The Trump administration may exert unprecedented strategic pressures on China against the background of continuous implementation of the pivot to the Asia-Pacific. But that is unlikely to boost the US economy for many reasons, and the Republicans’ realist diplomatic philosophy and Trump’s businessman’s pragmatism make it possible for reversals in the next US government’s aggressive China policies.

Strategic surprise and a cultivated image of irrationality is a classical strategy in a game of brinkmanship. One side highlights its willingness to “dance too close” to the cliff’s edge and maximize risk, leading its opposition into eventual retreat. Trumps’ discussion with Tsai Ing-wen must be seen through the prism or feigned irrationality. Trump, a studious businessman, may have considered the strategies of past presidents and found the “Madman” hypothesis compelling for his ultimate goal: to leverage Chinese adamancy over core national interests like the Taiwan issue into an agreement over trade and jobs – his existential political pledge.

State Department says that the U.S. remains firmly committed to the “one China” policy, and that’s based on the three joint communiques and the Taiwan Relations Act and there’s been no change in U.S.'s longstanding policy with regard to Taiwan.

Taiwan long has been one of the globe’s most dangerous tripwires. Would the U.S. really risk Los Angeles for Taipei, as one Chinese general famously asked? Washington officials hope never to have to answer that question, but the recent Taiwanese missile misfire offers a dramatic reminder of the danger of guaranteeing other nations’ security.

U.S. leaders have become complacent about Taiwan. Americans need to ask themselves what level of risk they are willing to take to defend Taiwan. The U.S. is obligated to assist the island under the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979, and as China grows stronger militarily, Taiwan deserves more attention than it is receiving in the U.S.

Tsai Ing-wen should give up unrealistic expectations on the US-Japan “values alliance”, and reconsider Taiwan’s role in the South China Sea issue. It’s not too late for her to look at the history of the Chinese nation and link up that history with Taiwan’s future and corresponding rights to Taiping Island.

China will not allow Taiwan, which has historically been part of China, to break away. This is a permanent red line for China. Some far-sighted people in the US have called for adjusting the US’ Taiwan policy, abolish the Taiwan Relations Act and the “six assurances” to herald a fully normal and healthy bilateral relationship with China, and this should happen sooner rather than later.

The more the U.S. emphasizes “rebalance”, the more we see that the most awkward balance is between White House and Congress, between the Chinese mainland and Taiwan, and between U.S. allies and China. A US House resolution that offers tacit support to Taiwan independence was a strategic error that should be corrected for the sake of all sides.

All indications are that Taiwan’s new leader and the governing apparatus around her are half-hearted about the 1992 Consensus and strengthening cross-Strait relations. Her inaugural speech reflects not American-style candor but Japanese-style victimhood, and does not offer a viable way forward. A period of uncertainty and unpleasant surprises in cross-Strait relations lies ahead.

To maintain the peaceful development of cross-Strait relations that Beijing and Taipei have enjoyed for the past seven years, which have benefitted both sides, the winners of the Taiwan election must abandon any ambition for Taiwan independence and recognize the 1992 Consensus and its one-China principle.