Steve on Trish Regan Primetime

I joined Trish Regan on Fox News to discuss the canceled meeting between President Trump and Vladimir Putin at the G20.

Steve on After the Bell

Steve joined After the Bell to discuss interaction between world leaders at the G20 summit in Argentina.

Steve on the Ingraham Angle

Steve joined Laura Ingraham Angle weighed in on how Trump should address the US-China deal.

Steve on Cavuto Coast to Coast

Steve joined Cavuto Coast to Coast to discuss the first day of the G20 Summit, and what to expect from President Trump’s meeting with President Xi.

Steve on NTD TV's Zooming In with Simone Gao

Steve Yates joined New Tang Dynasty TV’s Zooming In with Simone Gao to discuss United State’s relations with China under the Trump administration. You can watch the full interview here.

Pence in Asia: A Strategically Significant Week for the US, Taiwan, and China

This article first appeared in Taiwan’s Do Post.

Readers in Taiwan are understandably consumed with constant coverage of the important May 24 elections. It would be a mistake, however, to miss the significant, even historic, developments that unfolded over the course of US Vice President Mike Pence’s visit to Asia.

According to the Vice President’s spokesperson, Pence’s objectives for this visit were to “reaffirm the President’s commitment to the final, fully verified denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula... [and] deliver the message that authoritarianism, aggression, and the disregard for other nations’ sovereignty by any nation in the Indo-Pacific will not be tolerated by the United States.” And he certainly did as promised.

Vice President Pence has proven to be authoritative and effective in articulating a restoration of realism in the US approach to China. His speech at the Hudson Institute together with his remarks at the APEC Summit offer a comprehensive assessment of the challenges posed by China and strategic case for cooperation with America.

With clarity and firmness, Pence summed up the value proposition to Asia-Pacific leaders as follows:

“Know that the United States offers a better option. We don’t drown our partners in a sea of debt. We don’t coerce or compromise your independence. The United States deals openly, fairly. We do not offer a constricting belt or a one-way road. When you partner with us, we partner with you, and we all prosper.”

How did China respond? With “tantrum diplomacy” as Washington Post columnist Josh Rogin put it in his compelling assessment of the APEC summit.  They bullied the host nation. Allegedly, they interfered with journalists’ ability to cover the Pence speech. And they forced the summit to conclude without a communique for the first time, by refusing to join all others in agreeing to “fight protectionism including all unfair trade practices.”

In short, China showed its true colors under the leadership of Xi Jinping and the Chinese Communist Party. Rogin put it well, “This is what the Chinese government is today: pushy, insecure, out of control and with no desire to pretend anymore they will play by the rules the international community has been operating under for decades.”

As the Trump and Xi approaches to Asia collided at APEC, others may have been concerned about collateral damage. As the old African proverb goes, “When elephants fight, it’s the grass that suffers.” However, in this case, Chinese “tantrum diplomacy” actually encouraged more substantive bilateral meetings between Vice President Pence and other APEC delegation leaders, including Morris Chang of Taiwan.

Given that Taiwan is a full member of APEC, with rights equal to other members, it was not surprising the Vice President would take such a meeting. Morris Chang’s professional background made him uniquely suited to address intellectual property rights (IPR) protection as well as the broader challenges posed by Communist China as outlined in Pence’s remarks.

According to the Vice President, the conversation was about economics and trade. This Administration has proven they are committed to doing what is in the best interest of the United States - including the potential for a bilateral trade agreement with Taiwan.

While meetings between delegation leaders at APEC should be routine, given the “Orwellian nonsense” that is China’s effort to pretend Taiwan is subordinate to its sovereignty, it was an important step forward for a sitting Vice President of the United States to meet with Taiwan’s head of delegation at APEC.

As Taiwan voters go to the polls this Saturday, they do so in the context of a changing Indo-Pacific region. Thanks to China’s “tantrum diplomacy” it stands apart from all other APEC members. Thanks to Vice President Pence, the people of Taiwan have been treated with dignity and their substantive proposal for a bilateral trade agreement will be presented to President Trump for consideration. All in all a very good week for the interests of the Taiwanese people as they contemplate continuity vs. change in this weekend’s elections.

On Fox Business' The Evening Edit

Steve joined The Evening Edit to discuss Chancellor Angela Merkel’s ‘pan-European Army.’ Catch the clip below!

The Democrat Blue Wave vs The Trump Red Wall

This article first appeared in Taiwan’s Do Post.

With the results now in for yesterday’s election in the United States, an abundance of experts and commentators will wax poetic on what it all means. Republicans claim victory based on Senate gains, and Democrats claim victory based off the House. Simply put, based on historical expectations for this kind of midterm election, the outcome was very good for President Trump.

Americans elect presidents based on the majority vote within each state, and this election, President Trump consolidated and even expanded his Electoral College advantage heading into his 2020 re-election. Senate victories in important electoral states like Florida, Ohio and Missouri provide an important approximation of where voters stand. Adding Senate seats in key states is a victory of historic proportions for the first midterm of a new US Presidency. 

Democrats will claim as victory gaining the majority in the House and in several state leadership positions, and while they did gain ground, it was to be expected based on historical models. What is important is their gains did not amount to the “blue wave” rebuke of President Trump many experts and politicians predicted.

While the results of this election can tell you a great deal about the American electorate and the direction of our country, when it comes to United States relations with Taiwan, there will remain more continuity than change. The Senate continues to be held by Republicans, and action on American foreign policy -- such as treaties and personnel -- remains strongly within the Senate’s purview. The change in House leadership is likely to be felt much more in areas beyond foreign affairs, and may even lead to more bipartisanship on the challenges posed by China and the opportunities presented by Taiwan.

In 2016, then-candidate Trump ran, and won, on a few simple promises: fair trade for the United States, pushing back against China, investing in infrastructure, and building a border wall. With the midterm past, and as President Trump turns his attention to his re-election campaign, he is likely to double down on these same promises, returning to the issues that helped Republicans win in 2016. Aside from the politics of the border wall, the President may find more agreement than pushback from Democrats in the new Congress.

This means President Trump is likely to continue to promote bilateral over multilateral initiatives, especially with regard to treaties, trade and arms sales. He will continue to implement policies that strengthen the United States economy, meanwhile putting the pedal to the metal on the trade war with China. 

Even more than after the 2016 election, American voters, elected officials and our allies have a broader understanding of the threat that China poses. Republicans and Democrats alike see the threat of intellectual property theft, corporate espionage, forced technology transfer and currency manipulation. 

With Democrats in control of the House, there is an opportunity for them to re-discover their roots as human rights and labor advocates. With China’s increased economic aggression and very troubling human rights violations, Taiwan is a bipartisan partner to turn toward. Likely Democrat Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has spoken publicly about China’s human rights violations regarding Tibet, recently saying, according to Reuters, “They (the Chinese) have to recognize that there’s a value to them in letting Tibet be Tibet in an autonomous way.” These same sentiments can, and do, ring true regarding Taiwan.

Also worth noting, is the changeover in the Senate Foreign Relations committee. With the retirement of current Chairman Bob Corker, Idaho Senator Jim Risch is in line to take over as Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. Taiwan is Idaho’s third largest trade partner (behind Canada and Mexico, and before China) and Idaho-based Micron Technology is the single largest foreign direct investor in Taiwan. While any Senator faces a great deal of pressure from lobbyists and organizations in D.C., the group they are most accountable to is their voters - and many of Idaho voters care a great deal about their trade relationship with Taiwan. 

While the rest of the world is looking at the election as a referendum on President Trump, for Taiwan, it represents a great opportunity to increase bilateral relations with the United States. America’s relationship with Taiwan is not dependent on which party is in power. The China threat is real, and Taiwan’s status as a free and democratic society rings true with key leaders and a majority of voters in both political parties.

Taiwan, Micron, and China’s Economic Theft

This article first appeared in Taiwan’s Do Post.

This last week, United States Department of Justice and Taiwanese Ministry of Justice cooperated to indict United Microelectronics Corp., China state-owned Fujian Jinhua Integrated Circuit Co. Ltd and three former Micron Technologies employees.

This is just the most recent example of China’s drive to dominate global economics and technology. Above all, it shows the sad truth of the lengths China will go to steal intellectual property. China’s “Made in China 2025” initiative should be of concern not only to the United States and Taiwan, but to every country around the world that values their intellectual property.

If China’s goal was to simply bolster their economy through technological development, that would be one thing. Instead, as Vice President Pence recently pointed out in a speech to the Hudson Institute, “to win the commanding heights of the 21st Century economy, Beijing has directed its bureaucrats and businesses to obtain American intellectual property – the foundation of our economic leadership – by any means necessary.”

The most recent charges are just one example of China’s ‘by any means necessary’ policy, but more than that, it is a positive example of what can be done between the United States and Taiwan to effectively lead the international response to deter the Chinese Communist Party’s ongoing economic theft.

The immediate and proactive cooperation by the Government of Taiwan in bringing these individuals and those they represent to justice was an incredibly important sign. More than any other country, Taiwan knows the nature and scope of the CCP’s efforts to infiltrate democratic countries with the aim of stealing talent and intellectual property and influencing their politics. This example of cooperation is a strong demonstration of the potential for Taiwan and its international partners to cooperate and share best practices in meeting this challenge.

This was a win for the United States and Taiwan, but make no mistake, the challenge posed by the CCP is as extensive and broad as laid out by Vice President Pence. What makes the threat unique is the extent to which they are challenging all free societies and economic competitors through international institutions, within China, and even within our own countries. As the international community increasingly becomes aware of the nature and scope of this challenge, Taiwan will have a unique opportunity to enhance its international position, escaping the CCP’s squeeze on Taiwan’s international space.

These recent events demonstrate the positive value of cooperation between the United States and Taiwan, but also underscore the risks to Taiwan and its citizens if they are perceived to have too close an association with China. Because of the kind of activity involved in this Micron case, much of the international community is seeing China in an increasingly negative light. To the extent that Taiwan is mistaken as being a part of China (a false impression reinforced by international media, government officials, supposed experts and the name “Republic of China”), Taiwan runs the risk of being perceived as a part of the problem rather than a part of the solution.

It is more important than ever to make clear to the world that Taiwan is Taiwan and not part of China. It is a nation of free and law abiding people, who are willing partners in promoting the prosperity of all who partner with its people. And it will relentlessly protect the intellectual property of all who invest in its companies.

Both the United States and Taiwan need to be vigilant about the threat that China poses. Vice President Pence later said in his speech at the Hudson Institute “We will continue to take action until Beijing ends the theft of American intellectual property, and stops the predatory practice of forced technology transfer.” It is not just American intellectual property that China seeks to steal, and fighting back against their predatory practices is a cause that the United States, Taiwan, and countries around the world can unite behind.

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.