Non-interventionist contradiction?

[cowpunk12]

I oppose United States intervention generally, and adhere to the admonition in Washington's farewell address. At the same time, is it realistic to expect that the United States is going to get along with certain nations better than others? I'm not sure it is. Part of the reason for this is that many powerful nations make demands on other nations to take their side in a dispute as a condition for friendship. The China-Taiwan dispute is the most obvious example, Conditional to relations with China is the recognition of "One China". This means that to have any diplomatic and trade relations with China, one cannot have official diplomatic ties with Taiwan. What is the libertarian non-interventionist answer to this?

[otherone]

Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, includes the Treaty Clause, which empowers the President of the United States to propose and chiefly negotiate agreements between the United States and other countries, which become treaties between the United States and other countries after the advice and consent of a supermajority of the United States Senate.

Dr. Paul is a Constitutionalist. Before rethinking the ramifications of entangling alliances, we need to end 50 billion in foreign aid and close nearly 1000 foreign military bases.

[Xenophage]

You're missing the point cowpunk. Who cares if there's trade relations with China? If China wants to cut ties (and shoot themselves in the foot at the same time, mind you) so be it. "Friendship with all nations" really means friendship with all nations who are willing to give it in return. There should be no conditions placed on a relationship with the United States. You should be able to trade with us, be our friends, travel here and conduct business, without making demands. There is nothing but mutual advantage to be had. Simultaneously the U.S. should never be a threat to any non-belligerent state. With such a foreign policy it would be irrational to turn down friendship with the U.S.

Do you go around telling your friends that they can't be friends with a person you don't like, or you won't be their friend anymore? Is that acceptable behavior? Sorry, but if I had a 'friend' like that, I'd tell him to get lost.

Also, what's 'diplomatic ties'? We trade with Taiwan. We can visit. If we can do all that, do we need 'diplomatic ties' with any country?

[kylejack]

Anyway, US operates a de facto consulate through American Institute in Taiwan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Institute_in_Taiwan

We've also sold weapons to Taiwan.

[XNavyNuke]

I oppose United States intervention generally, and adhere to the admonition in Washington's farewell address. At the same time, is it realistic to expect that the United States is going to get along with certain nations better than others? I'm not sure it is. Part of the reason for this is that many powerful nations make demands on other nations to take their side in a dispute as a condition for friendship. The China-Taiwan dispute is the most obvious example, Conditional to relations with China is the recognition of "One China". This means that to have any diplomatic and trade relations with China, one cannot have official diplomatic ties with Taiwan. What is the libertarian non-interventionist answer to this?

As opposed to the American Foreign Policy meddling in Chinese affairs conducted by General Marshall following WWII which gave us Red China? Chiang Kai'shek could never be truly considered an ally during the war, he was never the avowed opponent that Mao was. If the U.S. would have left China handle their own internal affairs following the war there would have been no Communist China. No success by Mao would have meant no support for Kim Il-Sung in Korea. The Peace and Any Cost approach of our post war foreign policy in Asia, insured that Marshall handed us both.

We cannot start with a blank sheet of paper in world affairs. We've screwed up a lot with our intervention at all parts of the globe. Understanding history and the role that U.S. meddling played in it, is a first steps to understanding how policy changes will play out. A new foreign policy approach at least offers an alternative, though it will take decades if adopted to see if it makes any significant difference.

XNN

[cheapseats]

You're missing the point cowpunk. Who cares if there's trade relations with China? If China wants to cut ties (and shoot themselves in the foot at the same time, mind you) so be it. "Friendship with all nations" really means friendship with all nations who are willing to give it in return. There should be no conditions placed on a relationship with the United States. You should be able to trade with us, be our friends, travel here and conduct business, without making demands. There is nothing but mutual advantage to be had. Simultaneously the U.S. should never be a threat to any non-belligerent state. With such a foreign policy it would be irrational to turn down friendship with the U.S.

Do you go around telling your friends that they can't be friends with a person you don't like, or you won't be their friend anymore? Is that acceptable behavior? Sorry, but if I had a 'friend' like that, I'd tell him to get lost.

Also, what's 'diplomatic ties'? We trade with Taiwan. We can visit. If we can do all that, do we need 'diplomatic ties' with any country?


If millions and millions of Americans DON'T care, which is NOT a premise evidenced in the marketplace, #WallStreet DOES care.

Not as an exercise in THEORETICAL DISCUSSION but as a practical real-world resolution, as might be demanded by a potential-but-leery Ron Paul Supporter, is your answer that we CUT TRADE RELATIONS WITH CHINA UNTIL THEY RECOGNIZE TAIWANESE SOVEREIGNTY?

[onlyrp]

I oppose United States intervention generally, and adhere to the admonition in Washington's farewell address. At the same time, is it realistic to expect that the United States is going to get along with certain nations better than others? I'm not sure it is. Part of the reason for this is that many powerful nations make demands on other nations to take their side in a dispute as a condition for friendship. The China-Taiwan dispute is the most obvious example, Conditional to relations with China is the recognition of "One China". This means that to have any diplomatic and trade relations with China, one cannot have official diplomatic ties with Taiwan. What is the libertarian non-interventionist answer to this?

it is ONLY realistic that the US can only get along with some nations, and not others. Putting aside any weapons trade the US made with Taiwan (which I do not know anything about), the US regularly trades with people in Taiwan in both directions (we export our movies and cars, they export their cheap plastic goods). The US doesn't seem to have any problem trading with Taiwan while having no official diplomatic ties.

[onlyrp]

Anyway, US operates a de facto consulate through American Institute in Taiwan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Institute_in_Taiwan

We've also sold weapons to Taiwan.

I like how they put it on State Dept website
http://www.usembassy.gov/#Taiwan

** The U.S. maintains unofficial relations with the people on Taiwan through the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT), a private nonprofit corporation, which performs citizen and consular services similar to those at diplomatic posts. See AIT's website www.ait.org.tw/en/ for details.

[Acala]

If we put government back in the tight little Constitutional box where it belongs so that the market can set the economy back on the right path, nobody is going to cut off trade relations with us if they value their own prosperity. Our government should remain neutral in all matters international, other than direct attack on this nation. And if another country DOES decide to "punish" us for failing to dance to their tune, so be it. Our own countrymen will fill the gap, if another nation doesn't. Or we do without.