Read on Twitter
on why I think much of the commentary on Taiwanese funding of think tanks & lobbyists is not as clarifying as it could be - & fear-mongers w/o evidentiary backing. The overall effect of such pieces is to make Taiwanese contributions seem especially influential & underhanded 1/ https://twitter.com/AnnelleSheline/status/1273262260476170240
The think tanks criticized in the @RStatecraft piece call for "closer US-Taiwan ties" in the form of arms sales (which are a regular occurrence) & trade agreements. What is the evidence that these measures will appreciably "increase the likelihood of [hot] US-China conflict"? 2/
Let's ask op-ed writers to disclose potential conflicts of interest. But when #Taiwan is already the US's 11th largest trading partner, how is a @BrookingsInst researcher advocating an updated "agreement that [covers] trade in goods & services" pushing us closer towards war? 3/
What are the "militaristic policies" that these think tanks suggest that will supposedly "raise tensions in X-strait relations" enough to lead the US to "cold/actual war w/China" (which I agree would be disastrous for ordinary people in all 3 places)? 4/ https://twitter.com/JessLee_DC/status/1273242669247016961?s=20
The @RStatecraft piece implies that a @HudsonInstitute report "encourag[es]" TW to "threaten non-military targets in China, a potential violation of internat'l law." Note the context that it *doesn't* quote (L v. R). The "militaristic policies" amount to defense & deterrence 5/
![The @RStatecraft piece implies that a @HudsonInstitute report "encourag[es]" TW to "threaten non-military targets in China, a potential violation of internat'l law." Note the context that it *doesn't* quote (L v. R). The "militaristic policies" amount to defense & deterrence 5/](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EauZr8bXgAIf8__.jpg "The @RStatecraft piece implies that a @HudsonInstitute report \"encourag[es]\" TW to \"threaten non-military targets in China, a potential violation of internat'l law.\" Note the context that it *doesn't* quote (L v. R). The \"militaristic policies\" amount to defense & deterrence 5/")
![The @RStatecraft piece implies that a @HudsonInstitute report "encourag[es]" TW to "threaten non-military targets in China, a potential violation of internat'l law." Note the context that it *doesn't* quote (L v. R). The "militaristic policies" amount to defense & deterrence 5/](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EauZukLWAAAtmGu.png "The @RStatecraft piece implies that a @HudsonInstitute report \"encourag[es]\" TW to \"threaten non-military targets in China, a potential violation of internat'l law.\" Note the context that it *doesn't* quote (L v. R). The \"militaristic policies\" amount to defense & deterrence 5/")
Reading @RStatecraft today I thought back to a 2016 "gotcha" article in @Slate that revealed Bob Dole's law firm had received $ from the Taiwanese gov't & lobbied for the phone call btw Trump & Tsai Ing-wen "which is going to cause World Wars 3-5". 6/ https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2016/12/taiwan-lobbyists-include-dole-gephardt-and-daschle.html
So much writing & reporting on the US-China-Taiwan bind seems to be based on the assumption that *any* upgrade in our ties or exchanges with #Taiwan will lead to world war. This comes close to saying we should leave Taiwan to its fate without even trying out possible solutions 7/
Updated to link to this worthwhile thread. It's not clear to me that TECO funding is what's keeping the Overton window on #Taiwan narrow but the comments offer a glimpse of how these $ contributions provide TW with a platform it wouldn't otherwise have 8/ https://twitter.com/resplinodell/status/1273293153722925056?s=20
