Steve on the Buck Sexton Show

Steve joined the Buck Sexton Show to discuss escalating protests in Hong Kong.

On Fox Business: I think the Chinese are gaming the 2020 Election

Steve joined Trish Regan Primetime on Fox Business to discuss the rising tensions in Hong Kong, and President Trump’s decision to delay tariffs on China.

On Radio Taiwan International

Steve joined Natalie Tso of Radio Taiwan International on their Taiwan Insider program to discuss the coming Taiwan election. You can catch the full show here!

On Trish Regan Primetime: Trump Imposes New Economic Sanctions on Iran

Steve joined Trish Regan Primetime to discuss what economic sanctions on Iran mean for the region and the United States.

China's justification of crackdown on Tiananmen protestors 'outrageous': Former White House official

This article first appeared in Taiwan News.

TAIPEI (Taiwan News) – Former White House official and current CEO of DC International Advisory Stephen J. Yates told Taiwan News on Monday (June 3) that Chinese Defense Minister Wei Fenghe's (魏鳳和) attempt to justify Tiananmen crackdown is "outrageous."

Wei, while attending the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore on Sunday, called the 1989 protests "political turmoil that the central government needed to quell, which was the correct policy."

On the night of June 3 in 1989, the Chinese government ordered armed troops to open fire on students and citizens demanding democracy and freedom. The estimated death toll, according to human rights groups, was in the thousands.

"What he [Wei] is asking us to do, is to ignore our own eyes in terms of what we witnessed," said Yates. "This is frankly what communist leaders do, it is what dictators do. I think it was deeply, deeply offensive."

Yates said he was in Taiwan when students gathered at the Tiananmen square in 1989. “As the demonstration lingered for a long time, people began to get almost a little optimistic, 'maybe something’s changing,'" Yates recalled his own memory of the event. "In the morning of June 4, we started seeing reports of the absolutely astronomical number of casualties and images that were extremely haunting and horrifying."

Calling the minister's remarks inappropriate and inaccurate, Yates said he wished more people from the diplomatic community would have spoken out immediately against such rhetoric. "What he said is not conducive to calming tensions in the Indo-Pacific region."

Yates also criticized China's military expansionism, calling Wei's remarks "chilling" and "immoral." Yates said, "here we have the most rapidly growing military and most aggressive territorial [claimant] in Asia and its defense leader basically trying to say 'it is no problem to kill thousands of its own people.'"

Join the Formosan Association of Public Affairs (FAPA) as they Celebrate the 40th Anniversary of the TRA

To celebrate the 40th anniversary of the Taiwan Relations Act, and the first anniversary of the Taiwan Travel Act, the Formosan Association of Public Affairs and the Taiwan National Alliance will be holding a fundraiser in Taipei on March 30, 2019. This event will commemorate the work done to build a strong relationship between the United States and Taiwan, and honor those who have made that relationship possible. Details of the event are below:

Time: March 30, 2019 11:00 a.m.

Location: Dazhi Denwell’s Grand Ballroom I (6F, No. 8, Zhifu Road, Zhongshan District, Taipei)

Tickets: NT$50,000, NT$10,000, NT$5,000, NT$2,500 (Students)

I hope you will be able to join FAPA and the Taiwan National Alliance as we celebrate and encourage the continuing strength of Taiwan’s relationship with the United States. If you are unable to attend the event, I would encourage you to support the work that FAPA does through a financial contribution of NT$10,000 or NT$5,000. Their efforts over the last 36 years have helped ensure that Taiwan remains a priority for US elected leaders.

You can purchase tickets HERE, For more information on the event, reach out to Susan Chang (9016-630-579) or Chih-Yun Huang (cy.huang@fapa.org)

Long-term structural realignment between the United States and China unlikely

It’s no secret that negotiators for both the United States and China seek a deal that would end the so-called trade war and boost both economies. The rest of the world, too, seems to be anxiously waiting for a clear signal on the trajectory of these negotiations and the direction of the broader US-China economic relationship in general.

For President Trump, a deal with China has the potential to boost the US economy in the early stages of the 2020 Presidential Campaign - and voters are much more likely to support his reelect if they feel like there is more money in their pockets. For President Xi, a deal could reverse the damage US tariffs have already done to the Chinese economy. Sounds reasonable, even plausible, as far as it goes, but unfortunately short-sighted.

President Trump correctly has stated repeatedly that he is looking for fairness and reciprocity in any agreement, and beyond that, there are structural problems in the relationship that need to be addressed. Years of lax China policies have led to a regime many argue poses the greatest threat to the United States and other nations around the globe. Vice President Pence framed the broader China concerns quite well in his October 2018 Hudson Institute speech. Those concerns came into stark international focus in the wake of the indictment of Huawei’s Chief Financial Officer for financial fraud, sanctions violations and other charges.

China is looking for something much different. On its face, they are looking for low or no tariffs on all Chinese goods imported to the United States. However, Beijing wants the benefits of a trade deal, without addressing the structural problems that are the cause of the current trade conflict.

In some ways we have today a role reversal when it comes to received wisdom about US and Chinese leaders. We have a Chinese leader seeking to buy time, minimize risk, and avoid reform, and an American leader willing to risk short-term uncertainty in order to achieve long-term structural stability.

Given the clash of differing objectives and intentions, my sense is any near term agreement at best will be a short term investment in what is to be a much longer process. In other words, if an agreement emerges at all, it will mark the beginning (not the end) of real negotiations. Whether by coincidence or by design, the US has essentially adopted a Chinese approach to negotiations. We shall see how they like it and whether it works.

Opinion: Trump Plays Dominant Hand in Trade War via Tweet

This column first appeared in the Do Post.

President Trump has an unmatched ability to say a great deal in very short snippets on Twitter. True to form, on January 21, he served a very strong volley to Chinese leader Xi Jinping, tweeting: “China posts slowest economic numbers since 1990 due to U.S. trade tensions and new policies. Makes so much sense for China to finally do a Real Deal and stop playing around.” There is a great deal to unpack in this short tweet, but all worthy of discussion.

“CHINA POSTS SLOWEST ECONOMIC NUMBERS SINCE 1990 DUE TO U.S. TRADE TENSIONS AND NEW POLICIES.”

There have been many times over the last 40 years where China’s economy has been weak, but in all those years this is the first time any US President publicly exposed their weakness. President Trump is doing several strategically significant things here. First, he places the United States in a position of dominance over China. The US economy is on the rise. The Chinese economy is sinking. Step one in establishing a stronger negotiating position.

But Trump goes further. Noting this is the weakest China’s economy has been since 1990 is a significant loss of face to Xi. In 1990, China’s economy was hit by international sanctions as well as needed macroeconomic adjustments to control the rapid inflation that was among the factors fueling the protests in 1989. I’m sure Beijing appreciates the reminder about the Tiananmen protests and massacre. I certainly do. But after noting that Xi’s growth rate is down to a 30 year low, Trump credits his policies with putting that pressure on Xi. Step two in establishing negotiating dominance.

If Trump and Xi were in a wrestling match, this line is Trump essentially saying you are pinned to the mat because of me and whether you get up off the mat is up to me. Bold.

“MAKE SO MUCH SENSE FOR CHINA TO FINALLY DO A REAL DEAL”

Having put Xi in an uncomfortable position, substantively and publicly, Trump then offers an olive branch. ‘Let’s make a deal, and I can ease the pressure.’ No one knows for sure what President Trump has in mind, or defines a real deal. But there are a few things we can assume he seeks. Based on experience so far with other trade negotiations in this administration, any agreement with China must be seen to be favorable to the United States. Trump will want to be seen by voters as having delivered real results. Especially with an upcoming presidential election, Trump will be looking for a deal that benefits industries in many of the states that comprise his base - agriculture, steel, manufacturing, and the like.

But above all what President Trump seems to be saying is China needs to do much better. When meeting with President Xi at the G20 summit in Argentina, President Trump agreed to hold off on raising tariffs from 10% to 25%, with the intention that China and the United States would reach a deal regarding intellectual property theft, forced technology transfer and trade. It’s up to China to make substantive progress, which has yet to happen.

“STOP PLAYING AROUND!”

No world leader has ever talked to China this way. What he is saying is the Chinese negotiators have been treating the process to this point as some sort of conventional game. Trump isn’t going to negotiate in a conventional way. His diagnosis, with which much of our country agrees, is that the conventional negotiating approach is exactly what led the Chinese to believe they could get away with so much for so long at our expense. And President Trump is calling them out for it. In the near term, this tactic may not yield significant results, as it will be hard for the Chinese to swallow. However, should the President keep it up, it will likely prove effective in the long term.

CONCLUSION

Overall, I believe President Trump is pressing for a near-term deal on a framework that commits the Chinese to a larger deal after his re-election. The more economic pressures on Xi mount, the more likely it is that a more serious deal will be forthcoming, and sooner.

Any deal though, even a short-term one, will be a win for President Trump. Should Trump win re-election, he will see that as a mandate to press even further on negotiations with China. For China’s part, it may seek to buy time (literally, with promises of large agricultural purchases), with perhaps the hope that a more “reasonable” US president wins the election in November of next year. In the meantime, President Trump will continue to do what he has been doing: criticize China where they deserve it, and always seek the best possible outcome for American businesses and the American people.

Opinion: The Blight of Social Media Mobs

This piece appeared in both Idaho Politics Weekly and the Post Register.

This last week, we saw an avalanche of instant media condemnation aimed at a group of high school students, only to have the students exonerated by extensive video evidence after the fact. In response to this, my good friend and Fox News commentator Buck Sexton wrote the following in an article published in The Hill:

“There is also a bigger lesson to be drawn from this. Social media mobs are a cancer on this country, and those in the news business have an obligation not to carelessly magnify malignant efforts at personal destruction. This affects all of us. It does not matter who you are, whether you are active online, care about politics, or keep to yourself. The social justice mob may come for you, your spouse or your child, and engage in a ritualistic destruction of their online reputation.”

This is relevant not only to our national discourse but also to the health of political discourse in Idaho. I write this not to fan more reaction to that particular incident, but to strongly encourage consideration of the “bigger lesson” Buck shared, and its relevance to political life in Idaho.

This is personal for me, but not for me alone. Over the course of the 2018 campaign, my family and I were ruthlessly attacked, with our personal lives thrown about as political ammo. Others have experienced the same. They have been lied about, slandered and ruthlessly assaulted on social media. It affects them, their families and their children. All too often it is the family who bears the brunt of the visceral spite that is much easier to spew via a keyboard than in person.

Our cancer in Idaho is less left vs right, but those who claim to control the definition of “true” conservatism vs those who (as Justice Thomas lamented in his confirmation hearing) “deign to think for themselves.”

Those in Idaho who are most actively engaged in organizing and fanning social media mobs, precisely as described in Buck’s quote, are primarily pointing their attacks at other Republicans. They are actively surveilling, suing, doxing (Google it), paying for and propagating fake news and highly personalized attacks. Maybe they disagree with you. Maybe they just don’t like you. In some cases, they’ve never even met you. They need no reason to actively work toward destroying lives.

This is a group of unthinking, malicious hypocrites and their followers. They would agree with Buck’s critique of the left and the media, but then they turn around and do precisely what they pretend to rail against. They are a social justice mob, just from a different end of the culture war spectrum. They do exactly what Buck describes: come for you, your spouse or your child, and engage in ritualistic destruction of your public reputation.

This is not a call for pity or retribution. It is a call for sober reflection and to press all of us who claim to be Christian, conservative, Republicans to practice what we preach. To follow the Golden Rule, “do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” and follow Justice Antonin Scalia’s famous motto: “I attack ideas, I don’t attack people.” That is what it means to be true Christians and true conservatives.

Ask yourself, nationally and locally, do the people you support or follow in politics engage in the destructive behavior described above? Do they align politically with those who do? If so, what are you doing about it?

Do the people you support or follow in politics speak out against this destructive behavior to protect the brand and heal the victims? What are you doing to make sure they do so?

There is a line between bare-knuckled, competitive politics and gratuitous, maniacal malice. Good people have a sense for when that line is crossed, and endeavor to stay away from that line. As leaders in government, politics and communities, we must own the impact of our actions (and inaction) and raise up those we interact with to the same standard.

Before long, the attention given to this recent incident will pass, but the need for real leadership will remain. We need less judgment and more service in our politics and communities. We need leaders to step forward to help protect the innocent against the social media mob. We need more leaders who actively exemplify the ethos made famous by Marcus Aurelius nearly 2000 years ago: “Waste no more time arguing what a good man should be. Be one.”

Why Venezuela's Future Matters to Taiwan

This article first appeared in Taiwan’s Do Post.

While reports of the dramatic recent events in Venezuela have made headlines, many question the relevance of the situation to Taiwan. In my view, there are several major issues at stake in Venezuela that affect Taiwan’s national interests.

After what many believe was a rigged May 2018 election, a majority of Venezuela’s National Assembly contested the legitimacy of President Nicolas Maduro’s January 2019 inauguration and instead recognized National Assembly leader Juan Guaidó as Acting President until new elections can be held. The United States threw its weight behind Guaidó, drawing swift and harsh criticism from Maduro.

Initially, much of the commentary in Taiwan followed that of Trump critics in the US. Too many “experts” have propagated the false notion that the US is disengaging from the world, pulling back support for democracy movements, and leaving a void to be filled by China, Russia, and other illiberal forces. This misguided thinking leads even some friends abroad to question whether the US will honor security commitments and remain a reliable ally.

In reality, the Trump administration has pressed allies and regional partners to bring more of their own resources and capabilities to meet challenges in their near abroad, rather than relying on a disproportionate burden being placed on American families and institutions. Such an approach actually increases overall deterrent capabilities and leaves the US greater flexibility to surge when needed to meet extraordinary challenges. This is not isolationism. It is rational, balanced realism.

The second misconception that seems to have crept into international commentary about Venezuela is that US recognition of Acting President Juan Guaido is somehow at odds with the Trump Administration’s broader foreign policy of non-intervention. Critiques of US interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and Libya certainly were central to Trump’s campaign and guiding principles in the President’s national security strategy. But opposition to injecting US military personnel into situations without well-defined metrics for victory and without reliable domestic partners willing and able to help themselves is not the same as total disinterest or disengagement. Short of open-ended military deployments and nation-building, the Trump Administration has proven willing to help those prepared to help themselves, and to use multiple tools of power to deter or punish those who threaten American interests and alliances.

It is important to recognize that populists and nationalists in the US (both Democrats and Republicans) are not isolationist. They are willing to help those who take risks to help themselves. They are willing to speak up for those who are right and against those who are wrong. They are willing to officially recognize legitimate leaders and denounce those who are illegitimate. These are important precedents that could apply to Taiwan under the right circumstances.

But for now, among the most powerful lessons to take away from the Venezuela experience is the absolute failure of socialism in action. This 16-year experiment with central planning, the fulfillment of the logic of socialism, has totally failed the Venezuelan people. They now suffer under runaway inflation, illegitimate elections, and squandered value of the natural resources with which the country was fortunate enough to be endowed.

The people of Taiwan should be heartened to see the courage and commitment of the people of Venezuela to stand up to their oppressors and the foreign powers who enable them (China, Russia and Iran). The people of Taiwan also should be reassured to see the US, along with other major powers in this hemisphere and around the world, stand by the Venezuelan people and punishing their oppressors.

There is much left to play out in this drama. But it is abundantly clear that the Taiwan people ought to be cheering on the success of Venezuela’s freedom fighters and the reliable allies who stand with them at this critical time. It is what Taiwan must hope for itself should China again initiate a crisis. In the near term though, defeat of the Bolivarian Revolution presents a significant setback for the anti-American axis in Latin America that also bought or bullied Taiwan’s allies away.

With the right outcome in Venezuela, Taiwan may find more partners in this hemisphere who support meaningful engagement, international space, and even diplomatic relations. Those are some powerful reasons for people in Taiwan to invest in the success of the good people of Venezuela struggling to take control of their own destiny in a far away land.