Never Give an Inch, page 32
Hong Kong remains yet another area of unfinished business. The failure to do more to protect freedom for the people of Hong Kong remains among my most bitter memories.
OUR TAIWAN POLICY BREAKS THE STATUS QUO
Another policy area I wanted to shake up was Taiwan, a redoubt of independence on the doorstep of an imperialist bully, and the home of freedom fighters who fled from the Communist mainland in 1949. Its status as a literal island of democracy has made it a dear friend of the United States. Xi longs to crush Taiwan because it disproves the lie that the Chinese people can flourish only under a Marxist-Leninist dictatorship and “socialism with Chinese characteristics.” Taiwan’s economy and its democracy—aided by a rambunctious group of faith leaders—are models to the world. Xi cannot sustain his power narrative so long as Taiwan exists apart from the People’s Republic of China.
Taiwan had been a major focus of President Nixon, and it dominated one of his debates with John F. Kennedy during the presidential race of 1960. The two candidates debated, quite articulately, the status of two small Taiwanese islands, Quemoy and Matsu. But our Taiwan policy went awry not long after the 1972 reopening with China, when Secretary of State Henry Kissinger made the fateful decision to adopt the “One China Policy.” It said that the United States would honor the People’s Republic of China’s claim as the only nation that could be known as “China.” This left Taiwan in an agonizing limbo. It increased the threat of the CCP’s subjugation of the Taiwanese people.
President Trump began our relationship with the Taiwanese by taking a phone call from Taiwanese president Tsai Ing-wen during the transition and then tweeting about it. This was so far out of bounds from foreign policy orthodoxy that not only was the CCP upset but so was every career East Asia diplomat and lefty think tank in town. Ian Bremmer, considered a dean of the foreign policy talking heads, tweeted, “It’s almost as if Trump was looking to kick off China relations as badly as possible.” The president didn’t care what people like Bremmer thought, and tweeted later, “Interesting how the U.S. sells Taiwan billions of dollars of military equipment but I should not accept a congratulatory call.” That engagement set a foundation upon which our diplomacy to confront China over Taiwan could be built.
Soon after I came to the State Department, I realized that the diplomatic establishment’s reflexive response to that episode was pretty characteristic of its response to most of our China policies. America’s engagement with China had previously been predicated on not angering the CCP. The slightest deviation from what the CCP wanted was bound to produce a reaction that resembled that of a toddler who didn’t get his juice and nap that afternoon. Taiwan especially gave them the vapors. There was not a single meeting or phone call with CCP officials that didn’t begin with a near-tirade regarding Taiwan as an “internal matter for the Chinese people.” Threatening, blustering, and massively overreacting to the slightest support for Taiwan became both annoying and telling about the level of CCP paranoia.
This infuriated me, because the United States should set policy based on the merits, not based on how it will make some stodgy tyrants feel. I directed my team to reevaluate our Taiwan policy and think creatively about how to engage the people and government of Taiwan within the existing policy frameworks. Among other things, given the importance of Taiwan’s semiconductor sector and the rest of its tech industry, I endeavored to develop our economic relationship. I dispatched Keith Krach to Taiwan in September 2020 to attend the memorial service of the father of Taiwan’s democracy, Lee Teng-hui. With that trip, Keith became the highest-ranking State Department official ever to visit Taiwan while in office. The Chinese flew an armada of warplanes into the Taiwan Strait to welcome him. But we weren’t afraid. Keith went back again in November.
One of the silliest things we had at State was the so-called Taiwan Contact Guidelines, which regulate everything from which doors Taiwanese officials could use to enter federal buildings, to which Taiwanese officials we should shake hands with at events, to which rank of officials could or could not visit Taiwan, and more. I asked the bureaucrats why we still needed these guidelines. They said we had to maintain a smooth relationship with China. I said we already had a law—the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act—stating that all our relationships with Taiwan are unofficial. Why do we need an official contact guideline regulating our unofficial behaviors?
The lawyers could not come up with a good answer, so I decided to scrub the Taiwan Contact Guidelines altogether, to the chagrin of many career staffers. I made the cancellation announcement on January 9, 2021, just days before the change of administrations. I even approved an official statement that said, “The U.S.-Taiwan relationship need not, and should not, be shackled by self-imposed restrictions of our permanent bureaucracy.” It made a lot of our diplomats uncomfortable—or even mad—but I wanted to send a message about the danger of letting bureaucratic inertia sustain meaningless policies. It was also time to right a historic wrong. Minutes after my announcement, Taiwan’s top representative to the United States, Bi-khim Hsiao, tweeted: “Decades of discrimination, removed. A huge day in our bilateral relationship. I will cherish every opportunity.” What I didn’t know that day was something Miles Yu told me after I left office. He remembered that when he informed a senior Taiwanese official in Washington of my decision minutes before my announcement went live, the gentleman on the other end of the phone call immediately burst into sobbing cries of joy, relief, and hope. Much like our recognition of the basic rights of Israeli Jews living in Judea and Samaria, ending the second-class-citizen status of Taiwanese diplomats was deeply personal, wonderfully emotional, and wholly beneficial to America.
Other China-focused actions likewise continued to push the envelope. State and DOD carefully planned and coordinated overflight and naval missions in the region to demonstrate we would protect international boundaries. Over the course of just the last three years of our administration, we provided $15 billion worth of arms to Taiwan, dwarfing the Obama administration’s $14 billion worth in eight years. Much of this included the weapons Taiwan would desperately need in the event of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. The 2020 sale of 66 F-16s was very likely the largest arms sale the United States had made to Taiwan in a generation. In October 2020, we concluded a $1.8 billion arms sale that included 11 mobile artillery rockets and 135 Standoff Land Attack Missile–Expanded Response missiles. We also developed plans to sell MQ-9 Reaper drones and Harpoon missiles—the latter weapon a critical tool for thwarting Chinese ships.
The Trump administration gave the Taiwanese people what they needed to protect their freedom. When the CCP assault on Taiwan comes—and it will come—history will reveal that we equipped our friend. These days, I am on record saying that the United States should grant full diplomatic recognition to Taiwan. The free people of that island deserve it.
The CCP’s seizure of Hong Kong and its lust to conquer Taiwan is definitive proof that the party seeks to turn free nations into vassals. This will not happen, in part because of the work we began in the Trump administration. But even more so, it will not happen because, as an old quote ascribed to Winston Churchill goes, “America will always do the right thing after all other possibilities have been exhausted.”
The democratic world tried to treat China with welcoming acceptance. China reciprocated with nothing but aggression, chauvinism, and disrespect. Now that we’ve exhausted the possibilities of a China made peaceful through engagement, we must keep telling hard truths about the CCP and take the right actions to stop it.
Chapter 11
Leaders Always Take Incoming—Deal with It
LIFE IS’NT FAIR.”
That’s according to a block-letter crayon drawing that hung on my office wall at the State Department, complete with the apostrophe in the wrong place. I made the three-color picture when I was seven, which means either that I was wise beyond my years or that my parents had just grounded me.
I often stared at that old drawing inside my State Department working office when the reality of the world as it was smashed into my ideas of how it should be. That drawing also reminded me how to deal with the haters. Although criticism of public officials ranges from the rash and ridiculous to the fair and useful, I’ve learned that there are right and wrong ways to handle all of it. The incoming fire will come, whether fairly deserved or not. Learn to deal with it.
I try to draw on my faith whenever the knives come out. The book of Isaiah teaches: “‘No weapon forged against you will prevail, and you will refute every tongue that accuses you. This is the heritage of the servants of the Lord and this is their vindication from me,’ declares the Lord.” In other words, persevere. Deal with it. Another inspirational verse is 2 Timothy 2:24–25: “And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome; but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Opponents must be gently instructed, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth.” I didn’t always succeed, but I did try to “be kind.”
A good example: Each year since 1978, the Kennedy Center Honors has celebrated American artists who have achieved legendary status. As part of this tradition, the State Department hosts a dinner for the honorees the night before the program. The use of federal properties (i.e., your tax dollars) reduces costs significantly for the Kennedy Center (not that this temple of American arts is on a soup kitchen’s budget, but I digress). The awards usually go to God-gifted artists of incredible talent who have brought value to the lives of people all around the world. My wife and I love and have supported the arts throughout our lives. Susan, who has a background in musical theater, worked on a project called Arts in Schools to give every child in Wichita a chance to be enriched through art.
Most of the attendees at the Honors Night dinner are bigwigs in the entertainment industry—the heart of the progressive beast. It should come as no surprise that many of them hate conservative Republicans. Consequently, people on the right can be forgiven for declining to participate in this high-society, virtue-signaling affair. That decision is especially justifiable due to the special animus that the Left had for the Trump administration. I skipped the dinner my first year as secretary, and President Trump wisely chose not to attend the performance at the Kennedy Center, which is part of the weekend’s festivities. The night we attended the gala in 2019, I reminded Susan of a great line from Charlie Wilson’s War, which is one of our favorite films. When the Speaker of the House asks Congressman Wilson to serve on the Ethics Committee, Wilson tells a young aide, “You know I’m on the other side of that issue.” The aide says that the Speaker will give Congressman Wilson whatever he wants. Wilson replies, “I’d like to be on the Board of the Kennedy Center. It’s a great place to take a date, and I can never afford the tickets.” That scene pretty much sums up Honors Night.
The Kennedy Center’s leadership wanted to stick to tradition and hold the 2019 dinner at the State Department. I was considering just the opposite: preventing the awards from being held on federal property. But there is bipartisan commitment to this project, and I had priorities much higher than picking this fight. Besides, David Rubenstein lobbied me hard. He’s a most decent and learned man and a true philanthropic human being. Deborah Rutter, president of the Kennedy Center, also appealed to me. After some marital debate, Susan and I decided we would do the right thing, walk into the belly of the beast, and host the dinner. In retrospect, it is a fight worth having until such time as the program honors talent without all the rainbow flag preening.
That December evening, with my tuxedo on, we stood for a receiving line to greet everyone who came to the State Department’s magisterial eighth floor. Celebrities came out in droves to honor the talented artists being recognized that night, including the actress Sally Field and the musical group Earth, Wind & Fire. Although I shook the hands of very few Trump voters, our guests were generally pleasant, thanking Susan and me for our service. My only other duty that night was to give brief remarks. My role was simple: thank people for coming and keep the rest of my remarks light and funny. My idea was to borrow a lyric or tagline from every artist being honored. For Earth, Wind & Fire, for example, I quoted the line “Do you remember, the twenty-first night of September.” I’ll admit that I’m not a professional comedian, but it was good enough for my dinner-hosting responsibilities.
For Linda Ronstadt, one of the evening’s honorees, I referenced her song “When Will I Be Loved?” I said that I’ve traveled around the world, and I’m still wondering when I’ll be loved. It brought modest laughter. My audience was being polite.
Ronstadt took my lame joke as her cue to come to the podium and say something to the effect of, “You’ll be loved when you stop enabling Trump.” It got a few cheers, but it mostly generated pained expressions and silence. After the dinner, Rutter and Rubenstein apologized profusely. Susan and I said that they weren’t responsible for Ronstadt’s boorish behavior. As we headed downstairs, Susan preempted my thinking by saying, “Taking the high road can be a real b——.”
By Monday morning, the media, always on the lookout to stoke pointless controversy, was running headlines like “Linda Ronstadt’s Delicious Takedown of Mike Pompeo.” But I wasn’t going to let her or her silly musings knock me off course. If I had let the haters get to me, I never could have served Trump or the America First agenda. Leaders always take incoming. I just had to deal with it.
Linda, I still love your music and appreciate your input!
TAKING INCOMING FIRE COMES WITH ANY LEADERSHIP ROLE
One of the most crucial tests of leadership is how you respond to criticism. There are two kinds of criticism. The first is well-intentioned correction from people who have your back. By surrounding myself with people such as Ulrich Brechbühl, Brian Bulatao, David Hale, Lisa Kenna, and Mary Kissel, I had trusted advisors who helped me see our errors and how to correct course. It’s never easy to admit blunders or failures, whether in government, an organization, a marriage, or any other endeavor. But you are a fool and unfit for leadership if you refuse to let new facts change your thinking. Often, a subordinate’s necessary but unpleasant duty is to tell a boss about a mistake. As we have done for forty years now, Brian, Ulrich, and I would shout at each other in my office over a decision point. I may not have liked what they said, but if they had the gumption to challenge me, I knew I had to consider their views. As the book of Proverbs says, “Plans fail for lack of counsel, but with many advisers they succeed.”
But much of the criticism public figures receive stems from a less noble objective. Sometimes it involves purported friends or allies looking to make themselves more important or more powerful at your expense. More often, the haters simply don’t share your values. They’ll say anything, sometimes in hopes of getting a political scalp. We dealt all the time in the administration with nasty reporters who trampled on facts. The correct response to this kind of harassment is to grow thicker skin, step up your game, and keep winning for America.
If you can’t endure the criticism that comes with any leadership position, then you shouldn’t be leading. That’s especially true in America, where we have freedom of speech and a habit of using it. I expected criticism from fellow citizens who didn’t vote for President Trump. And it didn’t bother me that a free press would try to hold us accountable for our decisions. What did bother me was the extent to which our words and deeds were maligned and twisted. This type of journalism may generate hits on a webpage, but it is completely irresponsible. I almost feel bad for modern journalists. More than ever, the pressure to produce more clicks than the next reporter causes journalists to adopt the tongue-in-cheek adage “Never let the truth get in the way of a good story.”
It was great for me and for America that I had a boss who could not have been less prepared to bend to what the media thought. Was President Trump always hungry for good publicity? Of course. Did he carry out American foreign policy according to what the media wanted? Absolutely not. One of the reasons he and I worked together so well was that we were almost totally insensitive to the demands of disingenuous Democrats and the legacy media. Our America First foreign policy would not have existed had we capitulated to criticism from reporters, foreign policy writers, and even many fellow Republicans. Had we bowed to what the “intellectuals” wanted, for example, America would have terminated its vital relationship with Saudi Arabia in the wake of the Khashoggi murder. America would have remained on a course to become a junior partner to the CCP. Our NATO allies would have kept skating by without paying their fair share. Iran would have been free to kill and maim without repercussion. And even if we had deferred to our critics, we still would not have enjoyed one shred of goodwill in the press from them. Serving the American people meant running the gauntlet of tweets and talking heads. We took a few hits. But we never let the incoming fire knock us down.
THEY TRIED TO DRIVE WEDGES. I NEVER TOOK THE BAIT.
