The Taiwan Lobby?

Les Gelb offers the usual valid criticisms of Mearsheimer and Walt, some of the usual invalid criticisms, and then adds on this novel one:

Most unbiased students of the matter would probably agree that the lobby is the single most influential force on American policy toward Israel. But among lobbies in Washington, it is one among many strong players. It is almost certainly less powerful than the pro-Taiwan China lobby, which successfully blocked American contacts with China, or even talk of it, throughout most of the cold war.

A reader remarks that this must explain why the US has so stubbornly refused to let the PRC have its UN seat, even while we almost never cast our veto on Israel's behalf.

Comments

Misplaced blockquote aside, I agree. That stuck out as a really weird criticism. In fact, rereading it a second time, it seems even more bizarre than it did the first time. Are we really going to define a lobby's success by how well it accomplished its objectives prior to the Nixon administration?

Posted by jhupp | September 22, 2007 12:08 PM

Here's the salient question: if someone were to criticize the power of the Taiwanese lobby, would that person be accused of anti-Taiwanese racism or bigotry, and thus be effectively removed from the discourse?

Um, I'm thinking no.

Posted by Freddie | September 22, 2007 12:11 PM

"It is almost certainly less powerful than the pro-Taiwan China lobby,"

Almost certainly wrong, though the Taiwan and Cuba lobbies are both powerhouses.

-----

Since the NYT recently removed some of its archives from the paywall, check out this 1983 piece about the Democratic Presidential contenders pandering on Israel.

The more things change...

Posted by Petey | September 22, 2007 12:12 PM

The sheer unreality of the East Coast establishment-types in publicly discussing the Israel Lobby is something astonishing to behold...

Don't they have any intellectual self-respect whatsoever? Or does someone have pictures of them with three young boys or one very annoyed goat?...

Posted by RKU | September 22, 2007 12:15 PM

Yeah, Freddie, that's kind of the reason why Mearsheimer and Walt's book is almost immune to criticism: the very nature of much of the negative response to their book seems to justify its basic premise.

And yes, Matt, that just looks like bad copyediting or something. No surprise, though; the babble about how "presidents often criticize Israel" and "administrations quietly supporting a Palestinian state" misses the basic M&W point that the main locus of lobbying is the Congress, and it's there that it's most effective. Presidents, especially two termers in their second term, are pretty much immune to this sort of thing, and are far less vulnerable to applied lobby pressure in the first place.

Besides, I honestly doubt an American president would even be able to get away with not providing lip service to the idea of a Palestinian state, when even most Israelis (if not Lobbyists) are supporters of the idea.

Posted by Demosthenes | September 22, 2007 12:20 PM

I guess that's the difference between a realist and a neocon. The former looks at all the ways in which it is unwise to tie US security interests to small, distant, strategically unimportant countries. And yet Gelb thinks he's a realist.

Posted by Jim M | September 22, 2007 12:23 PM

Mr. Yglesias is obviously too young to remember just how powerful the China lobby was in the fifties and sixties. It totally owned and controlled several important Republican senators, such as former GOP Senate minority leader William Knowland of California (who was known as the senator from Taiwan), mainly through the American contacts of Chiang Kai Checks' wife. It was only with the Kissinger visit to China that the power of the lobby was broken.

Posted by SLC | September 22, 2007 12:25 PM

I'm really not sure how this actually helps the case of AIPAC types. Is it wise to make more enemies in a vain attempt to shut up the ones you already have?

Here's a hint guys: pointing out the generic corruption on our lobbying system doesn't actually help you.

SLC: if the best you can do is reference things that happened before most of us were born, you fail. You are not, nor will you ever be, a Winnar.

Posted by Soullite | September 22, 2007 12:49 PM

Wow, it only takes Gelb three paragraphs to translate "the Israel lobby" into " the Jewish lobby." Classy.

Posted by M. Duss | September 22, 2007 12:50 PM

Re Soullite

1. I must say that Mr. Soullites' comment is one of the dumbest to ever appear on this blog. It has nothing to do with anything.

2. Actually, the most powerful lobby currently is the National Rifle Associate. When those guys go after a p olitician, he/she is in big trouble. Various Jewish organizations haven't even been able to do anything about Congressman James Moran of Virginia, perhaps the biggest antisemite in the entire US Congress (see attached link).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/14/AR2007091401542.html

Re Yglesias

On the subject of Walt/Mearsheimer, the attached link is another slant on their tome.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/20/AR2007092001959.html

And just in case Mr. Don Williams weighs in about the ethnic background of authors King and Gerson, neither of them is of the Jewish persuasion.

Posted by SLC | September 22, 2007 1:34 PM

Considering that 1) the Taiwan lobby exercised power partly through prominent Americans' friendships with the Jiang/Chiang family (such as Dean Luce), who were so incompetent they lost control of China, killed non-communist dissidents like Third Force, mistreated their own troops and spent more time worrying about fighting Mao than the Japanese, 2) the Taiwan Lobby perpetuated a lie that Taiwan was the real China (until Li Denghui, both China and Taiwan were dictatorships) 3) breaking the Taiwan Lobby by having Nixon and Kissinger visit China was good for American foreign policy, this isn't something that works in AIPAC's favor.

Posted by Reality Man | September 22, 2007 2:36 PM

There never existed such a thing as "the pro-Taiwan China lobby". The China Lobby of Chiang Kai-shek was
anti-Taiwanese, in the sense that it represented an occupying power that started out by massacring Taiwanese and followed up with the "White Terror" for the next thirty years, where Taiwanese were kidnapped, imprisoned or killed for questioning KMT rule, children were beaten for uttering a word of Taiwanese in school etc. etc.

Posted by MikeN | September 22, 2007 2:41 PM

SLC wrote: "Actually, the most powerful lobby currently is the National Rifle Associate. When those guys go after a p olitician, he/she is in big trouble."

That might be relevant when we start sending billions of dollars to Wayne LaPierre every year, or engaging in wars that are not in our interest on the NRA's behalf.

Meanwhile, we do both those things for our alleged ally Israel, who don't do jack shit for us. It's not a two-way exchange of value, it's the US propping up an anachronistic remnant of colonialism.

Posted by Jon H | September 22, 2007 3:32 PM

Re Jon H

1. As has been pointed out numerous times, the Iraq adventure was opposed by the Government of Israel. Mr. Jon H is obviously a clone of Richard Steven Hack.

2. The State of Israel is the only place in the Middle East where the USAF can be assured of being able to land a plane 6 months from now.

3. As Alan Greenspan states in his book of memoirs, the Iraq war is about oil.

4. As for the State of Israel being an anachronism, Mr. Jon H is an anachronism.

Posted by SLC | September 22, 2007 4:10 PM

Actually, the most powerful lobby currently is the National Rifle Associate.

Actually, it's the AARP.

But posting on shabbat? For shame.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | September 22, 2007 4:15 PM

"The sheer unreality of the East Coast establishment-types in publicly discussing the Israel Lobby is something astonishing to behold...

Don't they have any intellectual self-respect whatsoever?"

No.

If they did, they wouldn't be "East Coast establishment-types".

Matt's desperately trying to learn to be like them.

As for SLC, he's still pushing the TOTAL LIE that the Iraq war was opposed by Israel. It wasn't. Israel simply wanted the US to attack IRAN first.

SLC is simply a liar - demonstrating that intellectual dishonest isn't limited to "East Coast establishment types" - it's a defining characteristic of a Zionist.

Not to mention that when Greenspan talks about oil, he conveniently omits the fact that Israel is up in Kurdistan right now, lobbying for an oil pipeline from Kirkuk to Haifa. Yes, Israel likes oil, too.

In fact, the ultimate goal of any Zionist is to dominate the Middle East like Hitler wanted to dominate Europe and seize all the oil. How they are going to do that when the US wants it for itself, I don't know - probably by continuing to suck up to the US so Israel gets appointed as the US's "guardian" of all the oil. That way both countries get a guaranteed oil source.

Of course, sooner or later, the US Christians will remember they really don't like Jews because Israel's success is holding up Armageddon, and Israel will get cut out of the picture.

But Zionists don't think that far ahead. They'll suck up to anybody to get ahead - witness the arms sales to Iran back in the day and the consultations with North Korea recently about selling "Wall" technology - not to mention arms sales to China today. In fact, not to mention the various Israelis who have been involved in the nuclear technology black market.

Nothing like a Zionist for pure, unmitigated corruption. Which is why Israel has a huge Russian-Israeli Mafia which is involved in illegal drugs, weapons smuggling, money laundering, nuclear technology black market, etc. all over the world. When Putin chased out the Russian oligarchs who were strip-mining Russia, where did they go? Israel (and a few ended up in England and elsewhere.)

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 22, 2007 4:47 PM

"this must explain why the US has so stubbornly refused to let the PRC have its UN seat"

Where's the US embassy in Israel again?

Posted by rilkefan | September 22, 2007 5:03 PM

Gelb sounds like he suffered an Alzheimer's moment where you suddenly think it's still 1969. The Chiang Kai-shek/Taiwan lobby was incredibly powerful from, say, 1937-1970, in part because so many members of the WASP ruling class had links to Protestant missionaries in China (Henry Luce, founder of Time-Life, was born in China). But Nixon and Kissinger betrayed it in the early 1970s by going to Beijing and Jimmy Carter continued the process. This is just about the most famous diplomatic history of the 1970s, so Gelb must be really out of it these days.

Posted by Steve Sailer | September 22, 2007 6:22 PM

The Taiwan example is clearly stupid, but in general I think if liberals (anyone really) are interested in a rational foreign policy then they should advance the idea that ethnic lobbies in general screw up foreign policy.

Israel is obviously exhibit A. Cuba is fairly obvious as well. America spent a lot of time looking the other way when IRA bombs went off. I've also read that Greek american's lobbied against America getting invovled when Turkey and Greece started fighting over Cyprus(which actually resulted in negative outcomes for Greece). A less clearly bad example would be the expansion of NATO pissing Russia off. I believe German and Italian americans were less likely to support the U.S. getting involved in WWII. The Taiwan example works if you talk about how bad their success would have been.

This would help insolate critics of Israel from being called bigots and generally advance rational dialogue.

Posted by Christopher Colaninno | September 22, 2007 6:44 PM

Fair point, but the Israel Lobby isn't just an ethnic lobby. Say what you like about the batshittiest of batshit Florida Cubans, but they've generally got some kind of cultural investment in the actual island of Cuba. Even the nth-generation Boston Oirish generally have family back in the old country.

There's no other foreign lobby in the US that includes grassroots support from people who have no ethnic, cultural or economic connection other than that it's featured in their favourite story book.

If the lobbying effort for Israel came primarily from Israelis in the US, Israeli-Americans or Americans of recent Israeli ancestry, it would be a foreign lobby. There are two idiosyncracies: the Law of Return and the appeal to rapturist Christians.

The Law of Return isn't the dull dual-loyalty argument: it's simply different from other foreign countries with lobbies that punch above their weight -- the Irish, the Armenians, whose ancestors came to the US from those countries.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | September 22, 2007 11:59 PM

Another little example of how Israel is running US foreign policy.

The latest news on Iran is that a special Air Force project has been set up to fine-tune the Iran attack plan.

Guess who runs it? From the article:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article2512097.ece

"It is led by Brigadier-General Lawrence “Stutz” Stutzriem, who is considered one of the brightest air force generals. He is assisted by Dr Lani Kass, a former Israeli military officer and expert on cyberwarfare."

A former Israeli military officer is planning the US attack on Iran.

Doesn't get much clearer than that, now does it?

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 23, 2007 2:46 AM

One factor to consider when looking at why the USA recognized the ROC over the PRC is that until 1971, the ROC in fact was recognized by the UN as the legitimate representative of China. Obviously this had something to do with US pressure and ROC lobbying of other nations, but it also was related to the overall Cold War. It wasn't simply that US politicians were pro-Taiwanese, they were anti-communist.

In 1949 the ROC lost control of the mainland to a bunch of communists . . . this was our ally from WWII, not some random country. Less than 1 year later, North Korea invaded South Korea. Within months the PRC had entered the war and drove back US forces from their border. We fought the PRC until 1953. Its not like ROC lobbyists really had a hard sell.

Movement in the UN started in the 1960s to replace the ROC with the PRC. By 1971 this was successful. Prior to his election Richard Nixon wrote in Foreign Affairs "We simply cannot afford to leave China outside the family of nations." Note that during this time frame, the PRC was in the grip of the Cultural Revolution and did not have the most coherent or effective foreign policy. Nixon got the ball rolling and by 1979, the US had totally switched its recognition from the ROC to the PRC.

To recap: PRC appears 1949, 1950 we fight a war with PRC, 1953 we sign an armistice with PRC, by 1967 a Presidential Candidate calls for US engagement with PRC and is elected, by 1972 visits China, by 1979 US fully normalizes relations with the PRC. Given that the Cold War lasted from 1947-1989, I really don't see how anyone could seriously claim that the Taiwan lobby successfully blocked even the talk of contacts with the PRC for most of the Cold War.

As far as the Taiwan lobby today goes, I also do not think that their politicians have a hard sell. Whether we admit it or not, the US does want to contain China and supporting a de facto independent Taiwan supports this policy. Taiwan is not perfect and I'm sure the native Taiwanese have a lot of issues with KMT's past rule, but a quick check of Amnesty International reveal the biggest concerns there to be sexual harassment, political corruption, restrictive parade permits, and the continued existence of the death penalty. Taiwan is a functioning, independent democracy. China's main beef with Taiwan is that it not declare itself officially independent. Things are pretty much peaceful as far as the USA is concerned. There really isn't much of a downside to US support of Taiwan.

Posted by William | September 23, 2007 7:08 AM

Gelb was a long-time New York Times national security reporter before entering government. Aside from a few sly asides, including how the approach of Walt & Mearsheimer invite charges of anti-semetism even if they are not anti-semetic, Gelb does attempt to engage their argument (not very successfully as Matt and others have noted above). One should also know that Gelb was another "liberal hawk" on Iraq.

What bothered me even more are the incendiary headline on the review at least in the print edition of the Times:

"Dual Loyalties: Two scholars contend that the Jewish Lobby jeopardizes the national security of the United States"

Whoever picked that headline knew what they were doing and how it would cause many readers to pre-judge the book.

I'm very interested in how The New York Review of Books handles this. Tony Judt regularly writes for them and I wonder if he will provide a review. If he does, I bet there will also be another review from an opposing perspective in the same issue (certainly lots of letters).

Posted by Ben Brackley | September 23, 2007 1:19 PM