Everyone in the United Nations (UN) seemed very angry last week because the President announced that he’d move the US Embassy to Jerusalem – Israel’s capital.
Since nations pretty much always put embassies in capitals, or at least that’s been the rule for the last 6,000 years, I frankly think this wailing, cursing and gnashing of teeth is all theater.
After all, Presidents Clinton and Bush both promised to move the US Embassy to Jerusalem, and President Obama stated that Jerusalem was the undivided capital of Israel. The major difference between them and President Trump appears to be that Trump is actually going to do what he said he was going to do…
The President also released his National Security Strategy; it seems, particularly in comparison to those of the last few administrations, to be both reasonable — no massive changes in direction, and an effort to address things as they are (what’s sometimes called “realpolitik”), while narrowing the focus to things that are strictly national security issues.
All well and good.
As for the UN, most of the members are very angry, condemning the President’s decision as a threat to the ‘Two-State Solution,” the accepted, go-to answer since the 70s.
But, the President has made it quite clear that he too, supports the Two-State Solution.
The land called Palestine has been inhabited continually for at least 6,000 years. The Jews first moved into the area some time around 1400 BC, and ruled until the 6th century BC. The region has since been ruled by Assyrians, Persians, Greek, Romans, several Arab dynasties, and for a few decades, Europeans. From 1516, when conquered by Sultan Selim I, until taken by the British and Arab coalition in 1916, the region was part of the Ottoman empire, the longest single period of control by any one nation or empire. Since then the region has been ruled by the British (under the British Mandate), the UN, Israel and the Palestinian authority.
So, who has claim to it? Certainly the Jewish people have some claim to Jerusalem and the surrounding region. Yet, it’s become an article of international foreign policy “truth” that there must be a two state solution.
But it leads to an interesting question: When do you acquire “ownership” and when do you lose it?
Consider this…
Taiwan’s been inhabited for about 6,000 years, by a people related to the early inhabitants of the islands of SE Asia and Micronesia, who probably migrated to the area looking for farm land. In the 1200s fisherman from China began to visit the islands, but there was no other interest in the island until the early 1600s when the Dutch attempted to establish trading posts there; the Ming Empire learned of it and drove them off. Spain established a settlement in 1626; it fell to the Dutch in 1642. In 1662, after the fall of the Ming dynasty, a Ming general, escaping the Qing dynasty, drove out the Dutch and established an empire on Taiwan, the first Chinese to control the island; this lasted until 1683, when the Qing dynasty seized control.
The Qing ruled Taiwan until 1895 when the Japanese seized control. The Japanese controlled Taiwan (Formosa) until the end of World War II, when Republic of China troops were ferried to the island by the US Navy.
So… Palestinians have had political control of parts of Palestine for, depending on how you define it, a bit more than 40 years, almost 70 years or at most 95 years. The Chinese had control over Taiwan for 212 years, but haven’t had any control over the island for 122 years. The People’s Republic of China, established in 1949, has never controlled any of Taiwan.
The US has a “One China” policy, but while we maintain an embassy in Beijing, we remain publicly committed to Taiwan’s democracy and de facto independence.
The President says there’s great power competition between the US and China, admitting something the last administration tried to wish away. Maybe one way to make it clear to Beijing that we’re serious would be to simply float the idea of viewing Taiwan in much the same way the world – including China – views Palestine?
If we’re going to have a dose of reality in our national security strategy, but we perhaps also want to be consistent with what the UN says is the right answer in the Middle East, why not consider a Two China policy?
Copyright 2017 Arrias
www.vicsocotra.com