Was Pelosi’s Visit of Taiwan inappropriate ?

Author: Amoranemix ,

Posts

Total: 19
Amoranemix
Amoranemix's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 125
1
2
5
Amoranemix's avatar
Amoranemix
1
2
5
I will first define two terms, to avoid equivocation.

- The People’s Republic of China or the PRC is the contintental part of China and which excludes Taiwan.
- United China is the PRC + Taiwan and does not exist as a single country today.

Context : The PRC objects violently to US speaker Nancy Pelosy’s visit to Taiwan because it allegedly violates the one China principle.

In order for any foreigner to visit a country, permission of the state is required. Since United China does not exist, such permission cannot be given. However, in this case, permission of all regions should suffice. So if the PRC and Taiwan give permission, it would be OK. Since the PRC denied permission, on those grounds Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan on august 2nd was inappropriate.

However, to my knowledge no high profile individuals ever ask Taiwan for permission to visit the PRC. They should require such permission since United China cannot give it. Hence the PRC is hypocrytical. People visiting the PRC is OK, but visiting Taiwan is not.

It boils down to might makes right as is often the case in geopolitics. It could be that high profile individuals visting Taiwan is a problem while such visit to the PCR are not because the Taiwanese are just nicer and more tolerant. A more likely explanation is that the PCR is more powerful than Taiwan.

Or is there actually a relevant distinction that justifies different treatment of visits to these regions ?
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,125
3
3
7
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
3
7
--> @Amoranemix
How did China lose Taiwan?
Following defeat in the First Sino-Japanese War (1894-1895), the Qing government signs the Treaty of Shimonoseki, by which it cedes sovereignty over Taiwan to Japan, which rules the island until 1945. Chinese revolutionaries overthrow the Qing Empire and establish the ROC. Although Taiwan was recognized as a country by the United Nations from 1949 to 1971, it is currently not in the UN and is classified as only a territory—all due to a particularly prickly political situation with China.


RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 413
Posts: 14,975
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
Entirely so. It is nothing more than a fuck you to China stirring a pot that America has no business stirring.

China is not Russia, Taiwan is not Ukraine.

China is not worth pissing off for the place they call Taipei. 

It is just. Not. Worth. It.

Use your head. First free North Korean slaves (yes, slaves) before grandstanding with Taiwan.
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 1,831
3
3
9
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
3
3
9
--> @RationalMadman
Freeing North Korea sounds more difficult a task, than safeguarding Taiwan,
To me.

In either case China want's it's buffers and expanded influence,
But North Korea they 'have, so to speak,
Taiwan they don't (yet), I'd figure?
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 413
Posts: 14,975
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
--> @Lemming
They have for decades, they let US have Philippenes even.

They let US brutalise Middle East and didn't encourage the world to sanction in or go 'fuck you we have allies in the Middle East'. China has respected US and its interference in other nations because US helped China remain independent of Japanese Imperial rule in WWII.

China may be a corrupt place with few freedoms but this is not the same thing as Russia vs Ukraine. Putin is a maniac doing genocide, Taiwan will be taken 'forcefully' but in terms of violence they are just going to surrender and be sad and that is life. They will be fully integrated into China and relatively speaking let be. China has no real intention other than to make Taiwan admit it is part of China, they will probably even allow the flags to remain for all I can predict (but insist it's called Chinese Taipei).

At the end of the day is this really, seriously the one hill to die on for US? China is not the enemy to be making over this one place that they kind of have more right to than US does in every sense other than 'democratic'. Taiwan doesn't want to be a US state and US isn't asking every region of China if they support CCP ruling them.
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 1,831
3
3
9
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
3
3
9
--> @RationalMadman
"During the Iran–Iraq War from 1980 to 1988 China was one of the main suppliers to all sides in the war. In fact, China had played both sides during the war and had sent arms to both Iran and Iraq.[10]"

"China had strongly opposed the 2003 Iraq War and along with FranceGermany and Russia had strongly condemned the invasion and occupation and had called for a withdrawal of all forces from the country. All four countries united against the United States and the United Kingdom and had refused to contribute any troops to Iraq unless there was a United Nations mandate.[12]"


China was happy to make a buck back then in the 80s,

And China was willing to say that the 2003 Invasion ought not be,
Though I'd have to read more to have an understanding of 'what their motivation in doing that was.

What evidence do you have of genocide in Ukraine?
I don't mean this question to say that you are wrong, to challenge your truth on the question,
I simply have not been following the situation in Ukraine closely, and it's to my benefit to be informed of what you say. (Again this is about my ignorance, and is not meant as a challenge to your statement)

Hm, people haven't mentioned the Uyghur in a while,
Can't say I ever made up my opinion on those claims people made there, but people 'did claim genocide on China's part.

Even without genocide, China has a history of 'disappearing people,
Of imprisonment, removal of liberty, destruction of culture, autonomy of other states autonomy.
Tibet,

The USA is not claiming Taiwan for itself,
But I 'appreciate people in government who argue they have a right to be their own people.

We're not asking every region of China, but Taiwan is not part of the CCP, as I see it.

. . .

I've a pessimistic view of people, of nations.
The Europeans look to have had their balls cut off after WW2,
America chose the path of Democracy and Right, even if they don't do right by that path all the time,
South America flails about inadequately,
Africa remains sundered,
The Middle East small dustballs of conflict,
I don't know much about India, but it seems oddly quiet,
Russia surprisingly looks an attempt to be USSR again, but is failing,
China looks to have long term plans of expansion, 'looks like it has a roughly homogonous society, a forced culture to obey, ambition, was founded in Communism ye old international dream of world domination,
China makes me nervous, makes me see a nation better addressed 'sooner, rather than later.

To 'me, they give an indication of might makes right 'justified,
Complaints of other people acted immorally in the past for power, why can't China?
Though this may be a - is 'likely a misreading on my part of Intelligence_06, but he didn't engage his thread much, so hard for me to tell.

I'm rambling, and I can admit I'm an ignorant fellow of world affairs, nations histories, militaries, implications,
I'm not saying I'm doing so while you're not, I'm 'just saying I've limited knowledge, but I still have an opinion,
Again, I'm 'not saying you don't have justification for your views.
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 94
Posts: 2,990
4
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
4
8
11
--> @RationalMadman
Agreed. Even from a Pro-US standpoint this is a strategically terrible move.
Ehyeh
Ehyeh's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 65
1
2
6
Ehyeh's avatar
Ehyeh
1
2
6
--> @Lemming
"The Europeans look to have had their balls cut off after WW2"

I've never felt something ring closer to home than this statement. I hate how pathetic Europe has become, they allow themselves to be bullied and pushed around these days. Thankfully they seem to be growing some balls back again (since they're recovering from WW2 PTSD) and Russia and china are waking them up to the reality we have to grow some balls back if you don't want to be conquered.
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 1,831
3
3
9
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
3
3
9
--> @Ehyeh
I don't mean it as an insult, though their inactions (As they appear to me) I 'do view as negative.
'Is a coarse/rude way to put it, though you've not complained,
I've been up too long, mental filter slightly ajar.

I suppose I'm also lumping all of Europe together, and I'd assume missing actions.

Hm, after WW1 saw lot of nations became reclusive, then again after WW2.
Though France had a colonial push going in Vietnam for a while, unethical it was, I've read. Ended up a quagmire for them, then later the US.

The British had their Falklands war.

Of other European nations, I don't recall reading much, though history and action's been taking place I'm sure.

. . .

Hm, I suppose part of my pr- no no, filter.

I suppose part of my problem is I view outgoing culture and people as more telling of a countries success, than 'incoming culture and people,
To my mind incoming culture and people is insanity for a nation, 'especially one with entrenched people and culture, though maybe that's xenophobic of me.
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 413
Posts: 14,975
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
--> @Lemming
US isn't just saying they will fund Taiwan, we are discussing foots on soil. Do you not understand what is being symbolised by Pelosi?

RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 413
Posts: 14,975
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
--> @Intelligence_06
You upvoted my weaker comment and did not upvote my deeper/stronger one.

This is part of why I told you that upvotes do not consistently match quality.
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 94
Posts: 2,990
4
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
4
8
11
--> @RationalMadman
That was a misclick. I meant to upvote both.



Amoranemix
Amoranemix's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 125
1
2
5
Amoranemix's avatar
Amoranemix
1
2
5
--> @Intelligence_06 @RationalMadman
Entirely so. It is nothing more than a fuck you to China stirring a pot that America has no business stirring.[1]
China is not Russia, Taiwan is not Ukraine.

China is not worth pissing off for the place they call Taipei.[2]

It is just. Not. Worth. It.

Use your head. First free North Korean slaves (yes, slaves) before grandstanding with Taiwan.[3]
[1] You are mistaken. Even if that visit were a fuck you to China, it would be more than that. It would also be a show of support to Taiwan.
What evidence can you present that it was a fuck you to China ?
[2] If A pisses off B, then most of the blame does not necessarily lay with A.
[3] I agree with Lemming. Grandstanding with Taiwan is easier than freeing North Korea.

They have for decades, they let US have Philippenes even.

They let US brutalise Middle East and didn't encourage the world to sanction in or go 'fuck you we have allies in the Middle East'. China has respected US and its interference in other nations because US helped China remain independent of Japanese Imperial rule in WWII.[4]

China may be a corrupt place with few freedoms but this is not the same thing as Russia vs Ukraine. Putin is a maniac doing genocide, Taiwan will be taken 'forcefully' but in terms of violence they are just going to surrender and be sad and that is life.[5] They will be fully integrated into China and relatively speaking let be. China has no real intention other than to make Taiwan admit it is part of China, they will probably even allow the flags to remain for all I can predict (but insist it's called Chinese Taipei).

At the end of the day is this really, seriously the one hill to die on for US?[6] China is not the enemy to be making over this one place [7] that they kind of have more right to than US does in every sense other than 'democratic'. Taiwan doesn't want to be a US state and US isn't asking every region of China if they support CCP ruling them.
[4] After Mao Zedong's mismanagement, China was weak. Since then it has abiding with time while gaining strength. It was unable to oppose the USA, except by threatening to side with the Soviet Union and by using its seat in the UN security council. Lately it has been getting bolder and bolder thanks to its grained strength.
[5] Life would be less sad without bullies like the PRC.
How do you know how that war would go ? Typical with wars is that one knows how they start, but not how and when they end.
[6] Probably not and no one in this thread has proposed that USA dies for that hill.
[7] Autocratic regimes like to exploit weaknesses. Fear is a weakness. One reason North Korea develops nuclear weapons is that the regime saw what happened to the Lybian regime (Khadaffi) who abandoned the development of nuclear weapons. The West is afraid of nuclear weapons, as was also illustrated during the Ukraine invasion. So everyone with West-unfriendly goals should get them.

Hm, people haven't mentioned the Uyghur in a while,
Can't say I ever made up my opinion on those claims people made there, but people 'did claim genocide on China's part.

Even without genocide, China has a history of 'disappearing people,
Of imprisonment, removal of liberty, destruction of culture, autonomy of other states autonomy.
Tibet,
Don't forget the laogai. Since 1950 more than 50 million people have been incarcerated in these work camps.

I hadn't noticed there was already a thread on that.

Intelligence_06 7 to RationalMadman :
Agreed. Even from a Pro-US standpoint this is a strategically terrible move.
Whether it is a strategically terrible move is a different question than whether it is inappropriate.
If someone threatening you with a gun demands your money, then refusing may be a strategically terrible move.

Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,566
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
--> @Amoranemix
Appropriateness is not something that’s easy to discern in international diplomacy stuff like this; as it’s all a matter of perspective and values.

The best we can do, is ask whether there was geopolitical benefit to the trip; did the harms outweigh the gain.

This type of thing is all weird layers, smoke and mirrors.


So - what this was, was an obvious attempt to lend official whitehouse support to Taiwan, but be a bit less overt and obvious than a formal presidential trip. That alone tempers it a little bit - they could have made a bigger statement; while it’s clear that this is 100% Biden/executive support of Taiwan, that Pelosi went puts a little distance in that support.

The history with Taiwan has been sort of quiet support, with some strategic ambiguity - indicating support enough to make China not invade, but not so much that Taiwan does something super antagonistic.

The geopolitical landscape right now, is dominated by Ukraine, the western response; and it’s a bit naive to think China would not to be analyzing the response with respect to how it could relate to their strategic goals.

There’s been a tonne of rumbling around the South China Sea with concerns about structures in the islands, harassment of shipping. I honestly am not sure whether this is an uptick in activity; or just normal.

In the context of of the visit - this *seems* to be a visit that is saying something along the lines of “don’t do it”.

Now - whether it’s the right call, depends on many factors: was the likelihood of China doing something rising? (I’m not sure), is it more likely to dissuade than provoke (I lean towards yes - but I am not certain), and whether it is likely to encourage Taiwan into do something stupid (I think this is unlikely)

I find it very hard to understand China’s motivation, as it’s a lot about face saving, and their view of Taiwan: being born on the taking end of imperialistic current/former countries - it’s hard for me to understand the level of impact being on the “taken from” side; If the Chinese/Taiwan relationship can be thought of in those terms.

This is all to say, the jury’s out; I expect that if there is no war in the next two weeks, then the visit was likely worthwhile, as it does demonstrate a level of commitment by the US if Chinas analysts were starting to presume otherwise.


Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 1,831
3
3
9
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
3
3
9
--> @RationalMadman
I think Pelosi's visit as a symbol has multiple interpretations.
Basti123
Basti123's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8
0
0
4
Basti123's avatar
Basti123
0
0
4
--> @Amoranemix
Nancy Pelosi's visit to Taiwan had a good intention but was very innapropiate. By "good intention" I mean she was trying to show support to Taiwan but I think It was totally innapropiate and she could have thought about it twice before doing something that could make China angry, make Us-China cooperation dissapear or debilitate and potentially start an invasion. 
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 413
Posts: 14,975
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
--> @Basti123
Exactly, if this did anything it was motivate China to actually start the invasion early because US is decided to get cocky and publicly disrespect them like 'haha we aren't scared' that is the moment when to show the enemy to fear you.

Absolute moron move.
Amoranemix
Amoranemix's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 125
1
2
5
Amoranemix's avatar
Amoranemix
1
2
5
--> @Ramshutu
Appropriateness is not something that’s easy to discern in international diplomacy stuff like this; as it’s all a matter of perspective and values.[8]

The best we can do, is ask whether there was geopolitical benefit to the trip; did the harms outweigh the gain.

This type of thing is all weird layers, smoke and mirrors.

So - what this was, was an obvious attempt to lend official whitehouse support to Taiwan, but be a bit less overt and obvious than a formal presidential trip.[9] That alone tempers it a little bit - they could have made a bigger statement; while it’s clear that this is 100% Biden/executive support of Taiwan, that Pelosi went puts a little distance in that support.[10]
[8] I am judging appropriateness based on common grounds : truth is good, consistency is good and bias is bad. I don't recall the PRC ever disagreeing with that.
[9] I don't find that obvious at all. I have heard rumours that the White House was even against that visit. [10] I have heard the Biden opposed the visit.

Basti123 16 :
Nancy Pelosi's visit to Taiwan had a good intention but was very innapropiate. By "good intention" I mean she was trying to show support to Taiwan but I think It was totally innapropiate and she could have thought about it twice before doing something that could make China angry, make Us-China cooperation dissapear or debilitate and potentially start an invasion.
Why do you think it was inappropriate ?

Exactly, if this did anything it was motivate China to actually start the invasion early because US is decided to get cocky and publicly disrespect them like 'haha we aren't scared' that is the moment when to show the enemy to fear you.

Absolute moron move.
I agree that backtracking may have been interpreted by the PRC as a sign of weakness and emboldened them. However, that does not make the move moronic, but wise. Morever, moronic is not the same as inappropriate. Risking your life to save others may be moronic.

People's position seems to be that, given that the PRC is unreasonable and dangerous and that it would view that visit as a provocation, it was a bad move, because one should cater to the desires of unreasonable, dangerous contries.
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,492
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
--> @Amoranemix
I’m too ignorant on the topic. It ranges from Pelosi’s stupidity to good publicity for everyone, and all the strategic calculations in between. 
I’m sure China would have spun it in a positive light with their show of force and America’s recklessness. Though I'm not sure the nature of their internal political power struggles.