Opinion: Trump withdrawal from Russia nuclear treaty is a smart move

By: Steve Yates

Published: Fox News

Over and over again since President Trump’s inauguration, we’ve seen the same story play out when it comes to U.S. participation in ineffective international treaties. Despite warnings from top experts and former officials that changing an agreement would be impossible and dangerous, the Trump administration dissolves or reworks a treaty, to the benefit of all involved.

For the most recent example, you need only look as far as United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement – the new version of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

Now we’re seeing the same story play out regarding the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty between the U.S. and Russia. Russia has been violating the treaty for decades. Even President Obama acknowledged this.

In addition, China is not a party to the INF Treaty. This Cold War-era agreement – signed in 1987 by President Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev – has not been re-evaluated in decades. It is well past time we take a second look at it. This is what the Trump administration has done.

President Trump announced Oct. 20 that the U.S. intends to withdraw from the INF Treaty.

“Russia has violated the agreement,” the president told reporters. Soon thereafter he dispatched National Security Adviser John Bolton to Moscow to discuss the way ahead with Russian President Vladimir Putin and Putin’s top advisers.

Predictably, experts around the world warned of impending doom.

“This is the most severe crisis in nuclear arms control since the 1980s,” said Malcolm Chalmers, the deputy director general of the Royal United Services Institute, a British think tank.

At a press briefing in Moscow, Bolton presented evidence dating back to early in the Obama administration that supports President Trump’s move to withdraw from the INF agreement. Bolton also outlined a wide range of geostrategic challenges that warranted his trip to Russia.

Bolton is perhaps the most qualified national security adviser in history to tackle nuclear and counterproliferation challenges, with decades of counter-proliferation and arms control experience at high levels of the U.S. government, including the U.S. withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty. That treaty was signed by President Richard Nixon and Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev in 1972. President George W. Bush announced the U.S. withdrawal in December 2001.

Then, as now, there were dire warnings of grave consequences should the president withdraw from an arms control treaty with Russia – none of which came to fruition.

While the INF Treaty is between the U.S. Russia, a major reasons for the U.S. withdrawal is that the pact does not apply to China and other nations.

China has the most rapidly expanding nuclear arsenal on the planet, but is not limited by the arms control agreement. Russia ignores it the INF Treaty and the rest of the world is left in the middle. It is a situation benefitting no one. As he has many times before with other agreements, President Trump has recognized the INF Treaty is a bad deal for the United States.

Following rumors that the United States would be withdrawing from the treaty, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov essentially said his nation will flood the world with nuclear chaos if the United States even temporarily walks away from the INF pact. This statement is not only irresponsible – it has no basis in fact. President Trump is calling Russia’s bluff.

Lavrov’s statement implies that words on a paper – words Russia systematically ignores and violates – are the only thing keeping his country in check. If Russia ignored this treaty in the first place, what makes us think its actions will be any different when the treaty is not in place? Lavrov is threatening a nuclear arms race – one he knows Russia has no way of winning.

On many levels, leaders around the world are overvaluing the INF Treaty. As we’ve seen in the past, the Trump administration is making a bet that withdrawing from a treaty will lead to a realignment in relations, possibly laying the groundwork for an even more constructive agreement. This is a bet that has paid off for American national interests.

Withdrawing from the INF Treaty is consistent with an emerging pattern of Team Trump – establishing reciprocity, realism and results as the basis for major power and alliance relations. So far, the results have far exceeded expert expectations. I am encouraged by President Trump’s action and by Bolton’s work on this important issue.

Steve on Fox Business

Steve joined After the Bell to discuss U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin’s meeting with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and how Turkey will reveal the findings from its investigation into the death of Saudi columnist Jamal Khashoggi. He also discussed National Security Advisor John Bolton’s trip to Russia.

Taiwan's Opportunity for 'State to States' Relations

This article first appeared in Taiwan’s Do Post.

One of the biggest lessons for me from the 2016 presidential election in the United States was how so many political leaders and experts were so wrong. Many Democrats and Republicans alike felt like they lost the election, when in fact they had lost their connection to the country beyond the capital.

Much of my career was  based in Washington, DC, involved in government and public policy. It wasn’t until after I left the White House I began spending a great deal of my time in politics among voters, and that experience has opened my eyes to the importance of work done in the states.

While the government of Taiwan faces diplomatic obstacles at the international and national level, there are no obstacles to your investing in substantially better relations with state, provincial, or local elected and business leaders in most countries around the world.

The strategy I recommend to you is “special state to states relations”. It was former President Lee who made the phrase “special state to state relations” famous as a description of the relationship between Taiwan and China. The strategy I promote is to play on the word “state” which to an American has two meanings: a country or one of the 50 states. Put simply, I recommend Taiwanese leaders in government and business focus more on the special relationships existing between Taiwan and priority states within the US and provinces or other local relationships within other countries.

Not all localities are equal, some may have too much dependence on China, others may already have strong ties to Taiwan. My recommendation is to concentrate on the state and local areas where you know Taiwan has existing natural advantages.

Idaho is an example I use most, because that’s where I live, but also because the people of Idaho already have a significant relationship with Taiwan. They just don’t know enough about it. Taiwan is Idaho’s third largest trade partner and Idaho (by way of Micron Technology) is Taiwan’s largest international investor.

There are other US states that have special relationships with Taiwan and no doubt with collaboration among your worldwide membership, you can identify priority states, provinces, and localities in other countries that are most worthy of being a priority target for added investment in relationships with Taiwan.

While investment in D.C. is important and should be continued, there is one group that elected officials will listen to above all: their constituents. One of the greatest lessons from my time in politics is that voters care a great deal about the United States position on the international stage; however, their daily focus is spent on the things directly impacting their lives. With a bit of strategic investment in business and education in targeted areas, Taiwan can have a great influence on voters, indirectly influencing American elected officials.

Taiwan's Unique UN Opportunity

This article first appeared in Taiwan’s Do Post.

Actions taken at the United Nations this last week symbolized the continuation of a dramatic shift in world politics, and presented unique challenges and opportunities for Taiwan going forward.

When bureaucrats in the room laughed at President Trump’s assertion of US sovereignty, they failed to recognize a trend seen most clearly in the 2016 US election and England’s Brexit: a turn away from globalism and a return to state sovereignty and national patriotism. This trend puts Taiwan in a challenging position as it seeks international recognition through the UN.

Taiwan representatives and supporters made a meaningful effort to earn positive attention for Taiwan by highlighting the injustice of excluding the free people of Taiwan at the behest of an authoritarian bully. But it is not a fair fight. The economic and military strength of the island of Taiwan will always pale when compared to China.

Even still, by any just and reasonable measure Taiwan is qualified for membership in the UN General Assembly and already is a more responsible stakeholder in the international community than most of the body’s membership combined. But in this instance, there is only one qualification standard that matters: international recognition as a sovereign nation.

While reasonable people may debate the value and effectiveness of United Nations membership absent significant reform, if it is the majority will of the Taiwan people to seek membership, there are two things worthy of consideration.

First, President Trump’s challenge to choose “independence and cooperation over global governance, control and domination” is a clear paraphrase of the direction Taiwan should look in order to engage with countries of consequence on the world stage. A formal spot in the UN is not necessary to engage in free trade with any of the nations currently in the UN, nor is it necessary for business investment, national and homeland security cooperation, or student exchange programs.

Second, before any meaningful progress can be expected on Taiwan’s potential UN membership, Taiwan must secure significant progress in diplomatic relations (even formal recognition) with major nations. Everyone knows the biggest obstacle to Taiwan’s entering the UN is Beijing, whose money buys allies and votes at the UN and whose veto effectively blocks even meaningful participation, not to mention membership. The only way this changes is with a shift in diplomatic recognition of Taiwan by countries of consequence. While some may say this is impossible or unrealistic, I would argue it is more possible and realistic under current circumstances than at any time since betrayal of the people of Taiwan spread widely over the 1970s.

In an effort to gain international recognition, Taiwan should seek to meet countries where they are. In a time where nations, but even more importantly the voters in countries of consequence, are trending away from globalism toward a renewed sense of independence and wariness of China. Taiwan has an opportunity to play on that. While a focus on entrance into the UN is, and should be, a strategic goal, progress can be made in bilateral agreements and more formal recognition by influential nation states to move Taiwan in that direction.

Trump Counters China's Diplomatic Assault on Taiwan

This article first appeared in Taiwan’s Do Post.

A September 6 Washington Post column by Josh Rogin advanced a very misleading narrative with regard to US reaction to China’s attack on Taiwan’s international space. The headline read, “Trump is failing to counter China’s diplomatic assault on Taiwan.” This provocative assertion was widely covered in Taiwan and also unfortunately echoed by the Wall Street Journal editorial board on September 11.

There are several problems with this narrative, but before addressing them it is important to note that both publications base these provocative judgements on assertions made by anonymous sources -- a major political controversy in the US after the anonymous criticisms of President Trump in Bob Woodward’s book and anonymous New York Times op-ed. So the judgements conveyed in these publications very likely are based on conversations with US officials who have no verifiable knowledge of or direct interaction with the President, or even his top advisors.

Setting aside the sourcing problems, let us consider the key elements of this narrative at face value. In brief, the assertion is Trump has failed to counter China’s diplomatic assault on Taiwan due to his belief that he can charm Xi Jinping into concessions on trade or North Korea. Evidence provided is the lack of US Cabinet-level visits to Taiwan and approval of “only” $1.4 billion in arms sales. Beyond that, the evidence is based on rumored reaction to a low-level State Department visit to Taiwan, personnel problems within the State Department, and assumptions about what President Trump thinks of his relationship with his Chinese counterpart. This is a pretty weak basis for the bold assertion, “the United States seems either unwilling or unable to confront Beijing.”

However, the reality is President Trump and his administration are in fact confronting Beijing. No previous US president has challenged China on trade the way this one has. No previous president has publicly and directly blamed China’s leader for hindering progress with North Korea the way this one has. No previous president-elect accepted a congratulatory phone call from Taiwan’s president, and publicly referred to her as the “President of Taiwan.” No previous president called out China’s bullying of airlines and hotels as “Orwellian nonsense.” These are significant changes in tone, direction, and substance that run counter to the Rogin narrative. All unprecedented. But it doesn’t stop there.

The recall of US ambassadors to Panama, Dominican Republic, and El Salvador is strategically significant. It is coincident with US Senate consideration of the 2018 TAIPEI Act, which recommends withholding security and economic assistance from countries who cut ties with Taiwan in favor of China. The Trump Administration is taking concrete action consistent with this Act before the Senate even votes the measure out of committee. Most importantly, the language used in this Act publicly declares support for preservation of Taiwan’s diplomatic allies as a national interest of the United States itself.

So, while more needs to be done on arms sales and Cabinet-level visits, President Trump and his administration clearly have not shied away from confronting China and have in fact done more to push back on China’s diplomatic assault on Taiwan than any of his predecessors, and we are only less than two years into his tenure.

For those who want to advocate more being done to counter Chinese provocations, I say welcome. It is very encouraging to see bipartisan advocacy of this kind of policy in the US Senate, and even more encouraging to see an administration act upon it without waiting for the long Capitol Hill process to run its course.

It would be a mistake for friends and leaders in Taiwan to overreact to misleading media narratives out of the US. We have too much low-level, anonymous rumor in circulation. Even more than usual.

Instead, we should acknowledge the good that has been done so far and work together to do even more.

Never Forget September 11, 2001

This article was first published in Taiwan’s Do Post.

Seventeen years ago this morning, I rose early to prepare for what was to be a memorable day at work. My boss at the time, Vice President Dick Cheney was to receive Australian Prime Minister John Howard for a meeting on Capitol Hill, followed by Prime Minister Howard addressing a joint session of the US Congress.

I was still relatively new in my tenure at the White House and had not attended a joint session of Congress, much less staffed the Vice President for such a meeting. It was an exciting and anxious morning for me.

I recall taking in the crisp, cool air and clear blue skies as I crossed back and forth between the Eisenhower Executive Office Building and the West Wing.

On one of these trips, a military officer stopped me to tell me to watch what was happening in New York City. A plane had hit one of the the World Trade Center towers. As we questioned how that could happen and what a horrible rescue challenge it presented, another plane struck the second tower. Our lives would never be the same.

Evacuation alarms went off. Thousands of us walked out of the White House complex and made our way home, with minimal cellular signal for calls and many warnings about potential attacks. Like most Americans and friends around the world, I spent the balance of that day taking in the horrific sights and sounds reported live on television.

The lessons of 9/11 are many. For me they break into three categories: evil, heroism, and governance.

There are many “never forget” admonitions about the evil of which mankind is capable and should never repeat. In the West we tend to focus on the Holocaust and slavery. In the East, the primary focus tends to be on World War II, but should not overlook the victims of Communism that followed. But the evil that turned the world upside down on 9/11 was Islamism -- the marriage of mosque and state, imposed and enforced by barbaric violence. I certainly have not forgotten how that evil made me feel that terrible day, and it is a perspective that I believe is important to share with friends who did not experience it in the same way.

On the positive side, 9/11 presented many examples of heroism in the face of mass confusion and tragedy. Those truly worthy of the title hero are the ones go towards danger, at the risk of their own lives, in order to keep the rest of us safe. There were many among our “first responders” (fire, police, and emergency medical professionals) who rose to the occasion, as did our military and many other national security professionals. Among the civilians who became heroes that day were the passengers on United Flight 93, who sacrificed their lives thwarting the hijackers, saving many more lives as well as the target they hoped to hit: our nation’s capital. It is inspiring and reassuring to remember these examples of all that is good in our free society. We should honor these heroes everyday, but especially on this solemn anniversary.

Finally, on governance, 9/11 provoked changes in policy and restructuring of government institutions as we struggled to identify and resolve government processes that left us vulnerable to this scale of shock and disruption. All government decisions should be measured against results over time, especially those made in the wake of a crisis. While I honor the patriotism and good intentions of my colleagues responsible for our post-9/11 policies, I also support regular review and improvement of those decisions as our capabilities and understanding improve over time.

While Taiwan, thankfully, has not experienced an attack similar to 9/11, reflection upon these lessons is very relevant to Taiwan’s future. There is evil in the world that seeks to do you harm. That, we must never forget. You also have heroes among you who need to be trained, supported, and respected, as they are who will protect your free society in a time of emergency. Last, but not least, Taiwan leaders should question how their policies and government structure would fare in the face of the unconventional attacks evildoers have in mind to undermine our culture and our nations.

In thinking on these things together, I hope we might take a moment of tragedy in the United States, and turn it into a common motivation among free people to be ever vigilant against evil, but also ever grateful for the heroes among us.

China's True Splittists: the CCP

This article was first published in Taiwan’s Do Post.

Most Americans do not understand the word “splittist.” That does not stop Beijing or any of its international friends from trying to apply the strange label to those of us who think for ourselves rather than take the Communist Party’s version of reality at face value.

We do understand the term “secessionist.” That however refers to those who advocate withdrawal from a union. As the people of Taiwan have never been a part of any union with the People’s Republic of China, we have a hard time seeing this concept as applicable to Taiwan’s relationship with Beijing. So we are still left not quite understanding what Beijing is trying to sell. There is good reason for this, of course. It is nonsense.

As a young analyst at the Heritage Foundation in the 1990s, I was privileged to participate directly in some of the informal interactions between the government of Taiwan and China’s top Taiwan negotiator, the late Wang Daohan. I was treated to many scholarly definitions of China that aspired to include both sides of the Strait in a common future and warned about the risks to America’s interests if “splittist” forces in Taiwan were not defeated.

As an American, I never felt it would be appropriate to deprive any people the right to determine their own future, provided they were willing to accept the risks our founders pledged to the cause: their lives, their fortunes, their sacred honor. Beyond that, I was confused by some of the arguments Beijing’s advocates deployed to try to persuade me. The absolute biggest lie was the claim that Taiwan independence advocates sought to “split” China.

Perhaps due to my relative youth, I chose to take their interest in reasoned discussion at face value. I asked a few inconvenient questions that I saw as consistent with the logic of the arguments they presented to me.

In 1949, Mao Zedong and the Communist Party announced the establishment of “New China” (Xinhua), correct? Answer: yes. And that New China was a break with the feudalism and imperialism of China’s past, correct? Answer: yes. And it was separate from and in opposition to the “republican” vision for China represented by Chiang Kai-shek, correct? Answer: yes. So it was the CCP that organized a revolution against the Republic of China, consolidated power on the Mainland, rejected China’s cultural and political past, and left Taiwan under the defeated Kuomintang’s control? Answer: silence. So was it not the CCP that “split” China? Answer: there is no point in engaging in dialogue with someone so ignorant of history.

In truth, there is no possibility of real conversation, negotiation, or debate with Beijing on this topic. The Communist Party is not interested in common interests and negotiated peace. It seeks to impose its wishful rhetoric, ignoring all reality beyond its ability to coerce. Still, that is no reason for free people to indulge the Communist Party in its malicious fantasy by translating CCP rhetoric into our own national policies.

Instead, self-respecting leaders in Taiwan, the United States, and around the world should base their policy towards China on real history, our own interests, and use our own terms (not Beijing’s). Inescapably that will lead to policies that recognize China as China and Taiwan as Taiwan. How inconvenient, although in fairness it does not preclude a future union or preserve perpetual separation. But if our governments are to use silly terms like “splittists,” then apply that term to the last major party to split China: the CCP!

Don’t fly low, change the status quo

This article was first published in Taiwan’s Do Post.

Seth Godin has an unconventional interpretation of the ancient Greek myth of Icarus, shared in a YouTube video I recently viewed.

Traditionally, the myth is a  cautionary tale against hubris. Icarus’ father Daedalus constructed a pair of wings out of feathers and wax as a means to escape Crete. What most of us instantly recall of this story is Icarus ignoring his father’s warning against flying too high, resulting in the wax melting and Icarus falling to his demise.

Godin reminds us of the other warning given by Daedalus not to fly too low, allowing sea mist to defeat the wings. This nearly forgotten half of the myth is an equally important warning against complacency.

Godin posits, this warning against flying too low was removed from the popular myth because people in power want us to fly lower, making it is easier to ignore us and keep us in line. He also notes that too many of us have adjusted our behavior, driven by fear, to avoid what is necessary to fly high enough to create new opportunities and reach our potential.

His brief lesson ends with a powerful challenge. Risk, even peril, inevitably awaits us in life. Accept that fact and ask yourself, “What will you do in the meantime? People who have the hubris to dream of something bigger change the status quo.”

Anyone familiar with how the leaders of the so-called international community treat Taiwan will see several important similarities in Godin’s brief lesson. Establishment experts frequently warn Taiwan’s leaders not to try to fly too high. Instead, those in power prefer Taiwan to fly low, stay in line, and become easier to ignore. And, sadly, many in Taiwan have adjusted their behavior, driven by fear, keeping Taiwan from reaching its potential.

For far too long, the people of Taiwan have lived with the fear of flying too high, without taking into consideration the risks and costs of flying too low. The harsh truth is the status quo allows Taiwan’s international isolation to harden into concrete.

Just as it is true for us as individuals, that some degree of risk and peril will inevitably come in life, so too it is true for Taiwan as a nation.

I hope the people of Taiwan are prepared to take Godin’s challenge, accept that reality, dream of something bigger, and change the status quo.

Opinion: Trump's 'no more apologizing for America' foreign policy helps Republicans in November

By: Steve Yates

One of the all-time best lines in television and politics was delivered by the late Fred Thompson on “Law and Order.” To his assistant district attorney he advised, “Jack, it’s not enough to do good. You have to be seen doing good.”

So too with presidents and national security. It’s not enough to keep America secure. Voters must feel more secure.

One of the key themes of the 2016 GOP convention in Cleveland was, “Make America Safe Again.” Turns out that a huge number of voters did not feel safe under Obama policies, despite his tenure being widely celebrated around the world. Demand for change was fed by talk of open borders, unenforced red lines, flexibility with Russia, ISIS, Benghazi, plus lost opportunities in manufacturing and energy.

Trump famously broke all predictive models in building a new electoral college coalition in 2016. He may be defying history and the “best and brightest” predictive models for the mid-term elections in 2018, with strategic moves on trade and foreign policy playing a major role.

Trump is winning on trade and diplomacy and that will help energize his base in midterms. People are proud after a long era of Democrats apologizing for America. ISIS is gone from the headlines. Finally, we have a president who puts muscle behind rebalancing alliance and trade relationships in our favor. Most “experts” mistake his approach as a revival of nationalism or isolationism, but in reality, Trump represents a new pro-American internationalism, without apology. And mainstream Americans support it.

Turns out it also is popular to keep promises made during a campaign. The U.S. embassy is now in Israel’s capital. The U.S. exited bad deals – the Paris Climate Accord and Iran deal. No more disappearing red lines and no more nation-building. And no more multilateral trade deals that weaken American sovereignty or our economy.  Unconventional tweets and summits resonate with flyover America. Economic revival at home projects strength and opportunity abroad.

Absent a shock between now and election day, most Americans feel safer and more confident in America’s role in the world. Trump themes of sovereignty, security, fair trade, and international realism resonate strongly with mainstream America and are hard for Democrats to oppose.

Not only has the president and Congress made America safer, most Americans feel safer and better off. Republicans running on this record, together with the strong economic revival at home, stand a very good chance of defying history this election cycle. We’re not tired of winning.

As Xi weakens, time for US and Taiwan to adjust

This article was first published in Taiwan’s Do Post.

My how quickly the establishment narrative can change. For most of the last 18 months, we have been on the receiving end of breathless declarations of US decline, China filling the international leadership vacuum, and Mao revivalist Xi Jinping consolidating power for life.

Now, just a few short weeks into a supposed US-China trade war, the US economy is growing at a stunning 4%, the US stock market remains near record highs, consumer confidence remains high, and talk in Washington is building towards a second round of tax reform to further stimulate the growing economy.

Early warnings of dire economic and political consequences in the US have faded, as China’s retaliation has yet to affect mainstream economic or political life in America.

The story in China is remarkably different. Capitals in Asia are buzzing with reports of economics strains in China and, suddenly, serious questions about the durability of Xi Jinping’s hold on power.

Odds are reports of Xi’s rapid decline may prove as impermanent as reports of his “leader for life” status. What is increasingly clear, however, is that if you were forced today to wager which leader’s tenure and policies would outlive the other’s, the smart bet would be on Donald Trump.

In the early stages of this contest, at least, the US appears to have the stronger hand and may for once be in a position to secure initial concessions from China. Make no mistake, however, this trade contest is likely to continue for years, not months, with many ups and downs. President Trump’s basic policies on trade and China reflect a deep personal passion on his part, and they are fundamental to his electoral college strategy for re-election in 2020.

Given these changes to dominant assumptions, it is critical that leaders in the US and Taiwan adjust course in two major policy areas: economics and defense.

As economic and political risk in China increases, it is imperative that investment, manufacturing, and trade patterns adjust. Neither Taiwan nor US manufacturers can afford continued over-reliance on platforms in China. Taiwan should seek to “onshore” more manufacturing to the US, even if gradually, and US leaders should prioritize facilitation of such moves. Most importantly, Taiwan leaders should propose a bold, high-standards bilateral trade agreement with the US. It would be strategically beneficial to both economies and both nation’s leverage with China.

Just as important, if reports of Xi’s declining political power are true, there is increased risk that he could use attacks on Taiwan (political, economic, or otherwise) to fan nationalism and distract away from other domestic discontent. It is vital that the US and like-minded allies stand in solidarity with the Taiwanese people, strengthen their ability to defend themselves, and blunt Beijing’s efforts to isolate and coerce their leaders.

Now is the time for true leaders to speak up, be bold, and adjust to the risks of a faltering China.