Mike Pence knows better than to attach a false equivalency to two events.
One of them involved comments from U.S. officials about the death of Cuban dictator Fidel Castro; the other involved a phone call from the leader of a nation — with which the United States has no diplomatic relations — to the president-elect.
The vice president-elect said this morningĀ he cannot understand why the phone call is getting all the criticism while praise to Castro is overlooked.
Please, Mr. Vice President-elect.
Donald Trump’s 10-minute conversation this past week with the president of Taiwan has smacked decades of U.S. diplomatic protocol right in the face. The People’s Republic of China has filed a formal complaint, declaring that the “one-China policy” that the United States has followed has been compromised egregiously by Trump’s congratulatory phone call from Taiwanese president Tsai Ing-wen.
Meanwhile, according to Pence, the death of Castro has drawn some muted praise of the late Cuban dictator from Obama administration officials. Even the president himself has delivered remarks that some have interpreted as complimentary.
The Taiwan-China dustup, though, is far more serious.
Taiwan’s very creation came at the end of a bloody civil war in China that the communists won. The nationalists who once governed China fled to Taiwan in 1949 to set up a new government. The United States recognized the Taiwan version of China until 1979, when it declared it would recognize the PRC.
You want a complicated relationship? There you have it.
What if China decides to retaliate against the United States by launching, say, a trade war? What if the PRC decides to yank its ambassador out of Washington? What if the PRC goads Taiwan into declaring its independence from China, giving the Chinese a pretext to launch a military attack against the nation it considers to be a “renegade province”?
There can be no equivalence attached to saying some mildly nice things about a dictator and the serious breach of protocol that the president-elect has committed.
I rarely make comments. John, I am one of your biggest fans as I always have been. I am starting to be a little concerned though. Make no mistake, I am not a Trump fan and feel like his approach could have been undertaken by someone with a greater sensitivity, honesty and tact. OK then, that’s about as generous as I am able to get on that subject. Do you think the role of the public should include constant criticism and sniping with the goal of undermining every policy initiative? If that is the case, how are credible journalists any better than the talking heads on Fox News and the approach they have taken toward the Obama administration?
John, I am counting on you to be positive in your narrative as you describe our movement forward. Sure, call the president out when he demonstrates reprehensible or illogical approaches to our problems. But, let’s be positive when we can be positive. Interestingly, I used to think I didn’t know anybody who is qualified to be president. Relative to recent events, I know many people who are capable to fill those shoes. Along the same lines, I thought the national press corps was a heady group of superior intellect and forethought. After this last chapter, I would simply prefer to read your editorial to help me understand many of the issues. John, I’m counting on you!
I’ll do my best, Doc, to not let you down. I’ve noted already on my blog my desire to offer positive comment when and where warranted. It’s just that this fellow, Trump, is likely to test my ability to follow through on that pledge. Thanks for reading the blog. I appreciate you. Oh … and our city misses you, too.