The Daily Signal - Biden Was Wrong To Question Pelosi's Taiwan Visit, Expert Says

Episode Date: August 4, 2022

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi traveled with a delegation to Taiwan this week, where she met with Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen and Taiwan lawmakers despite aggressive rhetoric and threats from the Chinese Communist Party.  Pelosi, who was the first speaker to visit Taiwan since former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., visited in 1997, tweeted about the trip: "Our discussions with Taiwan leadership reaffirm our support for our partner & promote our shared interests, including advancing a free & open Indo-Pacific region." "It's really important that she do it, a speaker of the house going to Taiwan, demonstrating American support for Taiwan. It's doubly important to do it once a Chinese called her out for it," Walter Lohman, the director of the Asian Studies Center at The Heritage Foundation, says. (The Daily Signal is Heritage’s multimedia news organization.) Walter joins the podcast to discuss Speaker Pelosi's visit to Taiwan, if the United States should change its policy toward Taiwan, and if he predicts the visit will spark World War III.  Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This is the Daily Signal podcast for Thursday, August 4th. I'm Doug Blair. And I'm Samantha Rink. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi led a delegation to Taiwan this week, despite growing aggression from China, who threatened determined and forceful measures if the trip happened. Pelosi arrived in Taiwan on Tuesday night, local time, and met with Taiwan president, Tsying Wen, and Taiwan lawmakers.

Walter Lohman, the director of the Asian Study Center here at the Heritage Foundation, joins the podcast to discuss, Pelosi's visit if he thinks it will start World War III and how China has responded to Pelosi's visit. Before we get to Samantha's conversation with Walter Lohman, let's hit today's top news. Voters in Kansas rejected a pro-life ballot question on Tuesday during the state's primary election. 58.8% of voters opposed the proposed, the proposed value them both amendment to the state constitution and 41.2% voted for it. according to the Associated Press.

The vote came about a month and a half after the Supreme Court overturned its landmark Roe v. Wade decision of 1973. Daily Signal reporter Virginia Allen was on the ground Tuesday night in Overland Park, Kansas, and spoke with both pro-life and pro-abortion voters. Democrat state senator Dinah Sykes, who is pro-abortion, told the Daily Signal, I think we just need everyone who is engaged with this to stay engaged, and we can show that we can do great things. Abortion currently is legal in Kansas up to 22 weeks. Peter Northcott, executive director of Kansas for life, expressed concern that the abortion industry would continue to make Kansas a destination for extreme abortions, but said that no matter what, the pro-life movement will still be here.

The American Civil Liberties Union, also known as the ACLU, has filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court. Why? To protect racial discrimination in college admissions. ACLU chapters in Massachusetts and North Carolina filed the brief Monday, pressing the High Court to allow colleges to continue affirmative action policies and use race as a determining factor in university admissions. The court will hear oral arguments in the case called Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, likely sometime next year. In a Monday tweet announcing the amicus brief, the ACLU wrote, we filed an amicus brief today urging the Supreme Court to protect university's ability to consider race. and college admissions. Ending these considerations would ignore our country's present-day racial inequality and threatened diversity on campuses everywhere. The ACLU continued, not talking about

race doesn't erase discrimination. It ignores the ways that structural racial inequality impacts students. The Watchdog Group American Oversight said Tuesday that the Defense Department does not have text messages related to the Capitol riot from numerous top officials because they were wiped during the change of presidential administrations. The group previously filed a public records request for acting defense secretary Chris Miller and former Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy following the Capitol riot that occurred January 6th, 2021, and were told during litigation that the records didn't exist, the Hill reported. The Defense Department and the Army said in March that when an employee separates from DOD or Army, he or she turns in the government

issued phone and the phone is wiped. For those custodians no longer with the agency, the text messages were not preserved and therefore could not be searched. The Hill also reported that text messages from two former Homeland Security officials in the Trump administration, Chad Wolf and Ken Cuchinelli, were also lost during the transition when their phones were reset. That's all for headlines. Now stay tuned for my conversation with Walter Lohman about Nancy Pelosi's trip to Taiwan. As I approached the walkway from around the back of the building, they had taken crow bars to almost all of our windows, two of our doors, and just shattered all of the glass. That's the voice of Susan Campbell, Executive Director of Blue Ridge Pregnancy Center.

In the early hours after Roe v. Wade was overturned, vandals smashed windows and spray-painted threatening messages outside the center. I'm Virginia Allen. Next week, we're releasing a documentary about what happened to the Blue Ridge Pregnancy Center, and we take a deep dive. into the violence and attacks against other pregnancy centers across the country. Stay tuned and make sure you're subscribed to the Daily Signal's YouTube channel to watch this documentary and other videos from The Daily Signal. Joining the podcast today is Walter Lohman. He has been the director of the Asian Studies Center here at the Heritage Foundation for over 15 years

and is in studio to discuss Speaker Nancy Pelosi's trip to Taiwan this week. Walter, thank you so much for joining us. Sure. Thanks for having me. Speaker Nancy Pelosi landed in Taipei on Tuesday night. She met with Taiwanese President Tsang Wen, as well as Taiwanese lawmakers. First and foremost, what do you think of Speaker Pelosi following through with her trip, given the fierce rhetoric coming out of China and the opposition from President Biden and the Pentagon? Well, actually, it doesn't surprise me at all.

If she first mentioned this back in April, she was planning on. and ongoing and she got COVID. And at the time, a lot of people speculated, well, okay, yeah, sure, really, COVID. You're not going because the Chinese weren't happy. But in fact, I never doubted she would reschedule and be back on. And once it was scheduled, I didn't doubt that she would follow through on the trip. You know, it's really important that she do it, a speaker of the house, going to Taiwan, demonstrating American support for Taiwan.

It's doubly important to do it once a Chinese called her out for it. Because at that point, they're dictating to us who may and may not visit Taiwan or, you know, after Taiwan, maybe it's someplace else they're not happy about where we go. Or maybe somebody else in our government that they're, you know, not pleased visit Taiwan. So it was really important that she go. Definitely. And, you know, what was your assessment of Pelosi and what she had to say while she was in Taiwan and her messaging on social media as well as her op-ed that she wrote for the. the Washington Post. I thought it was pretty tight messaging. I think she's trying to be firm about U.S. commitment to Taiwan at the same time portraying it as nothing out of keeping with traditional

U.S. policy in the region. And I think she's right about that, as has been advertised all over now. Speaker Gingrich went to Taiwan 25 years ago. Congressional delegations go all the time. It's a occurrence for congressional delegations to go to Taiwan members, senators, and cabinet-level officials go from time to time. So there is really nothing unprecedented by what she did. I think there was a bigger problem, though, with the administration's response. I think Biden was wrong for trying to call her back on it. I don't know if that was advised by a staff or what.

It seems sort of an impromptu thing. But it was wrong for him to try to hold her back. They later tried to make up for that by, you know, deferring to her, et cetera, which really they have no choice. I mean, she's the Speaker of the House. She can go if she wants to. It's our divided government, our sort of separation of powers. But he should not have done that. He made this situation much worse.

As far as the Pentagon's concerned, I'm not really sure what the Pentagon thought, tell you the truth. The administration Biden himself said something about the military, quote-unquote, doesn't think it's a good idea. We don't know what that meant. We don't know who it was, what he was talking about exactly. And at the end of the day, there was no danger to Pelosi's safety or whatever. There's some bigger issues maybe we can talk about there. But the sort of hyperbolic concerns at the moment that they were going to invade Taiwan over this and all the rest did prove to be that hyperbolic. Yeah, I want to talk a little bit more about President Biden and, you know, these military leaders that were opposed.

to the speaker's trip, advising that it wasn't a good idea at this time. As you mentioned earlier, Speaker Pelosi was set to visit Taiwan back in April, got COVID, visited this week. Now that Pelosi has visited Taiwan, does this make Biden look bad or weak? What message does her visit said to China? I think Biden's reaction does look bad, and that's why he tried to turn it around and approach it a little bit differently later. Again, like I say, I'm not sure that the military had a concern. I know that Biden said the military had a concern. Who knows what that means?

But, yeah, I mean, it makes him look bad. It makes him look bad in the face of the Chinese that he's buckling to their pressure. Maybe he has some other things he's trying to do with the Chinese. Clearly, he had this telephone call with Xi Jinping last week. Maybe that was his concern. and his people worked to put this thing together. He seems very eager for a conversation with Xi Jinping, and he didn't want to jeopardize that.

He was afraid that was going to be jeopardized. Could be that. Could be climate change cooperation, health care cooperation. As a matter of fact, they came out of the call between C and Biden talking about the ability to cooperate on things like environmental issues and health care issues, you know, pandemics and that sort of thing. So maybe he has some idea.

He's generally trying to calm things with China, I think, over the last year. And I guess he saw this as getting in the way of that. In terms of the message that her trip sends to China, it's that you can't bully the United States. It's also an important point to make about the way our government works. Their government works one way, okay? Whatever. We can talk about that in another podcast how their government works. But the way our government works is that Congress is that Congress is,

separate from the executive branch. And Congress determines whether the Speaker goes, whether the majority leader goes, what kind of delegations they send, what kind of statements they make, what kind of laws and resolutions and things like that they pass. They could pass a resolution tomorrow that says, we reject the whole one China policy, you know, and we want independence for Taiwan. They could do that. And nothing that the president can do about it. Had this trip been canceled, Biden would have sent just the opposite message. He would have sent the message that actually our system doesn't work like that. You can press me and I'll make my people fall in line.

That would have been terrible. So it's so important that she followed through with this. And in terms of Pelosi's trip itself, do you have any thoughts on the speculation over who might have leaked the trip in the first place, whether it was the Biden administration or someone from Pelosi's own office? Do you think it matters? I don't know. It's one of those things where,

You just have to think who had the motive to do it, right? Total speculation. But I don't see how Pelosi would have the motive to do it. Look at all that happened once it came out, right? She would have been closer she could get without anyone noticing, the better. And I don't think the Taiwanese would leak it for the same reason. They don't want pressure to build so that she has to cancel. They wanted her to go.

They were never going to tell her, forget about it. We didn't know it was going to be so much trouble because, of course, they did know it was to be trouble. They're not going to tell her. So I think they're, again, I'm speculating, but I could imagine there are people within the administration who thought you could leak this out and you could raise enough noise that the pressure would build and you'd have to cancel it. I want to talk a little bit about Taiwan itself now and what impact Pelosi's trip might have

on the island itself. According to some reports on Wednesday, the Chinese military is planning to launch joint military operations around Taiwan. What do you make of this? Well, you know, we had a crisis, they called the third Taiwan Straits crisis back in 95-96. And at that time, the Chinese were doing similar thing, protesting some moves in the United States. They were launching missiles in the streets. And the U.S. responded with two carrier battles. groups deployed to the region just to show them that we had enough to protect Taiwan if it came to that. I think that the Chinese are doing this sort of mirror image of that this time. So they're proving to us that they have what it takes to blockade Taiwan to take Taiwan if they had to.

I don't think it's a prelude to them invading anytime soon. I mean, anytime soon being like this week and next week, you know, this year. I mean, but it's to show us that they can do it. incident back in 95-96 shaped the Chinese military basically for the next 25 years. Everything they were doing has been focused on Taiwan, focused on

the ability to deal with U.S. aircraft carriers shaping their doctrine and their personnel training and all that around that possibility. So they're trying to give us the same thing, the same sort of cathartic experience that they had in 95-96. Now the Chinese also

banned imports of Taiwanese pastries, baked goods, fish sand, which is used for building. Is this more hurtful or harmful to Taiwan than it sounds? It's harmful. It's not as harmful as some other things that they've done in the past along those lines. The fish, as I understand it, they've targeted is not the most popular fish that they export, but they've targeted more popular fish in the past, a fish that's very important to Taiwanese economy, it'll, you know, it'll hurt. It's designed to hurt. But it's something the Chinese do all the time. And they do not just to Taiwan. They did Australia. They do to the Europeans.

You know, they do this. This is their retaliation. They always do it with a sort of plausible deniability where they say, well, we have to inspect this. And we inspect it as pests. And so they don't say it's because of what you did. But coincidentally, the ban comes just after the objected of something that you did. And then what about the cyber attacks against Taiwanese government websites? Is that kind of the same idea as what we were just talking about, or is that a little bit more severe? I think that goes back to this warning idea that what they can do.

I still wouldn't rule out them doing something like that to us, just to give us a hint that if they really want to shut down cyber, they can shut it down. I mean, if we ever fight a war with China, a lot of the preparation for the war is going to be in cyberspace. You remember back in the day that both the first and second Gulf Wars, the U.S. Air Force prepped to the ground, right? They bombed for days and days and weeks before the ground invasion started. Cyberspace is a little bit like that now. They've got to shut things down on cyberspace to get there. And so they're showing that they can do it. And by the way, they're bombarding Taiwanese cyberspace all the time in their social media.

networks and that sort of thing, trying to prep them for a more peaceful unification, but just the same, bring them into China. And you mentioned this a little bit in your last answer in terms of potentially going to war with China. Do you think that this visit could start World War III? Do you think they could use it as an excuse to attack the United States? I don't think so, no. I mean, I think the fact that they're doing these exercises over a very finite period of time,

they start them on Thursday the day after she leaves, and they've said they're going to do it for three days. So I see that more as a warning, a preparation, a training sort of thing. But the message is that we can invade, and if things don't go our way, we will. And they've been very clear for that for a long time, that unless there is some sort of peaceful unification, we reserve the right to do it in an unpeaceful way. And so the U.S. has to be prepared for that eventuality. Every day, the Chinese military grows in strength. And the U.S. military is actually getting weaker. And so they're in a better position all the time.

The best case scenario for Beijing is that that just becomes obvious to everyone and that they never have to invade. But they get what they want. They don't really want a war. They don't really want a war. They want what they want. And they go to war to get it. If they can get it without going to war, they won't. And so the more they can prove this strategic advantage of the United States, this increased firepower and sort of discourage the United States from ever doing any.

to respond, the closer they are to their goal. I want to talk a little bit about some comments from the Pentagon Press Secretary, John Kirby, from earlier this week. He said on Monday that the United States does not support Taiwan independence. He also emphasized that the United States' one China policy has not changed and is guided by the Taiwan Relations Act. Are Kirby's remarks significant in any way? They're just a restatement of standard U.S. policy for 40 years.

That's the catechism. TRA, the three communicates, and the six assurances. They stand as like the basis of our one-China policy. A lot of times you hear the Chinese talking about one-China principle. It's a different thing. That's their way of looking at it. One-China principle means that Taiwan and China are one country and don't interfere with that. One-China policy is out.

policy, well, we don't acknowledge that. So he was just restating it. I think any time of American official restates that it's usually to reassure either the Taiwanese or the Chinese that nothing has changed, that we still support this kind of ambiguous situation between the two, but we support Taiwan's continued de facto independence and its ability to determine its own future. And do you think, you know, given the rise in aggression that we've seen. seen coming out of Beijing. Do you think it's time for the United States to change its policy

for Taiwan? You know, what are the alternatives, if so? Personally, I don't think so. I think it works fine like it does. What I think we need to have is a certain certainty on the capability of the U.S. military. So if you have a certainty that the U.S. can deal with whatever the Chinese might do, you don't need to make the other statements. about what we would definitely do. On the other hand, if you say what you will definitely do, but you don't have the means to back it up, that's no good either. Actually, the person who stated this the best for a president was Donald Trump,

who in 2020, in August 2020, he was asked a question. He said, the Chinese know what I will do. And the reporter pressed them and said, well, you know, but can you be more specific in ways? no, I don't want to be specific. I don't need to be specific. The Chinese, no. And that's exactly what the policy is. We want to make sure they understand that we're going to do this without saying it out loud

because that then sort of catalyzes the environment. In the same way, we were afraid that Nancy Pelosi's visit might catalyze the environment. Yes. Walter, thank you so much for joining me. Before we end, I just wanted to ask if there were any other important points that you wanted to talk about, that you think might be missed in the means. media coverage of Speaker Pelosi's visit this week to Taiwan? No, I mean, I think that's it.

You know, this sort of thing should continue. I would hope that if Kevin McCarthy is the next speaker the next year, I hope he would go. He has said he would go. I think it's important for him to do it now that he's said it. I think as many congressmen, senators as possible could go. I think the president should send a cabinet-level official. You know, and we can debate over what the cabinet-level official, who that is and how high level official that is, etc. But there's so much more we need to do with Taiwan and give them

this assurance and then to back it up with real power to support those assurances. Well, Walter Lohman, thank you so much for joining me today to speak about Nancy Pelosi's trip to Taiwan this week. I really appreciate it and hope you'll join me again in the future. Yeah, absolutely. Thank you. And that'll do it for today's episode. Thank you for listening to The Daily Signal podcast. If you haven't done so already, please be sure to subscribe to the Daily Signal podcast on your podcast listening app of choice. That's Google Play, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and IHeart Radio. If you haven't, leave us a review and a five-star rating on Apple Podcasts, and please encourage your friends and family to subscribe.

Thanks again for listening, and we'll be back with you all tomorrow. The Daily Signal podcast is brought to you by more than half a million members of the Heritage Foundation. The executive producers are Rob Blewey and Kate Trinko. Producers are Virginia Allen, Doug Blair, and Samantha Rank. Sound design by Lauren Evans, Mark Geinney, and John Pop. To learn more, please visit DailySignal.com.