Analysis Of Trump's Taiwan Phone Call

Click here for an article by Josh Marshall, editor and publisher of TPM, Talking Points Memo, entitled "Thoughts on the Taiwan Call."



It's becoming apparent that rather than a thoughtless blunder by a clueless Trump (not an unreasonable guess), the Taiwan call was planned and orchestrated by a group of China hawks around Trump, including John Bolton and transition team member and Heritage Foundation scholar Stephen Yates. These people think it would be a good idea to poke China with a sharp stick, and an overture to Taiwan is a first step in this process. (It's not at all clear that Trump has any understanding whatsoever of the complexities of the situation; I think it far more likely that he is simply being used as a pawn by the hawks in his group of advisors.)

Marshall says:

This is not as crazy as it sounds. Indeed, this has been the argument of US China hawks for many years. Not every taboo or shibboleth has to be respected forever. Indeed, they should be inspected with some regularity. One of the nice things about being a great power is that you have a lot of choices. But in each of these choices the question is not really can we do it, or do we want to do it or do our values dictate we do it so much as 1) have we accurately thought through the potential costs and 2) are the costs sustainable in the face of the benefits we're trying to achieve?

He goes on to discuss a historical situation with some parallels: the fragile, nuanced situation that existed during the Clinton administration with the not-yet-nuclear Kim Jong-il regime in North Korea "... in which they had shuttered their nuclear weapons program in exchange for regular shipments of fuel oil, assistance with nuclear energy technology which could not be used for nuclear weapons and various other inducements." Hawks around Dick Cheney in the new W. administration considered that to be weak, and appeasement; they wanted to be "tougher" on North Korea.

The result? North Korean moved quickly to develop nuclear weapons. Rejection of the diplomatic approach had severe repercussions.

Defensiveness, ignorance, impulsivity, considered aggressive behavior, on-going real estate negotiations? Not having a clear idea about which of these factors is driving decisions is and will be one of the joys of the Trump years.

It is not as though any of this emerges against a backdrop of harmonious US relations with China. In addition to the long-simmering friction over trade, the US and China are currently engaged in a complex and increasingly perilous struggle over which country will be the dominant power in the maritime waterways of East Asia, through which a huge amount of the world's trade flows. That was already plenty perilous under Obama's more considered and deliberate management. It will unquestionably become more unpredictable and perilous now.

Marshall goes on to say:

Some people think Trump has no actual foreign policy. This is not true. He is extremely ignorant. But he has an instinctive and longstanding way of thinking about and approaching foreign policy questions which goes back decades before he ran for President. It is one that sees international relations in zero-sum terms (for me to win, you have to lose), sees the US as being taken advantage of by allies (either through advantageous trade deals or expenditures on defense).

He concludes:

What you ... have in Trump is someone who is impulsive and aggressive by nature - you see these qualities in primary colors in everything he does. These are highly dangerous qualities in a President. They become magnified when such a person is being advised by people who provide an ideological purpose and justification to such impulsiveness and aggression.

That is where I fear and believe we are with Trump. Not everything in foreign policy is sacred. But here we have an impulsive and ignorant man whose comfort zone is aggression surrounded by advisors with dangerous ideas. His instinctive aggression makes many of their most dangerous ideas possible; and their ideological formulations give his actions a rationale and logic that transcends psychological impulses and the anger of the moment. Even President Bush had a coterie of more Realist-minded and cautious advisors to balance out the hotheads. They lost most of the key debates - especially in the first term. But they provided a restraining counter-balance in numerous debates.

At present there is no one like that around Trump at all.