I have a ton of respect for Speaker Nancy Pelosi as both a legislative leader and a consistent champion of human rights in foreign policy from opposing the Iraq War to supporting Ukraine and Taiwan against their hostile neighbors. That said, this trip is ill advised for a few reasons.
1) The President Sets Foreign Policy
I was deeply offended when then Speaker Boehner invited then Israeli PM Netanyahu to blast President Obama and the Iran nuclear deal in front of a joint session of Congress. I even criticized it on this blog at the time. It is always dangerous to show our enemies that we are divided over important foreign policy questions and it makes it unclear who is in charge. The framers and precedent and practicality make it crystal clear, in my view, that the President has the sole authority to conduct American foreign policy but do so in consultation with and with the consent of Congress. In this way, Pelosi is getting ahead of her skis and not staying in her lane. It is particularly problematic since she is undermining a President of her own party.
2) Timing
With Biden’s approval ratings in the toilet, Russia in a bloody stalemate with Ukraine, and the inability of her own majority to pass anything substantial in Congress to codify Roe or build back better, why go on this trip? Why now when tensions with Beijing are the highest they have been in decades? It is needlessly provocative.
3) Optics
It is likely the Speaker and her plane will require a USAF or Naval fighter escort, which will be fodder for the Fox crowd (unfairly) harping on security costs and also will provoke a response from Chinese fighter planes who have been known to strafe dangerously close to American and Taiwanese aircraft. An accident that kills the Speaker and American personnel, even if unintentional, will have to provoke an American military response against China. Moreover, if Chinese planes cross Taiwanese airspace it could provoke a military response from Taiwan.
Put quite simply, the rewards are low since her position on this issue is quite clear while her credibility is high. The risks are too high and she should stay home.
I agree.
This trip also distracts attention from the multiple crimes of the GOP just as DoJ prosecutions of those crimes is belatedly making headlines.
This trip cuts the knees out from under the Jan 6 committee.
America does not need to provoke another military crisis — especially with China.
If anything we need to be running against Trump’s tariffs and eliminating these trade barriers to both shore up Midwestern farmers on the export side and also free up supply chains to lower prices on the import side. China is a perfect example of where the Biden administration has doubled down on Trump policies and rhetoric.
I’m more of a China hawk myself. More than 30 years later I am still royally ticked off that they never paid for Tiananmen Square, and they haven’t exactly shown signs of evolving politically since. We need to put principles over markets, IMO.
I was more of a China hawk before the Ukraine War, it is pretty obvious to me that Russia overplayed its hand and its military is actually quite weaker in reality than it was on paper. The united response to punish Russia for that invasion, at least within NATO and the EU, should send a signal to Beijing to keep its hands off Taiwan.
I think making it crystal clear we respect the status quo of strategic ambiguity and clarifying Biden’s gaffe from a month ago about defending Taiwan’s “sovereignty” while at the same time sending far more arms and equipment to Taiwan to deter the Chinese even more, is the right call. Forging an Indo-Pacific NATO, reviving the TPP, and being far more welcoming to immigrants fleeing the CCP is the way to go. Containment rather than rollback.
I reluctantly agree, mostly for your first reason, that this is not the best idea. On the merits, however, I’ve never liked pandering to Beijing on this one-China fiction. Actually, it’s not so much one China I object to as their claims that Taiwan is a province and relations between the two is an “internal” matter. If I completely had my way I would recognize Beijing as the legitimate government of the mainland and Taipei as the sole and sovereign government of Taiwan with full diplomatic relations. I would not recognize either government’s claims over the other’s jurisdiction.
Unfortunately your way would trigger a military conflict between the US and China that could rapidly escalate to a nuclear war. Especially since the US at present lacks the assets to defeat China in a direct conflict over Taiwan. Our policy is reactive rather than preventative. I highly recommend James Stavridis (former USN Adm. ,NATO SACEUR, and Tufts Fletcher School Dean) and Elliot Ackerman’s book 2035 which details a potential conflict.
Their recommendation is to increase our military capabilities in the region while also building the diplomatic structures of regional alliances to contain China while also doing more to reset the relationship to decrease tensions. HKS’ Graham Allison and former NSA/DOD official Elbridge Colby also have good academic works recommending a similar course. Colby is a little more hawkish and pessimistic, but I do think if we follow his containment strategy we reduce the risk of war.
I don’t accept your premise nor do I think the USA should ever cower to the possibility. We used to recognize only the Nationalist government until the 70s when Nixon made the overtures to and Carter chose to recognize only the Communist government. I am not suggesting a complete reversal back to Taiwan only, but it is our sovereign prerogative to choose whom we do and do not recognize. There’s also the principle I hold very strongly that we endorse free governments which Taiwan has become, along with recognizing the reality on the ground. I realize Taiwan itself has not taken this step yet, but if they were to ever flat out declare independence then the nation on whose soil was fired the shot heard around the world and announced for all to hear that sometimes,
and
ought to be first in line to recognize and support such.
I strongly suspect that if King George III had had access to a nuclear arsenal capable of obliterating the colonies and every nation that recognized them, the American Revolution would have turned out very differently.
I do not think that conflict between Taiwan and Mainland China is worth risking humanity for.
China is not making any overt threats against Taiwan. This contemplated move by Ms. Pelosi accomplishes no purpose except to kick a hornet’s nest.
This is a terrible idea. It is an especially terrible idea at the height of this mid-term campaign. It is yet another example of yet another Democratic “leader” muddying the political waters.
Since it demonstrably fails to meet any kind of reasonable smell-test on foreign policy grounds, what is its political purpose? Is there some super-secret polling that shows that a move like this will help win Senate or House seats somewhere?
This is the kind of move that makes true-blue Democrats scratch our heads in disbelief. One can only imagine what it does for the general electorate.
It may be further confirmation that it is time for her to retire at the end of the term, regardless of which party takes over the majority.
Not polling, just principle, though again I’m not saying we should make the first move. Is it just me or do you invoke the specter of nukes a lot (maybe a product of being of the duck-and-cover generation)?
This is silly talk. Only under George W Bush did we entertain such silly notions of how to conduct a foreign policy, to disastrous results. We want to maintain the status quo and should arm Taiwan to the teeth to preserve it, but we should not needlessly provoke China or encourage Taiwanese nationalists to do stupid things. That is not in our interest.
America cannot defend democracy in every corner of the globe, we have to pick our battles. Ukraine is worthy of our support short of troops. Taiwan in my judgment is worthy of direct military intervention should it be invaded, I want to be clear on that, but we should do everything in our military and diplomatic power to discourage China from invading. Your naive request would have the opposite effect and throw gasoline on a roaring fire.
Silly talk to invoke our basic principles? Interesting. If we were consistent we would probably ultimately be more respected. I believe we should have full diplomatic relations with every nation with which we are not actively at war, but our aspirations should always have an eye toward universal political liberty and economic opportunity. Make the world safe for democracy while prioritizing human rights. Remember, I did say IF Taiwan makes a move toward independence. I believe you are a fan of The West Wing. I can’t find a good single clip to illustrate this, but if you watch the two inauguration episodes in the middle of the 4th season you will hear discussion of a new “Bartlet Doctrine” with which I very much agree.
It is worse than silly talk to assert our basic principles as demands on other sovereign nations — especially when accompanied by an implied nuclear threat. I’m pretty sure that if China cited excerpts from Mao as its demands for world order, we’d probably resist those demands.
There is a name for what you propose — “imperialism”.
West Wing was a fictional program inspired by the Bill Clinton presidency of thirty years ago. While I love the show as much as anyone, I do not think it is helpful in guiding foreign policy towards Taiwan and China in 2022.
I absolutely do not advocate threatening a nuclear strike on a nation that does not adhere to our democratic ideals. We should, however, give as much support as possible to any nation which is heading in that direction. Likewise, I fully expect China to feel more comfortable working with nations that share its ideology.
I think part of the reason China has conducted a more successful foreign policy these last 20 years is that it has dispensed with ideology entirely and deals with nations on a genuine bilateral basis on questions of mutual interest. It is why their pragmatic soft power is beating our hypocritical and sanctimonious soft power in Africa, Central Asia, and apparently long time Pacific partners like the Solomons. Under Kevin Rudd and Rodrigo Duterte we were even losing Australia and the Philippines. I despite Marcos, but suspect he will be a more compliant client than Duterte.
If anything, under Mao they abandoned ideological comrades like Russia and the Eastern Bloc for greater economic ties with the West. Not to mention invading Vietnam after we did in an intracommunist war.
Vietnam wants us to build a tighter military alliance and we should oblige them. We should also send South Korea, Taiwan, and allow Japan to rearm and help those former WWII foes to form a stronger contemporary military defensive alliance against China.
Oh I vehemently disagree with that doctrine and think it’s no different from the Bush doctrine. It has led to his daughter getting kidnapped and the start of two wars! I believe the post-Sorkin writers added it in reaction to 9/11 and the Bush presidency to involve the president in more military conflicts. I know he invaded a fictional African country to restore a democratically elected leader and stop a genocide (Equitorial Kundu based on Clinton’s operation to save Aristide in Haiti combined with Somalia and Rwanda) and also illegally assassinated a proto-MBS figure from a Saudi stand in (Qumar I think?), portending the drone was.
He also sent a substantial number of troops between Israel and Palestine to broker some agreement there. So season 5 and 6 were pretty weak until we got back into the thick of it with the Vinick-Santos race (don’t blame me, I voted for Vinick!). This is all from memory by the way and I’m sure I got some details wrong, but I would rather we make the world safe for America. It’s much easier to defend a country than it is to defend an ideology.
So it is in our geopolitical and economic interests to keep Taiwan free from Chinese hegemony, and the best way to do that is to arm Taiwan to defend the status quo and encourage its diplomats to do the same and not provoke the dragon into attacking.