This is a great move. I welcome it. I would not blame China at all for the same moves. Something as critical as telecom infrastructure should not come from your biggest military adversary.
Why is the default position that they are a military adversary? I mean, in what ways are they even an adversary, outside of the fact they are World #2?
Or maybe more specifically TSMC.
China regularly threatens military action against Taiwan.
I guess the optics here depends on the sources you’re following. If you only read one side you can get to rather silly conclusions.
Could you provide an example of this please?
> China has made it very clear they don’t have any intention to invade.
I'm quite confused about this. Are you claiming that China has not made threats to invade Taiwan? I find that claim very confusing considering both their rhetoric as well as their military exercises. China even passed an "Anti-Secession Law" which explicitly states that China will attack Taiwan if Taiwan doesn't "peacefully" allow its annexation.
I find your position quite hard to square with reality.
> I guess the optics here depends on the sources you’re following. If you only read one side you can get to rather silly conclusions.
I'm quite curious what "side" you're reading that's leading to to ignore the PRC's own official policy and actions demonstrating their aggression and belligerence towards Taiwan.
Literally anything about the conflict. Look at their posturing, or military exercises. It’s a matter or rhetorics - it’s usually described as helping Taiwan, because, well, that’s media for you.
>Are you claiming that China has not made threats to invade Taiwan?
Not only that - it repeatedly declared they won’t invade, and have it written down in their constitution. Also, https://www.ft.com/content/01eb9112-6363-451f-89d2-b90566d9f....
>I'm quite curious what "side" you're reading that's leading to to ignore the PRC's own official policy
Again - you’re not describing PRC’s own policy, you’re describing US state propaganda materials about that policy.
Could you provide an actual example of this? If the USA regularly threatens military action against Taiwan as you said, providing such a specific example would be quite easy for you.
> Again - you’re not describing PRC’s own policy, you’re describing US state propaganda materials about that policy.
So you’re making the claim that the anti-secession law in which China threatens Taiwan is not official Chinese policy?
Your turn now - can you quote the law which threatens Taiwan?
How were those carriers threatening Taiwan exactly? I understand how those carriers might have threatened China, but not Taiwan. Can you find any statement by Taiwan decrying the carriers' presence? Can you find any statement from Taiwan asking the carriers to leave? I can find many statements from Taiwan decrying Chinese actions near them, but none taking issue with the US. Please find me an example of the USA threatening military action against _Taiwan_.
> Your turn now - can you quote the law which threatens Taiwan?
I already have mentioned the Anti-Secession Law multiple times, but sure I'll save you from typing "anti secession law" into Google yourself. Here's Article 8:
> Article 8 In the event that the "Taiwan independence" secessionist forces should act under any name or by any means to cause the fact of Taiwan's secession from China, or that major incidents entailing Taiwan's secession from China should occur, or that possibilities for a peaceful reunification should be completely exhausted, the state shall employ non-peaceful means and other necessary measures to protect China's sovereignty and territorial integrity.
> The State Council and the Central Military Commission shall decide on and execute the non-peaceful means and other necessary measures as provided for in the preceding paragraph and shall promptly report to the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress.
https://www.refworld.org/docid/474403752.html
If you are curious as to Taiwan's position on the law, here is what they have to say:
https://www.mac.gov.tw/en/News_Content.aspx?n=8A319E37A32E01...
China's law quite clearly threatens military action against Taiwan. I can't understand why you would claim otherwise. I've never even met a Taiwanese or Chinese person who has made that claim. Everyone knows the official policy of the PRC is to attack Taiwan if Taiwan doesn't allow its annexation. Your claiming otherwise makes you an interestingly unique person on the internet.
If it triggered the war, do you think it would be waged mostly on territory of continental China, or Taiwan?
To put it differently - nobody is claiming USA wants to _invade_ Taiwan. They "merely" wish there was a war _in_ Taiwan. Contrast it with Taiwanese, who generally prefer the "leave it as it is" option.
>I already have mentioned the Anti-Secession Law multiple times
Ah, indeed. Except you failed to mention it's from 2005, which in this context was ages ago. And then you quoted the part which clearly states that an invasion is pretty much out of the question - China could only do it to "protect China's sovereignty and territorial integrity", which is a higher bar than most superpowers have (cf Hague Invasion Act).
> To put it differently - nobody is claiming USA wants to _invade_ Taiwan. They "merely" wish there was a war _in_ Taiwan. Contrast it with Taiwanese, who generally prefer the "leave it as it is" option.
The US sailing ships there won't "trigger" a war, _China_ will trigger a war. They are threatening a war of choice. This is 100% a choice made by China. China could simply not attack Taiwan and publicly state they never will. China could just engage with Taiwan as a separate country. But China chooses to threaten Taiwan instead.
The US is supporting Taiwan militarily to help them defend against such a Chinese invasion. They are doing so at the request of Taiwan. To say that the US is somehow "threatening" Taiwan by trying to help them to avoid a war by China is total lunacy. Frankly it makes no sense at all.
> Ah, indeed. Except you failed to mention it's from 2005, which in this context was ages ago. And then you quoted the part which clearly states that an invasion is pretty much out of the question - China could only do it to "protect China's sovereignty and territorial integrity", which is a higher bar than most superpowers have (cf Hague Invasion Act).
China has never repealed this law. China engaged in military exercises surrounding Taiwan in the just the few months. This law is still official Chinese policy and all of their acts imply they still consider it in force. I've _never_ heard anyone Chinese are Taiwanese say that this law no longer applies. Neither those who are for war or against it or for unification or against it. Frankly I think you're either being willfully obtuse or just arguing in bad faith.
US never repealed the Hague Invasion Act. Would you say they are threatening Europe? Or do you know someone who says this law no longer applies?
>avoid a war
What war? Neither Taiwan nor China want any kind of military conflict, and they have coexisted peacefully for many decades, including during the KMT regime. There is only one party that would (greatly) benefit from a war there.
>Frankly I think you're either being wilfully obtuse or just arguing in bad faith.
It's called cognitive dissonance. I've just shown you you're using completely different criteria for China and other countries.
Or maybe they should have had a programme to subsidize the cost of Cisco kit to make sure they couldn't get a foothold in the data centre in the first place.
I recall they did some big dog-and-pony show where they got GCHQ to do some audits, but it always seemed like the result was pre-cooked. There was a specific, obviously politically-infused outcome planned from day 1, and no amount of audits, disclosures, or compliance guarantees would ever make them politically acceptable for the US.
Sort of makes me think of the Iraqi WMD inspections, or the Iranian nuclear deal.