News outlets are reporting that the Marines have landed. So what? They go a lot of places.
This time, they have been deployed to Taiwan. Again, so what?
The headline on the conservative American Spectator reads, "US Marines Have Secretly Been Deployed to Taiwan for a Year."
Okay, that is important, but as they are our ally, why not?
The Spectator's sub headline reads, "China considers Taiwan part of its territory."
Just because the Middle Kingdom says that Taiwan is theirs does not make it right and just.
There is a fly in the ointment, however, and it's a big one. We say it's theirs.
From the State Department's website:
The United States and Taiwan enjoy a robust unofficial relationship. The 1979 U.S.-P.R.C. Joint Communique switched diplomatic recognition from Taipei to Beijing. In the Joint Communique, the United States recognized the Government of the People’s Republic of China as the sole legal government of China, acknowledging the Chinese position that there is but one China and Taiwan is part of China. The Joint Communique also stated that the people of the United States will maintain cultural, commercial, and other unofficial relations with the people of Taiwan. The American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) is responsible for implementing U.S. policy toward Taiwan.
So, how come we're not letting China be China?
As some may not be as ancient as we at the Long Hill Institute, a little history will be provided.
Once upon a time there was a Chinese Empire that was supplanted by a Chinese Republic. The United States was allied with that republic during World War II.
In China, there was a Chinese Communist Party that opposed the republic in the name of the proletariat, as they all do. The Communists and the Republic both opposed the Japanese during the war. To what degree was there cooperation and opposition to the enemy is disputed, but a subject for another time.
The war ended with both the Republic and Communists still standing. They would contest a civil war to see who would rule China.
The Republic lost and China went communist. As we were officially allied with the Republic, to this day, "Who lost China" is asked by historians and ideologues, and that is where we shall leave it.
The Republic got a booby prize, the island of Taiwan. With access to American markets and an industrious population they turned it into an economic powerhouse.
Meanwhile on the mainland, the communist government was having a "Great Leap Forward," or something. Whatever it was, material progress was not part of it.
In its war against the Republic, the Chinese Communist Party was supported by the Soviet Union. After communist victory, there was a fraternal relationship for a time, but eventually, the brothers fell out and became rivals.
As both the United States and Peoples Republic of China feared the Soviets somewhat, and the Communist Chinese, due to the non-leap forward had an impoverished population on their hands, the two ideological non-soul brother entities looked to explore a new relationship.
Über anti-communist, Richard Nixon, with his National Security Adviser and later Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger would begin relations with the communist government. China would get access to American markets and both would have a counterweight against the Soviets.
There was a problem to be glossed over. Taiwan still claimed to be the legitimate government of China and we agreed. Summarily dumping them would be bad form and so we would only kind of throw them overboard.
The next administration of President Carter, would recognize the People's Republic of China as the legitimate government of a China that includes Taiwan, but we still have trade and military ties with Taiwan. Not perfect, but ongoing.
Taiwan sometimes makes independence noises and China's posture is don't you dare. So far, the independence trigger has not been pulled. With the Soviet demise, China as sort of ally is not as urgent. As the benevolent hegemon is bugging Russia, the two Eurasian powers are finding ways to cooperate.
Of late, The United States has had problems with China. There is a need to see a bogeyman.
There is an ethnicity in the western part of China known as the Uigyurs who the great and good in this country claim are being treated horribly by the government. The Uigyur problem is well highlighted in the media and we have to stand as a beacon of freedom because if this is not barbaric or genocidal, what is? Or maybe there is another side to the story?
In a Grayzone article of February 18, 2021 titled US State Department accusation of China ‘genocide’ relied on data abuse and baseless claims by far-right ideologue, Gareth Porter and Max Blumenthal pulled apart the Uyghur genocide assertion. It turned out that it was the work of a single source: a June 2020 paper by Adrian Zenz, a right-wing German researcher affiliated with the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation and neoconservative Jamestown Foundation in Washington, DC.
Now I have nothing against memorializing victims of Communism, or vegetarianism or any other spurious creed, but it appears Mr. Zenz was not presenting a fair picture. For all one knows, there might be evidence to prove Chinese misdeeds against the Uyghur population, but the U.S. relied on a single, questionable source.
But, why is the Chinese far west our business? There is nothing wrong with citizens speaking out about human rights. My sympathies are with the Tibetan people. Still, it is not within the U.S. government's remit to free that nation, and if past is prologue, we will probably make it worse.
But we seem to be insisting on that for Taiwan to the point of a deployment of personnel. Putting aside is it wise, we might ask is it honest?
That question came up in the recent Soho Forum debate between arch neocon Bill Kristol and Libertarian Scott Horton.
An audience member asked that if provoked enough by our sailing aircraft carriers in waters they consider theirs, what would we do if they took one out with a missile?
Bill came to the defense claiming the provocative policy is keeping the peace. Maybe, maybe not, but Scott made the telling point, that American citizen don’t really care.
"Well, it doesn’t make any difference one way or the other to the American people who rules Taiwan. Nobody wants to see violence. It would be terrible if China invaded and people were killed there No one wants that but if the Chinese rolled into Outer Mongolia does anybody in here think that America should intervene start a war to protect Mongolia from Chinese aggression, or are there some things that are out of our purview and out of our jurisdiction?"
There you go. When one comes down to it, we choose to bug China because we can. Now, putting troops on Taiwan is waving a red cape at a bull.
It would be lovely to have someone tell us why it is our business to pull Taiwan's chestnuts out of the fire, but even though I am not a psychologist, I am going to propose an entry to the DSM-5* to define a mental disorder:
Barking Mad: A state of being wherein a foreign policy elite insists on risking a nuclear confrontation over a territory an ocean away that is recognized as possessed by another nation.
*The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) is the handbook used by health care professionals in the United States and much of the world as the authoritative guide to the diagnosis of mental disorders.