Taiwan Bill Delayed Amid White House Pushback

It’s the latest clash between Congress and the Biden administration over China policy.

By
43

We’re praying for the families of Indiana Rep. Jackie Walorski, Emma Thomson, and Zachery Potts, who were killed in a car crash this week.

Taiwan Policy Sets Top Lawmakers at Odds With White House

Since taking office, President Joe Biden’s administration has repeatedly urged Congress, in public and behind closed doors, to tone down its confrontations of China. On a range of issues, from addressing forced labor to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s trip to Taiwan this week, lawmakers from both parties have disregarded the White House’s notes of caution.

The dynamic solidified throughout the first year and a half of Biden’s presidency, as members of both parties have overwhelmingly rallied around tough-on-China policies. Those stances are fueled by Beijing’s increasingly belligerent behavior and its long record of human rights abuses, which have ramped up in recent years. China is perpetrating a genocide of ethnic minorities in Xinjiang, oppressing the people of Tibet, and systematically dismantling freedom in Hong Kong—at the same time it is making heightened threats against self-governing, democratic Taiwan.

The latest arena for a clash between Capitol Hill and the administration: an overhaul of Taiwan relations championed by leading senators who want to boost American support for the island.

Keep reading with a free account
Create a free Dispatch account to keep reading Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
43
By
Comments (43)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Phil H

    "Strategic ambiguity" was always a flawed concept that the US should have resisted more forcefully when the PRC was brought "in from the cold" internationally. That owes more to M=Jimmy Carter than Richard Nixon. So now, we are stuck with it.
    We should observe it only minimally to not openly contradict the "one-China" fiction. But about US resolve to defend Taiwan against the PRC, there should be no ambiguity.
    So quit screwing around. Pass the dang bill!

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    MatthewRobin

    The first thing Congress should do is speed up the delivery of Harpoon Coastal Defense Systems. I do not see a valid reason why it will take until December 2028 to fully deliver the weapons.

    https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/naval-warfare/boeing-to-provide-harpoon-launchers-for-taiwanese/

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Frank Lee

    Joe Biden is clearly a Manchurian president puppeteered by China because he is compromised over Hunter Biden's escapades that included the big guy.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Phil H

      And your proof would be. . . ?

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Frank Lee

        It is all on Hunter's laptop and confirmed by Biden's actions while in office. He is a clear and present danger.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Phil H

          Not buying what you're selling. The "Manchurian President" has repeatedly stated US resolve to defend Taiwan. That's not the PRC line.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Frank Lee

            A good Manchurian President would never telegraph he true intent and agenda. You have to add up all the actions. And Biden's actions are China-friendly.

            One thing certain... if we had only 10% of this Hunter and Joe Chinese connection but it was Trump and his son, you, your political friends and the entire MSM would have a constant 4-year political media chattering fit about Trump-China collusion and that he is a compromised POTUS.

            Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      JohnM.

      Clearly.

      Collapse
      1. Raincheck

        My favorite words here as well! :)

        Collapse
      2. Avatar photo
        Stephanie

        Tell me the whole plot line here because I don’t see what difference it would make even if the silly Hunter Biden stuff were true.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          JohnM.

          You'll have to ask Frank.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Stephanie

            Sorry! I thought you were agreeing with him.

            Collapse
  4. R. James

    The White House needs to recalibrate its approach to China so it is aligned with the American people and their representatives in Congress. Otherwise, it will be just one more reason for the Dems to replace Biden in 2024. In addition to the troubling positions outlined above, the White House has proposed a Defense Budget that has declined in real dollars for last two years. Of particular concern, the White House and Biden's political appointees in DOD and DON are putting pressure on the Navy to reduce its ship building plan and underfunding it, forcing the Navy to choose between RnD and building more ships. This was done despite the fact that China became the largest navy in the world in 2020. This a failing strategy that will neither deter China nor ready our military for the fight if deterrence fails.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Stephanie

      Some people are not hawks and find the military budget is bloated.

      We are not going to have a war with China.

      Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Michael Edesess

    I almost always think The Dispatch's positions are great, but I'm afraid I'll have to express some disappointment. Domestically, The Dispatch takes the admirable position of fighting against the demonization of "the other side" that is so rampant between factions in the United States -- exacerbated by extreme and exaggerated views on the part of each side of how bad the other side is. But when it's a China issue, The Dispatch jumps right onto the demonization bandwagon, for example buying into the ill-defined and ill-proven exaggerated allegations of genocide and forced labor. Yes, it's important to push back against escalation of hostilities by the other side, but not at the cost of escalating those hostilities one's self, escalation against which "the other side" will -- for the same reason -- also push back. This is a lesson that surely The Dispatch understands well when it comes to the domestic battles. I suggest applying it to relations between the US and China as well (less so to the Russia-Ukraine situation where violent aggression by Russia is much clearer and more overt).

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Stephanie

      I never expected anyone to claim these allegations are not well founded. There’s been a flood of well researched articles.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Michael Edesess

        A flood of articles all based on the same source material can become a bandwagon and groupthink, this is the case - I know this for sure since I live there - about Hong Kong. As to Xinjiang, I’ll repeat what I suggested elsewhere. Read yourself the voluminous source material on which those articles are based, exercise objectivity, and decide for yourself whether they provide conclusive evidence of “genocide” or “forced labor.”

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Stephanie

          Can you share what it is you are seeing in Hong Kong? What is your role there, if you don't mind saying? (Just curious.)

          Are you in any better a position than people stateside to know about conditions in mainland China, though? I'd think you'd be subjected to pro-China propaganda.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Michael Edesess

            I’m an adjunct professor at The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. I am subjected to pro-China propaganda in the same measure that I am subjected to anti-China propaganda, if you want to call either of those sets of opinions propaganda. I saw how violent riots conducted by and condoned by “pro-democracy activists” took place every day for the last six months of 2019 destroying many features of the city and causing transportation shut-downs, huge damages, and injuries. And I saw how the Western press virtually never called these riots even though that is exactly what they were (including an invasion and vandalizing of the Hong Kong legislature), even though the Western press called riots “riots” in many other places in the world including the US. As to any justification for the riots there was very little if any. I am not a victim of “pro-China propaganda” I am an objective observer. Imagine that.

            Collapse
    2. CatoTheElder

      How, exactly, do you see the above as “buying into the ill-defined and ill-proven exaggerated allegations of genocide and forced labor”?

      Before going further, I shall note that your phrase, “the ill-defined and ill-proven exaggerated allegations…” begs the key question of reasonable debate on the matter—i.e, the phrase assumes that there is some set of widely-recognized allegations aptly described as ill-defined, ill-proven, and exaggerated. I do not concur, and reject such as a starting point for discussion.

      Your comment confuses the reader further when noting the importance of pushing “back against escalation of hostilities”. What hostilities, exactly, should the US be pushing back upon? And is any “push” back not potentially, perhaps readily or even automatically seen as “escalating” whatever hostilities are ongoing, especially by those with an interest in so characterizing such push back?

      The conclusion you offer, that there must be careful balance of kind, number, and extent of “push back” events, is, at least broadly speaking, what pretty much everyone endorses. So it becomes a matter of the devils in the details. What, exactly, causes you disappointment with regards the position(s) of TD regarding US interactions with China? My guess, based on your comment here, is that your disappointment centers on the “demonization” of China because of its despicable treatment of the Uyghurs and Tibetans. Are you sure that the allegations you bemoan are exaggerated, ill-defined, etc.? Are you unbothered by the goals of the Chinese government regarding the Uyghurs, Tibet, and the like, and their favored methods of working to achieve those goals? If it’s reasonable to be bothered by same, just what should the US government be doing to address these issues? Perhaps a firm stamp of the foot and a harsh look?

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Michael Edesess

        If we really had evidence that there is a Holocaust going on in Xinjiang we should do more than stamp our feet, short of starting World War III, but we have no such evidence - the devil is in the details as you say. Try examining the purported evidence yourself with a detached eye and see what you think. I see demonization feeding on itself.

        Collapse
        1. CatoTheElder

          It needn’t be a Holocaust, with a capital H, in order to be reprehensible, even evil. I’ve read a fair bit of reporting, from various sources, and have concluded that the most likely scenario being described is one of a slow-motion destruction of a people and their way of life, in the cases both of the Uyghurs and the Tibetans. No, there’s no evidence that the Chinese are sending ‘em all to take Zyklon B showers, but if that’s the bar that must be cleared, it just means we’re forfeiting the game as no-contest. There’s abundant evidence of inhumanitarian treatment of various types, with the end being the eradication of non-conformities. I don’t see blunt statement of this as “demonization” in the slightest. It seems to me the Chinese authorities carry their own demons with them.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Michael Edesess

            It seems to me you have conceded the point that we have no evidence of “genocide” as most people understand it, so I hope you’ll agree with me that we shouldn’t use the word. (Yes, there’s a UN and Holocaust Museum definition that is broader, but because the word is so inflammatory and most people associate it with Zyklon B or Ruanda, I think accusing China of genocide is an inappropriate exaggeration.) But you raise points worth debating. Like other Asian societies, the social contract of Chinese with their government and their society is more community-oriented than the US understanding of ours. This is often attributed to their Confucian heritage. By contrast ours comes from famous sayings we learned in school such as “Give me liberty or give me death.” It’s why they were able to organize quickly to beat COVID-19 in its very early stages while more individualistic Americans didn’t. You assume China eradicates non-conformities, but what evidence do you have that it does this to a greater degree than American society? I think we should accept the fact that Chinese society is different and not necessarily any more evil than our own. If pushed to whataboutism, it’s easy to find aspects of American society that China can claim are just as evil as theirs. I harp on this because there’s an increasing chance that these incendiary statements will ultimately provoke a war, which would be horrible, and would be at least as much the fault of the US’s increasingly hostile rhetoric as of China’s.

            Collapse
        2. Avatar photo
          Richard Maxton

          I see satellite imaging showing "re-education" camps. Which is a nice 21st century euphemism for something far uglier.

          I see articles in the Atlantic and plenty of other places where Uyghur survivors/escapees are coming forward to tell of their horrifying treatment.

          I see REAL Jim Crow treatment of ethnic minorities in China by the ruling Han.

          I see the destruction of the freedoms enjoyed by those in Hong Kong. The destruction of Tibet. The destruction of the memory of Tiananmen Square.

          And the constant aggression - by military drills and airspace infiltration and "missile tests" of Taiwan. The propping up of North Korea's regime as a useful tool of regional disruption.

          None of that looks like demonization to me. Your mileage may vary, I suppose, but I'm happy to call a spade a spade.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Michael Edesess

            I live in Hong Kong and I know first hand that you’re wrong about “the destruction of the freedoms enjoyed by those in Hong Kong.” But I’ve found it’s very difficult to discuss this with those with immovable predetermined convictions.

            Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Greg Williams

    Title image caption"

    "But 30 years ago they were rude to me and actually touched my arm. I don't care if there is a war, I can't let that slide."

    And the Guinness world record for holding a grudge goes too...

    Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    The Bell Tower

    So many people could be harmed, not only financially but physically, emotionally, spiritually.

    Sorry, couldn’t resist. I’m glad to see both sides of this discussion. A hard line on China is good but there are obviously merits to the strategic ambiguity that we can’t just throw away. The message from Congress to China, regardless of whether this passes or not, is important. They can see that the American people aren’t just going to sit around and let China keep bullying us, whatever some of our reprehensible “elites” might say.

    Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Rob.Kandell

    If one puts stock in the predictions Peter Zeihan, China is a dying nation. The only scenario where Xi would be foolish enough to attack Taiwan is one where he simply decides to "go down swinging". Why provide reasons for that to happen (with the resulting karma) when we can simply watch them self-destruct?

    Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    DougAz

    There is deliberate strategic ambiguity over Taiwan and China.

    Frankly Biden’s genius is this political ambiguity.

    It's obvious. Biden can call out China on their aggressive actions and say hey..China..you're hurting the One China policy. Look, I don't control Congress. That's the voice of the American people.

    Chinese ambassador: Why China objects to Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan.
    Pound sand Mr. CHINA Ambassador and take your overt threats back home.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/08/04/china-ambassador-op-ed-pelosi-taiwan-visit/

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Chuckgold

      He quotes Kissinger,
      “the United States should not by subterfuge or by a gradual process develop something of a ‘two-China’ solution.”

      Nixon and Kissinger's grand experiment with opening Red China failed to bring an end to Communist rule. Kissinger can pound sand too.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        JohnM.

        "Nixon and Kissinger's grand experiment with opening Red China failed to bring an end to Communist rule."
        Nobody thought that would happen. That wasn't the point of the rapprochement.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Chuckgold

          John M.,
          You are correct, of course. My comment was mostly intended as a rejection of Henry Kissinger's opinions, as quoted above by China's representative. Nixon and Kissinger did propose to guarantee aid for China against (threatened) potential U.S.S.R. aggression. It was a freebie designed to divide the two Communist countries and to obtain China's cooperation in bringing the Vietnam War to an end without losing US dignity (peace with honor). But it was a sellout of Taiwan's future sovereignty, which Nixon came to regret in his later years. This links to an article from 2015 that recaps much of the issue and agrees with the thoughts I've picked up from news stories, etc, over the past fifty years.
          https://harvardnsj.org/2015/09/the-historic-opening-to-china-what-hath-nixon-wrought/

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            JohnM.

            Thanks, CW. I'll definitely read it later.

            Collapse
      2. Avatar photo
        DougAz

        Henry thought too much of himself

        Collapse