When asked, before Japans’s parliament, about the circumstances under which the country’s “Self-Defense Forces” could legally take military action, prime minister Sanae Takaichi cited a hypothetical Chinese attack on Taiwan as a “survival-threatening situation” potentially warranting such action.

Beijing’s response to the remark, while a bit more over the top than usual (the Chinese consul-general in Osaka seemingly threatened to cut off Takaichi’s head), hasn’t really varied in form or substance from the People’s Republic’s position of decades.

On November 21, Chinese UN Ambassador Fu Cong wrote to UN Secretary-General António Guterres, citing Takaichi’s words as “a grave violation of international law” and preemptively excusing any such hypothetical attack on Taiwan as “self-defence under the UN Charter” pursuant to defending its “sovereignty” and “territorial integrity.”

At stake in this matter, as in similar past occurrences, is a rotten principle called “strategic ambiguity,” under which the Chinese regime makes false claims and other regimes carefully avoid mentioning that those claims are false.

Here’s the fact which Beijing disputes and other regimes avoid mentioning:

Taiwan is not now, and never has been, part of the People’s Republic of China.

The island hasn’t been ruled from Beijing since 1895, when the Qing dynasty ceded it to Japan under the Treaty of Shimonoseki, 54 years before the People’s Republic came into existence.

To put that in historical context, Taiwan has been independent of mainland China since before Cuba became independent of Spain, and since before the US annexed Hawaii. It’s been independent of the mainland through, among other events, two world wars and a multi-decade “Cold War.” And even before any of that, it was only partially and occasionally ruled from Beijing.

Beijing enjoys no “sovereignty” over Taiwan, nor would invading Taiwan constitute “self-defense.”

But whenever any politician on the world stage publicly mentions, or even alludes to, that fact,  Chinese politicians rattle their sabers militarily while threatening, “diplomatically,” to throw themselves on the floor and hold their breath until they turn blue.

To placate Beijing, western regimes have generally adopted policies of “strategic ambiguity.” They conduct friendly relations with Taiwan while not “recognizing” its status as independent, and provide Taiwan with military assistance of various kinds while very carefully NOT openly saying they’d help it defend itself against invasion.

“Strategic ambiguity” is the worst of two worlds when it comes to foreign policy.

As a non-interventionist, I’d prefer to see the United States (and other regimes) mind their own business and avoid trying to “manage” the China-Taiwan relationship in any way.

Pro-Taiwan interventionists want the United States (and other regimes) to take the bull by the horns and tell the People’s Republic “it’s not yours, you can’t have it, and if you try to take it you’ll get smacked down hard.”

Catering to Beijing’s threats and tantrums with “strategic ambiguity” satisfies neither crowd. It makes eventual war more likely while giving “strategically ambiguous” politicians cover to pretend they’re surprised when it arrives.

Hopefully Takaichi will stand her ground. Facts, not dodges, reduce the risk of war.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

At an Oval Office event on November 18, US president Donald Trump let loose on an ABC News reporter, Mary Bruce, for daring to question Saudi terror kingpin Mohammed bin Salman about the 2018 murder — by Saudi agents, likely on MBS’s direct order — of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi.

Such questioning, Trump said, was “insubordinate,” musing that Federal Communications Commission chair Brendan Carr “should look at” taking away ABC’s broadcast license.

What does it mean to be “insubordinate?”

Put simply, insubordination entails a person who’s lower on some ladder of authority defying the orders of someone who’s higher on that ladder.

Trump clearly believes in the existence of such a ladder, upon which he enjoys higher ranking than, and authority over, mere mortals. Especially journalists. And most especially female journalists.

He doesn’t bother trying to hide that belief. Earlier in the week, while fielding questions about his long, close, personal relationship with late sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein, a flustered Trump tried to shush Bloomberg’s White House correspondent, Catherine Lucey: “Quiet. Quiet, piggy.”

In reality, Trump’s only subordinates (with respect to his position as president of the United States) are employees of the federal government’s executive branch. Literally everyone else in the country is either his equal or his superior.

The president is subordinate to Congress.  Congress makes the laws, and can override his vetoes if he doesn’t like the laws they make. He has to ask the Senate for permission to appoint high-level executive branch officials or to enter into treaties. He only gets to spend money Congress appropriates, and only on the purposes it appropriates that money for.

The president is also subordinate to the courts, especially the US Supreme Court. In any legal controversy involving the executive branch, he has to defend his policies before those courts, or go to them, hat in hand, requesting that they enforce those policies. They decide; he obeys.

That’s what the US Constitution says, and what it means, even if we see far more breach than observance in practice.

With respect to the press, he’s neither superior nor subordinate. They don’t work for him, he doesn’t work for them, and the First Amendment forbids Congress (and therefore its subordinate, the president) to make/enforce laws “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.”

As for the public, presidents supposedly work for us, and constantly claim to.

The title “chief executive” doesn’t mean “chief of everything.” It means “chief” of executing the orders his superiors give him, and of the people he further delegates that execution to.

Trump’s not Mary Bruce’s boss. He’s not Catherine Lucey’s boss. He’s neither your boss nor mine. He’s a mere functionary who should learn his place — his SUBORDINATE place.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

“We are taking in Trillions of Dollars and will soon begin paying down our ENORMOUS DEBT, $37 Trillion,” US president Donald Trump “truthed” on his personal social media network on November 9.  And, he promised, “a dividend of at least $2000 a person (not including high income people!) will be paid to everyone.”

I’m surely far from the first to let you know that the math doesn’t check out.

The US government took in $195 billion, not “trillions,” in tariff revenues for the fiscal year ending on September 30. Even given Trump’s constant temperament-driven tweaks to the rates, it would be surprising if next year’s tariff take comes to $500 billion.

A $2,000 check to 90% of Americans (with 10% as the excluded “high income people”) would run about $540 billion. For the government to send out more than it’s raking in AND “begin paying down our ENORMOUS DEBT” is mathematically impossible.

In order for Trump to deliver on those checks, he’ll have to either dramatically cut the US government’s operating budget — which he’s not going to do — or run even higher operating deficits,  increasing the “national debt” further and faster.

But more than the fiscal infeasibility of the proposal, I’m interested in Trump’s claim that those checks would constitute a “dividend.”

A dividend on what, precisely?

Dividends are payments to shareholders in a business enterprise, distributed as a share of profits.

As a “business enterprise,” the last time the US government turned a “profit” by spending less than it received in tax payments was 2001.

More importantly, none of us are shareholders in the US government. We don’t own it, or own any part of it. We can neither buy additional “shares,” nor sell any “shares” … because we hold none.

On the absolutely, positively most generous view of the relationship between US citizens and the US government, we’re “customers” who pay taxes in return for various goods and services (defense, roads, etc.), and are occasionally polled as to our preferences on who gets to run parts of the enterprise.

A more realistic view of that relationship: The government is a rancher and we’re the sheep it shears regularly. Any supposed benefits we receive in return for our wool are dispensed to maximize the wool haul while keeping the sheep docile and penned.

If you get that $2,000 check, keep in mind that it comes out of $2,000 you’ve either paid to the government in taxes (yes, tariffs are taxes — taxes on YOU), or will be expected to pay back. with interest, to the government’s creditors.

At best, you’ll be getting a little of your own money back.  Hooray! But more likely, you’ll be treated as co-signer on a loan for the amount, obligated to pay it back, with interest, in the future.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY