's more!

Bloomberg was arguing Beijing is committed to green environmental stewardship. The billionaire’s charitable foundation, Bloomberg Philanthropies, has worked for years to help finance Chinese green energy initiatives in cooperation with the Chinese government. Overall, China’s environmental policies are terrible, but they have made some progress on urban pollution. 

But when challenged by host Margaret Hoover on whether he really believes Xi is “responsive” to the democratic will of his people, Bloomberg doubled down. 

“The Chinese Communist Party looks at Russia and they look for where the Communist Party is and they don’t find it anymore. And they don’t want that to happen. So they really are responsive,” he said.

No, they aren't.

Anyway, when asked more formally, this is what Richie McLatecomer had to say:

The U.S. can and must continue to work with China on global problems where cooperation between the world’s two most powerful nations is crucial – the most urgent being climate change. But the way in which protesters in Hong Kong have looked to the U.S. for support as they demand greater accountability from their leaders is a reminder that our values matter. While we shouldn’t seek out a new Cold War with China, we should always defend those values at home and abroad, instead of trading them for a photo op. 

I support legislation that would impose sanctions on Chinese officials for human rights violations in both Hong Kong and Xinjiang. China is not a democracy, does not have democratic institutions and too frequently abuses the rights of its citizens. If the country wants to be accepted as a global leader, it needs to treat all its people, especially those in areas such as Hong Kong and Xinjiang that have been promised a degree of autonomy, with greater dignity and respect. 

I also believe that the best way for the U.S. to handle the rise of China is to strengthen our alliances in Asia and make the domestic investments necessary to ensure our businesses and workers have the tools they need to out-innovate and out-compete the Chinese. The stronger we are at home, the stronger and more appealing our message will be abroad. 

Some of that is great - standing up to China concerning Hong Kong and Xinjiang, but leading with a call to cooperate the the CCP rather than "they are quite possibly the biggest threat to global freedom in existence today" and backtracking from "Xi is not a dictator" to a still-weak "China is not a democracy" are not good looks. And of course, China does not care - truly - about how "appealing" our message is, and they won't let that message reach their own people.

In the long run he's not strong on Hong Kong, though, saying a bunch of "it's a tough situation...we'd have to do it through the back door...the PRC needs to work harder..." which really doesn't say anything at all.

Bloomberg has a history of being anti-Taiwan in some very petty ways (though I don't trust that source entirely, handle with care) but there's not much else available.

Final call: says some of the right things but is weak on China and therefore not good for Taiwan. His money and investments in China are an issue. Probably the worst possible choice, also not likely to win so don't worry too much about it. 


Amy Klobuchar

There's just not a lot to say about her on China, and nothing at all on Taiwan! 

As a senator, she would have voted for the Taiwan Travel Act, TAIPEI Act, HKHRDA and Uyghur Human Rights Policy Act. I didn't have to look all that up - all of these passed unanimously.

However, like Sanders, in 2011 she voted against selling F-16s to Taiwan. She voted no on the 2020 NDAA - the one that had all that strong Taiwan language (though, again, it was an omnibus bill and that vote doesn't necessarily mean anything). She voted to confirm Terry Branstad - that "friend of Xi Jinping" - as ambassador to the PRC. That is less encouraging than Warren's and Sanders' votes against.

Most of her talk about China is on economic issues - she seems really concerned about steel dumping, and I'm sure that's important but it's not relevant to Taiwan. On human rights and China, she said this:

She says human rights must play a larger role in the U.S. relationship with China, and argues that Washington must “stand up against” the mistreatment of Muslim Uighurs and protesters in Hong Kong. However, she told CFR that human rights issues should be kept separate from trade negotiations.

Great...a little weak, but great.

She reiterated support for Hong Kong on Twitter (she was a co-sponsor of the HKHRDA) and again when asked by the New York Times. However, unlike Warren and Sanders, she did not sign that letter reminding Trump of his TRA obligations (neither did Michael Bennet, below).

But overall, her views on China, while not entirely awful, aren't strong enough to be extrapolated into some possible support for Taiwan.

Final call: not totally weak on China, but not the friend Taiwan needs. She'd probably focus a lot on economic issues with China, angering the CCP, and then not push hard for Taiwan as she'd have already pissed them off on trade. She seems willing to engage critically with China, but not to necessarily support Taiwan.
Tulsi Gabbard

I thought Bloomberg was the worst pick, but no, it might just be Tulsi Gabbard!

I mean she's really absolutely awful. She hasn't said a thing about Taiwan, but she's incredibly weak on China in general. When asked by the Council on Foreign Relations about China, she said nothing at all on human rights or standing up for democratic values abroad, instead pretending China could be our friend:

Gabbard criticizes President Donald J. Trump’s confrontational stance toward Beijing and warns about the downsides of escalating tensions with China. She says a cooperative relationship is needed instead to confront global challenges.

She further said here that it was essentially not the US's job to do anything concrete at all, repeating the old joke that the US can support human rights around the world by being a "beacon for the world to see"...but again, not actually doing anything.

Hong Kongers already know the US, while deeply flawed, isn't the horrorshow that is CCP rule. They don't need to "see" it any more. They need help. And yet again, China does not give one single fuck about our "beacon".

She also has ties to Hindu nationalist groups, whose overall approach to governance, though religious in its fundamentalism, is closer on the ideological spectrum to the CCP than to any country that truly values democratic rights and freedoms (I actively dislike the BJP, if you hadn't noticed, and of course Hindutva and those groups are absolutely awful.)

My god, she may be worse than an oil-hungry Republican when it comes to China.

Final call: Gabbard is not and cannot be a friend to Taiwan, if she is so weak on China. Absolutely avoid at all costs.


Deval Patrick

Hey, this guy is pretty strong on China! Here's what he says:

China’s treatment of the Uighurs, its aggravation of the situation in Hong Hong, and its other human rights and economic abuses must result in the increasing isolation of China on the world stage.  To that end, the United States must rebalance power on the global stage with China to ensure that we restore our global leadership in promoting democracy, human rights and the rule of law.

China’s human rights’ violations must not be overlooked.  The desirability of access to Chinese markets is not a reason to excuse abuses of her people.  Accordingly, China should be accountable to the global community for its repression of the members of the Uighur ethnic minority.  That accountability may extend to sanctions against the individuals and corporations that enable these appalling acts, and my administration would elevate the treatment of the Uighur minority to the agenda in any trade negotiations.

We will also make clear that the United States and its allies stand in solidarity with advocates of democracy in Hong Kong, including through the implementation of the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act.  Our support for Hong Kong’s democratic aspirations will align with our re-commitment to strengthening relationships with the world’s democracies.  

That last line about strengthening relationships with the world's democracies sounds like it could give a little hope to Taiwan.

Honestly there's not a lot else out there - I don't know that we can infer a Taiwan policy from that single source.

Final call: I'm just not sure, but what he has to say sounds more promising than anything Bloomberg or Gabbard have offered. 


Tom Steyer

Overall, Steyer seems pretty weak. Not a tankie in its larval stage like Gabbard, but the only solution he offers is to do nothing except as part of a "coalition", which again I would support if I think it meant anything other than an excuse to do nothing. Otherwise, he seems super inclined to support shaking his finger at China, without actually doing anything that might upset China:

Steyer calls China a competitor, but says that “like it or not” the United States has to maintain a political and economic relationship with Beijing. 

Steyer opposes President Donald J. Trump’s trade war with China but says the United States must “stand up strongly” to Beijing’s theft of U.S. intellectual property. 

He believes that Trump’s America First policy has created a void in international power politics that China and Russia are eager to fill.

He says the United States should respond to abuses by authorities in Hong Kong by creating a coalition of democracies to push back, rather than seeking a bilateral solution.

He argues that the United States can’t isolate itself from China, since working with China on climate and regional security will require maintaining a good relationship with Beijing.

That doesn't sound promising for Taiwan.

In this Vox interview, Alex Ward mentions that Steyer doesn't seem to think the Uighurs are victims of "genocide", to which Steyer says there are human rights violations, but that the US should not step in alone, rather, that we should step in as part of an international coalition of some sort.

He does not elaborate clearly on what sort of coalition that would be. When asked if he meant the UN, he doesn't point out, as Taiwan advocates so dearly know, that the UN can't do a thing about China as long as China is on the Security Council.

He seems inclined to think that Obama's approach to foreign policy will work in 2020 and beyond, sidestepping the valid point that the world is a different place in 2020 than it was in 2008, and that "working with China on climate change" could well mean "China asks us to stop pestering them about their genocides".

It's worth reading the whole thing.

Honestly, he's got no chance - I didn't even know who he was beyond a name really until I researched this article - so I don't see the point in saying anything more about him.

Final call: still better than Gabbard, but this man is not strong enough on China to be a friend to Taiwan.

Michael Bennet

Bennet reads like a clone of Klobuchar in some ways, and Steyer in others. Here's the summary: 

Bennet has called China a U.S. competitor and a bad actor on trade, but he favors building coalitions to combat Beijing rather than the unilateral approach of President Donald J. Trump. 

Bennet says that Washington must confront “Chinese malfeasance” on trade but says that “the trade wars are the wrong way to go.” He says the United States should mobilize “the entire rest of the world” and strengthen its alliances in order to stand up to China on its trade practices.

He says China is not the greatest threat the United States faces, but rather is surpassed by Russia. He has declined to label China either a friend or a foe of the United States, preferring to call it a “competitor” instead.

“America and China are now competing to define the future, and unlike us, they’re playing to win,” he told CFR.

He worries that China is “supporting a surveillance state” and expanding its methods around the world with its Belt and Road Initiative. 

He says he would consider restricting the operations of Chinese telecom giant Huawei, calling the company an agent of China’s “proliferation of their network around the world” and a national security risk.

He contrasts China’s scientific progress with a “self-inflicted” scientific vacuum left by the United States’ lack of investment.

Okay. Not super weak on China but not strong either. Not a word on human rights or supporting Hong Kong or Xinjiang. When inferring what a candidate's position on Taiwan might be by how they answer questions regarding China, what they say about human rights and hotspots of Chinese persecution are not perfect analogues, but they do matter. And he's said nothing at all.

That doesn't mean he's wholly against US foreign policy as a tool to support global human rights. As a senator since 2009, he would have voted "yes" on all those great bills: the TAIPEI Act, Taiwan Travel Act, HKHRDA, Uyghur Human Rights Policy Act. Again, we know this as those acts passed unanimously. On Twitter he showed strong support for HKHRDA and Hong Kong generally, and was in fact one of the co-sponsors of the act (though he also voted for the confirmation of Terry Branstad in the wake of the Tsai-Trump phone call, and chose not to remind Trump of the existence of the TRA as he made his first trip to China). 

This sounds promising:

And finally, Bennet said he’d fight attacks on democracy and the rise of the far-right globally. These challenges, and more, Bennet argued, require the U.S. not to discard traditional foreign policy values but “to reaffirm them for a new era.”

But ultimately, it's one paragraph in a tsunami of traditionalist views that aren't particularly strong on China and don't point to a robust and effective Taiwan policy.

As with Sanders and Klobuchar, he voted against selling F-16s to Taiwan in 2011. He did not vote on the NDAA (with that strong pro-Taiwan language) for 2020, but voted for the 2019 authorization. 

Final call: hard to say. Not as weak as Bloomberg or Gabbard, but not as strong as Warren. A toss-up, rather like Klobuchar or even Sanders as their voting records are so similar. Possibly weaker than Joe Biden (!). Doesn't matter - he won't win. 

Summary

It's excruciatingly hard to infer what the presidential contenders will do regarding Taiwan if elected, from scraps of their voting record if holding office, quotes on China, views on China-centric human rights issues and past behavior. It's imperfect and unscientific, and I could be deeply, painfully wrong about every last one of them. 
Except Gabbard - I'm definitely not wrong about her. 

I chose the metrics I did because I didn't have much else to work with. Statements on Taiwan where they existed played a huge role, and I tried to look into who their foreign policy advisors are, if it seemed important enough. Because many bills that are good for human rights in China and good for Taiwan passed unanimously, they aren't a strong indicator. The same is true with the 2020 NDAA - as a huge bill, an abstention or vote against it doesn't necessarily imply a rejection of the strong pro-Taiwan language.

So, where possible, I had to go back and look at how they voted in 1997 on missile cooperation to help Taiwan, 2011 on F-16s, and the confirmation of a China-friendly ambassador to the PRC, and weave those into whatever it is they were saying about human rights in the region and, if applicable, their overall foreign policy vision.

All these things considered, looking at who is best for Taiwan only, this is how I personally would rank the candidates:

1.) Possible strong ally: Elizabeth Warren

2.) This space is intentionally left blank out of protest over the candidates' weak showing on Taiwan.

3.) Strong stance on China and at least congratulated President Tsai: Pete Buttigieg

4.) Says the right things generally but it's hard to go on so little information: Deval Patrick

5.) A toss-up with lots of conflicting information and/or ideologically shifting votes in the past and more recently: Bernie Sanders, Andrew Yang, Amy Klobuchar, Michael Bennet, Joe Biden

6.) Weak on China and therefore not the stalwart friend Taiwan needs: Tom Steyer

I refuse to rank him and it hurts me to say this, but I actually think that when it comes to Taiwan only, Donald Trump may be a better candidate than either Bloomberg or Gabbard.

That doesn't mean I'll vote for him under any circumstances, however.

7.) Weak on China, saying some good things but ultimately trying to play a game we can't win: Michael Bloomberg

8.) An absolute tankie joke when it comes to China and therefore no friend of Taiwan: Tulsi Gabbard


I want to end by saying that this is not my personal ranking of preferred candidates when considering other issues. That's a private matter, though overall I do plan to support Warren.