The Taiwan Assurance Implementation Act, which Trump signed into law on Tuesday, says the U.S. State Department should carry out reviews of contacts with Taiwan no less than once every five years.
Excuse my reading comprehension, but aren't these reviews a thing that can go in both positive and negative ways? Is Taiwan celebrating just because, "Hey, the US officially mentioned us!"?
It's just so odd to me. Like, the historical parallel here would be if during the US civil War the Confederate army retreated to the Florida Keys and the Union was never able to conquer them due to other international conflicts.
So for 30 years the Confederates rule there with slavery and a dictatorship over the people. All the while they keep calling themselves "The real America"
The "Keys" see progress eventually following a less hostile relationship with the Union and have their dictatorship replaced by a more liberal form. A normalizing could occur and diplomatic relations between the Keys and the rest of America could occur peacefully and under the wishes of the existing people of the Keys.
BUT, for some reason some other country on the other side of the world has been establishing military alliances and bases near the Keys. They are "allies" with the Keys but on paper acknowledge the Union as the "real America".
Say what you want about China today. But, what the fuck is America even doing here? They don't reduce tensions with Taiwan or "protect it". They don't care about democracy. They literally supported its fascist leaders for decades. America's hostile invasion of Korea to support fascist over communist is the entire reason that Taiwan was never captured by mainland China during their civil war. They did not want to risk conflict with the Western state that was doing everything to install loyal dictators in Korea and their neighbors.
China can have bad intentions and not give the people of Taiwan their now rightful self determination. I'm not saying that. But, holy shit, Americans just eat up the "we have to be a part of ever conflict ever"
That is not why the US cares about it. The US will abandon them (or bomb them) if it's beneficial to US oligarchs to do so. Can we get some healthcare and stop worrying about what China does in its own backyard?
To be an enemy of the US is dangerous. To be an ally of the US is fatal.
Taiwan is a representative democracy now, not a dictatorship.
I think a slightly better analogy, if you're serious, would be the relationship of the U.S. and Cuba (to make you feel better, I'll go along with your propaganda and pretend that the U.S. is the only bad guy in the world).
So, China and Taiwan are like if the U.S. tried to control Cuba and failed, and then some other country from the other side of the world (just for example, let's suggest it was Russia), stepped in to prop up and protect Cuba.
So, can you see how maybe what would be best for everyone is that the Cubans should get to decide on their own how they are governed? Much like the people of Taiwan, through their representative democracy, should be able to tell China to piss off already.
Your analogy is completely off. Cuba wasn't ever historically a part of the US. Did not participate in a civil war within the US.
I think you need to read up on your history before you try to make a "better analogy". I used the American civil war as an example because Americans seem to be completely ignorant to the fact that Taiwan exists as separate from mainland China because of a civil war.
Cuba literally liberated itself from a US supported dictatorship. The US did invade Cuba during the bay of pigs though. China has literally never even attacked Taiwan though. So, it's really not at all compareable. Taiwan exist today as separate from China because the losing side of a civil war retreated there.
China in the 1950s absolutely would have every right to invade Taiwan and overthrow the western supported dictatorship that existed there. It would literally be liberating it's own people.
The issue is that they didn't; the people there were forced for decades to live under a puppet dictatorship of the west due to US support.
But, again, we are in this situation in the first place because of US global interests. For some reason no one can answer why the best solution is not for the US to stop trying to control and maintain influence over countries half way across the world?
Yeah, it was a bullshit analogy.
Just like yours.
I thought that's what we were doing.
Well, explain in what what way my analogy was bull shit then. Because it's not perfect, but creating a hypothetical analogy based around America is sometimes the only way to get Westerners to understand something.
But, you, trying to equate the real bay of pigs invasion to an invasion of Taiwan that was dumb. It just showed you don't know the history of the Chinese civil war (the entire point of my analogy in the first place) or the history of Cuba.
But, go ahead. I'm waiting for you to explain why my hypothetical analogy is bull shit. I explained why yours was.
And you still haven't answered why you want the US involved with defending Taiwan. That really worked out well for Ukraine. Fighting for years so we could sell them weapons, get their men killed, and then abandon them once we found a new war to start.
Did the US reject your prom invite or something?
0 substance response #1
Taiwan never had been under PRCs control. The Union and Confederacy aren't comparable to PRC and ROC.
But, if in your analogy the civil war ended decades ago and the successor of the Confederacy would be under the threat of invasion by the Union, of course it could be justified to arm the successor of the Confederacy and to defend them in case of war.
On the other hand, in the analogy, nations could ignore one of the sides in case of slavery, aggressive foreign policies, general human rights abuses, global strategy and economics or whatever.
"The Florida Keys were never under control of the United States"
That what you just said if we're keeping the analogy true.
Then you essentially justified the arming and support of a slave owning state by "a foreign nation" if that slave owning state was being threatened. Which (clarifying the analogy) is the US supporting the very much fascist state of Taiwan in its inception and it's authoritarian rule for over three decades.
And, again, literally zero responses on why the US needs to be involved in every single conflict across the world.
Like, I have the obvious answer to this. But, my comment was meant to make you actually think. Instead, you somehow justified defending a slave state in the analogy.
I normally like reading .ml comments because, despite disagreeing with most, I get to see a new perspective.
Well, yours here are not that. You just sound dumb.
0 substance comment #3
To be clear, I would support a democratic successor to the confederation that respects human rights and comes to terms with its past, and is threatened by an authoritarian Union that does not respect human rights. However, I don't think this analogy is helpful at all.
I wish more countries would support Taiwan as the US does. I would particularly like to see my country take a stronger stance on this issue. Unlike China, Taiwan is a free and democratic state today. Taiwan has been a de facto independent state since 1949.
So a country halfway across the world supporting your "freedom" because they benefit from the manufacturing the country outputs is freedom. But a country that is your neighbor, like China, that has literally never invaded you and has normalized relations with you is "a threat". The Allie is a country that literally just abandoned an allie in Ukraine when it became unprofitable to support them.
How many times does the US need to abandon an allie like this for people to understand that being an Allie of the US is not beneficial to the "freedom" of that state.
Russia invading Ukraine is unjustifiable. IF China invaded Taiwan it would also be unjustifiable. But, do you really think the US policy of "fighting to the last Ukrainian" and then abandoning them was good for Ukraine?
There is no benefit that comes from being an Allie of the US. If Taiwan wants to remain out of conflicts it's best option is to distance itself from the US. The benefits only exist until the US decides it's no longer as profitable to their weapons manufacturers. Then shift their focus to somewhere else (Venezuela for example).
I am sure that China would invade Taiwan if it had the chance. China is the one country that uses its power to isolate Taiwan internationally wherever possible, claiming that Taiwan belongs inside its borders. Therefore, the USA guaranteeing Taiwan's independence is helping Taiwan. I'm not saying that the U.S. is acting altruistically, and I definitely don't think Trump is acting altruistically or morally, but the result in Taiwan has been the right one. Though, I am not convinced that Trump wouldn't sell Taiwan to China at some point.
I also don't know why you put "freedom" in quotation marks. Taiwan has a functioning democracy with a free press, the right to demonstrate,... It's at least on par with Europe freedomwise. If China were to invade Taiwan, that would be lost.
.ml
0 substance response #2
A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/