TV Watchers Miss the Taiwan & Pakistan Big Picture

There were several kerfuffle’s that the alphabet networks and their mindless audience pushed as being calamitous actions taken by Donald Trump this past week.  The two that caught my attention occurred while listening to NPR and applied to Taiwan and Pakistan. Seems that Mr. Trump accepting calls from the democratically elected Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen and responding to a similar call from Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif were appalling, shocking and destabilizing, averring that the President Elect supposedly upended the traditional convention on how to deal with Chinese geopolitics, consequently destroying nearly 40 years of standard US diplomacy regarding Taiwan, and our relations with India via Pakistan.

This response was predictable based on how the MSM media has dealt with Trump and hung on his each and every word and tweet. Those critical of Trump say that his actions are just thoughtless blundering mistakes and signs of his ineptness in foreign policy. This was not the case. These single-minded individual elite’s infer that this is a reflection of Trump being a political novice.  I take the contrarian view and assert it is the complete opposite.

The US relationship with China has continuously been all over the place since the end of the Nixon Administration.  Likewise, we can only thank Obama with his droning and unauthorized raids in Pakistan (Bin Laden included) as only bring about more political destabilization with respect to diplomatic actions with the nation. It is as if the pundits do not see how their speculations on behalf of ratings and sensationalization, are being overstated.

Let’s start with Taiwan and China. After the Ford administration, upon taking office, President Jimmy Carter was in such a big hurry to normalize relations with China that in 1978 Congress got involved to make sure that America’s mutual defense treaty with Taiwan would not fall by the wayside. So under the leadership of Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy, a bipartisan congressional alliance proposed the Taiwan Relations Act after Carter ignored their concerns. In essence congress indicated that the United States would not hesitate to aid Taiwan if it was invaded by China going against terms of diplomacy established in 1949. Carter like today’s media pundits were afraid this would upset and hurt China’s feelings.

By the Time Bill Clinton was in office, a ‘One China’ policy and de-recognition of Taiwan was in full effect and since his Administration; we have not been honest in our foreign policy objectives. So in simple terms, the current reaction to Trump’s actions in regards to China-Taiwan may be unhelpful and may hurt the fledgling Taiwan democracy and should be considered more important than papers and air time advertisement media outlets sell.

All we can take away from this is that Trump is making good onhis tough talk on China and that he will shake the ways of old off and not be restrained by the bureaucratic practices of the old political establishment guard. Just by going against 37 years of China-US diplomatic protocol of the“One China” policy the US accepts and respects without query. No US President or President-elect has ever called a Taiwanese leader in recent decades. Trump’s independence is what the story should be about not to mention two things are abrogated from the popular analysis: (1) Chiang Kai-shek is no longer the leader of Taiwan and (2) Trump isn’t the first president or president-elect since 1979 to have communicated directly with a president of Taiwan noting that if memory serves me correctly Reagan did the same thing when he was president elect.

Fact is politicians on both sides of the isle have been reconsidering albeit very quietly the US-China-Taiwan relationship since 1989 (Tiananmen Square) and the question if they really want Taiwan to unify with China. In fact I bet I could find support if I really wanted to be super-duper accurate that since Tiananmen Square, the US have been selling more and more weapons to Taiwan, but this is mere speculation on my part. The point is Trump has not only shown himself thus far  to be an effective negotiator, he has also been continuously underestimated every step of the way so far by folk whom think they know it all in the media and has proven that there is more than one way to skin a cat metaphorically.

Adding Pakistan to the mix, we see the same thing if we are truly objective before we are outraged.  It is clear that President-elect Donald Trump may be amenable to similar eccentric methods regarding bilateral ties with the nation and Pakistani Prime Minister. In this case, the media analysts have called Trump’s actions on one end ridiculous and the other distressing.  Based on what I read all he said was that he thought Sharif was “a terrific guy” and wanted to visit what he described as a fantastic country with great people speaking of Pakistan. What all of this suggest is that Trump is not the traditional status quo political cat to the disdain of the traditional American political elite and mainstream media. All he wants is for the US to be a part in trying to secure peace between India and Pakistan.  What’s wrong with that?

The problem is that the reaction of the US media may be the biggest issue with respect to both  China and Taiwan, and Pakistan and India by blowing all of this out of proportion in their desire to “get Trump” by any means necessary. Fact is that US foreign policy is fluid and changes and over stating events as the aforementioned can do more harm than good. It is as if Trump taking a phone call is more problematic for the Chinese than Obama selling four missile carrying frigates and billions in other weaponry to Taiwan.  Then there is the fact that Trump isn’t even in office yet and has not even laid out any foreign policy. So just calm down and wait for something tangible to report on and not personal bias in the form of made-up fears.

Read More

When Democratic Arrogance Becomes Whining Tantrums

Weeks after the Presidential election and it appears that some folks are still very much in their feelings. Each day it seems that no matter what the President Elect says or does, it is problematic for this segment of the electorate and if given attention to, is considered to be some sort of dangerous attempt to “normalize’ the behavior of a person they consider pathological and profoundly perilous.

This week it ranges from Trumps taking calls from the leaders of Pakistan, Presidentof Kyrgyzstan Almazbek Atambayev or Taiwan, to his cabinet selections. However, any clinician worth their professionalism would note that these are just secondary to the main issue which is that as opposed to accepting reality they prefer to remain in a delusory state of denial, displacement and projection. This became clear to me after I heard the entire two hour and thirty-eight minute exchange between the Trump and Clinton campaign teams at Harvard this past week. 

Obviously, there remains a significant level of grief for losing and animosity against Trump for winning the 2016 Presidential election. Thus no matter what the president elect does, will always be seen negatively. I saw this same sort of bitterness and angst displayed by the GOP and Clinton staffers when Obama won his 2008 run for the presidency.

Although Trump has thus far selected accomplished people who have made a mark in their chosen fields of expertise, many liberals are upset because he has not placed career politicians the likes of Clinton or Kerry in such slots as Obama did, although he ran on this as part of his platform. More indicative of this rage can be observed when they attempt to buttress their interpretations via argument, then seem unable to make any critical comment without invoking Hitler comparisons or worse, vilifying these selections as being images of racism or sexism, or the final election outcome being due to the influence of hackers and Russian meddling as a blogger I frequently read noted.

They ignore the fact that many in middle America outside of the urban landscape perceive that the Democrat party derides the concept of working hard, seem to care about not enforcing laws or supporting the men/women whom they frequently send off to fight in unnecessary wars and have more concern for illegal/undocumented aliens or foreign refugees than thepeople born here – especially the poor and homeless.

Accurate or not, they see the Federal government as a business and think it should be run like a business the way they run their households like businesses. These are some of the same people that gave Obama a chance although he had no business experience and what they see as the result is an America where race relations, poverty, employment opportunity and economic security has gotten worse.  They considered Hillary Clinton fairly but concluded she was not in touch with their life experiences, and like Obama, had never in her life run anything on the level of a business. Not to forget that when President Elect Obama filled his cabinet with political elites, academics and Ivy League professors, there was no complaints. But with Trump bringing in competent people with success in the real world to be his advisors, it is evident that he desires folk that want to put the US before using their government positions to make money for themselves. These people already have money and such selections demonstrate that it is Trump’s goal to run the government like a business.

Even when he follows through on a promise to keep that Indiana Carrier plant from moving to Mexico he is mocked. Yet there was no problem with Obama when he gave $500 million to Solyndra and even called Solyndra a success when he visited the company although most experts considered the company a failure.  This is what most Americans see, and they consider these types of actions as arrogant responses of cry-baby sore losers. Not to mention we all know that he gave Solyndra this money as a favor to Rep. Pete Stark of California so he would push the ACA out of the House health committee. 

Trump is putting together a business leadership coterie of advisers that understand the global economic market. This thus far has proven to be a group of folk that will not be prisoner to special interest. Which is another reason many are turned off by democrats whining and making excuses as if the general populous is so dumb that on our own examination, we are not supposed to see through the artificial veneer that you project Hilary Clinton to be. We, no matter what you tell us we should think or believe will never see Hillary as being smarter than us, let alone as successful as Trump, who although began with a large loan from his father, built his business with hard work and not with $250,000 a pop 45 minute speeches.

Democrats have to stop whining and confront the actuality that they are out of touch and have been out of touch and only have themselves to blame and no one else, so stop crying and pointing fingers at contrived bullshit ranging from James Comey, Fake news, or anything else. It is unfathomable as to how you could not see this coming. This was not an isolated event.  Not only did HRC lose, but the Democratic Party also loss on the state level only holding a majority in 31 of the 98 legislative bodies across America.  

Continuing to blame others for their own failures is a major indication that losing on this level for Democrats may only get worse in the coming years if they do not do some somber reflection and soul searching. And I say this because it appears they have learned nothing as evidenced by re-appointing 76 year old California Representative Nancy Pelosi as the Minority Leader of the House. In her own words she recently indicated how out of touch she and her party is when she stated: “I don’t think people want a new direction. Our values unify us and our values are about supporting America’s working families. That’s one that everyone is in agreement on. What we want is a better connection of our message to working families in our country, and that clearly in the election showed that that message wasn’t coming through.”

Yes it looks bad for the democrats when they don’t comprehend that speaking at or down to others and basically ordering them to do something that they singularly have decided as being unacceptable, and calling the names because they don’t, isn’t communicating, nor is it a message.

Read More

Four Wars and Counting

I am very well aware that there are so many conflicts occurring that it is hard to keep track of them all.  This new world era of geopolitical hegemony is tricky. Yet still, of all of the conflicts I am having a problem taking my eyes off of India and Pakistan. Tensions between New Delhi and Islamabad have been running high ever since India cracked down on protests in Indian-administered Kashmir in July.

Over the past month there have been several events that make this situation both interesting and frighten. There was an assault that occurred in Kashmir on sept 18 in which four gunmen took an Indian army brigade headquarters in the Indian controlled town of Uri which resulted in the death of 18 soldiers. Although no one claimed responsibility for the attack, the government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi's accused Pakistan and even called it a terrorist state for supporting the individuals Modi believed were behind the attack. The Modi administration purports that the attack was carried out by members of Jaish-e-Mohammed (a group based in Pakistan that has the aim of forcing the withdrawal of troops in India-controlled Kashmir). More recently, an Indian army brigade headquarters near the de factor border with Pakistan was attacked which left 17 soldiers dead in the northern region of Kashmir.

Then on the 21st of October, seven Pakistani Rangers were killed and three others injured when the Border Security Force (BSF) of India retaliated shelled and fired from across the International Border at locations near and around the Kathua and Jammu districts of Kashmir. The only information that has been proffered is that Islamabad has rejected all allegations made by New Delhi's in an effort to take attention away from human rights violations in Indian-controlled Kashmir, while Pakistan has asserted that the Indian Army is just firing at citizens and military outpost without provocation.

Whatever the case and whoever fired first, this is getting in dangerous territory. From what I have read, there have been at least four wars between India and Pakistan, if not more if I included other minor skirmishes. The first happened in 1947. This was called by many as the First Indo-Pakistani War. Like most wars it stated over some dumb shit – the belief that the royal leader of Kashmir would pledge his nation’s allegiance to India. He had the choice to join India or Pakistan or to remain independent. The problem was that he was a Hindu and ruled a majority Muslim population and this was a no-no for Pakistan, so they attacked and occupied parts of Kashmir and this was the first war.  It took UN Security Council involvement for a formal cease-fire to occur and on New year’s eve  1949,  India gained control of about two-third of Kashmir and Pakistan a third. The second war occurred in 1965 after Pakistan's military joined with militants from Jammu and Kashmir to start an insurgency against Indian rule in the region. This resulted in India launching a full-scale military attack on what was then West Pakistan. Although it only lasted for a week, the 1965 Indo-Pakistani War resulted in thousands of casualties and was considered by some historians to have been the largest tank battle since World War II. The war only ended after the Soviet Union and USA got involved to negotiate a truce between Islamabad and New Delhi. Believe it or not, the same thing happened again in 1971 and 1991.

The new region at issue is the border along the Himalayan Rivers. Just this week seven civilians, including two minors, were killed and several others wounded when Pakistani troops shelled several districts along the border. This was not the first time Pakistani troops have shelled the area or broken the ceasefire. It has been reported that India Border Security Force destroyed 14 Pakistani posts when they responded with heavy mortar fire.

It seems that almost daily we are getting information regarding either one side shooting or shelling the other side. Most recently involved Pakistani officials say Indian troops have opened fire across the Line of Control in the disputed region regularly and they continue to respond with heavy fire as a consequence.

I cannot imagine either side wanting a war.  The major issue for me is that both are nuclear powers – yes, both have the bomb(s). On bare equipment, I would think that Pakistan wouldn’t even want to engage India in a war.  India has a clearly larger military and more money. Many around the globe consider India’s economy as being more stable than its neighbor and one of the fastest growing economies in the world in the last decade. India also has several other advantages: India has a population of 1.2 Billion compared to 199 million for Pakistan; India has military aircraft- 2,086 compared to less than 1000 for Pakistan and Indian spends around 40 billion annually on its military compared to around 7 billion for Pakistan.

Likewise, India has enough problems on its hands after this past summer and its violent and bloody response to protest by the oppressed citizens of Kashmir, ever since military and police killed a young leader sparked uprisings across the Kashmir region which has resulted In the deaths of around 100 people, leaving hundreds of other blinded.  By some estimates, over the past several months almost 20,000 (adults and children) have been injured, and several thousand placed under arrest spending and living the past months under curfews in Kashmir.

With all of the violence presently happening in the world, especially in the region many call the Middle East, it is extremely important that we keep an eye on this, for history has shown us the region of Kashmir is a hotbed and its people crave independence away from India at any cost. In addition, it doesn’t take much for Islamabad and New Delhi to go to war with each other, and maybe even making use of the nuclear option. There have already been four significant wars between the two nations over the past 70 years, I just wonder if we may be seeing the start of the fifth.

Read More