logo
The US Army once ruled Pyongyang and 5 other things you might not know about the Korean War

The US Army once ruled Pyongyang and 5 other things you might not know about the Korean War

CNN —
Seventy-five years ago this week, more than 135,000 North Korean troops invaded South Korea, starting a war that cost millions of lives and left scars that linger to this day.
Yet, the Korean War has been forever overshadowed by World War II, a much larger conflict that ended less than five years earlier. Even the US Army refers to Korea as 'the Forgotten War' – despite more than 36,000 American lives lost.
Sixteen nations, including the United States, sent combat troops in aid of South Korea under the United Nations Command. Chinese troops intervened on the North Korean side.
War broke out on June 25, 1950, when North Korean forces stormed across the 38th parallel dividing North and South Korea. An armistice signed on July 27, 1953, stopped the conflict, but the war never officially ended because there was no peace treaty.
While the twists and turns of today's US-North Korea relationship have put a spotlight on the Korean War's legacy, it is still a widely overlooked conflict.
Here are six things you might not know about the Korean War:
The US Army once controlled one of the world's most secretive cities
It's almost impossible for Americans to travel to North Korea or its capital city Pyongyang. US passport holders are not allowed to go there without special permission from the US State Department.
But for eight weeks in 1950, Pyongyang was under control of the US Army.
Soldiers of the 1st Cavalry Division in Pyongyang in 1950
Everett/Shutterstock
On October 19 of that year, the US Army's 1st Cavalry Division along with a division of South Korean soldiers captured the North Korean capital, according to US Army histories.
The US forces quickly made themselves at home, according to the histories.
By October 22, the US Eighth Army had set up its advance headquarters in what was the headquarters building for North Korean leader Kim Il Sung.
US Marines take cover behind a barricade as street fighting rages in Pyongyang. On the wall in the background are images of Soviet leader Joseph Stalin and North Korean leader Kim Il Sung.A picture from the time shows an American intelligence officer sitting at Kim's desk with a portrait of Soviet Union leader Joseph Stalin hanging on the wall behind him.
But the US military's occupation of Pyongyang was short-lived. When Chinese troops entered the war in late November 1950, they quickly pushed south and vanquished US forces from Pyongyang by December 5.
The US dropped more bombs on North Korea than on the entire region during WWII
Most images of the Korean War are of ground battles fought in places like the Chosin Reservoir and Incheon. But much of the destruction wreaked on North Korea by the US military was done in a relentless bombing campaign.
During the three years of the Korean War, US aircraft dropped 635,000 tons of bombs – both high explosive and incendiary – on North Korea. That's more than the 500,000 tons of bombs the US dropped in the Pacific in the entirety of the Second World War, according to figures cited by historian Charles Armstrong in the Asia-Pacific Journal.
US Air Force B-29 Superfortresses dropping bombs during the Korean War.
Keystone/Journalists, international observers and American prisoners of war who were in North Korea during the war reported nearly every substantial building had been destroyed. By November 1950, North Korea was advising its citizens to dig holes for housing and shelter.
North Korea didn't keep official casualty figures from the bombings, but information obtained from Russian archives by the Wilson Center's Cold War International History Project put the number at more than 280,000.
Gen. Curtis LeMay, the father of US strategic bombing and the architect of fire raids that destroyed swathes of Japanese cities in World War II, said this of the American bombing of North Korea:
'We went over there and fought the war and eventually burned down every town in North Korea anyway, some way or another.'
An American soldier walks around the rubble of Hamhung, Korea, circa 1950.
stringer/afp/getty images
Armstrong said that bombing of North Korea has effects that linger to this day.
'The DPRK (Democratic Republic of Korea) government never forgot the lesson of North Korea's vulnerability to American air attack, and for half a century after the Armistice continued to strengthen antiaircraft defenses, build underground installations, and eventually develop nuclear weapons to ensure that North Korea would not find itself in such a position again,' Armstrong wrote.
North Korea convinced the Soviet Union and Joseph Stalin to let the war happen
When World War II ended, control of the Korean Peninsula – occupied by defeated Japanese troops – was divided between the Soviet Union in the north and the United States in the south.
Kim Il Sung, the leader of North Korea, wanted to unite the two Koreas under communist rule and sought permission of Soviet leader Joseph Stalin to do so by force, according to records from the Wilson Center.
A portrait of Soviet leader Joseph Stalin is prepared for a parade in Pyongyang in July 1947.Upon Kim's first request to invade in March 1949, Stalin was wary and did not want to be pulled into a conflict with the United States, which still had occupation troops in South Korea.
But when those troops were pulled in the summer of 1949, Stalin's opposition softened, and by April 1950 the Soviet leader was ready to hear Kim out again when the North Korean leader visited Moscow.
Stalin told Kim that the USSR would back the invasion, but only if Kim got communist China to approve too.
Emboldened by communist China's victory over Nationalist forces in 1949 – in a civil war in which Washington did not intervene – Chinese leader Mao Zedong agreed and offered to be a backup force for North Korean troops in the eventuality the US intervened.
With that, Kim had the green light to invade.
The Korean War saved Taiwan from a potential communist takeover
In 1949, communist China was amassing forces along its coast to invade Taiwan, the island to which Chiang Kai-shek and his Nationalist forces had fled after losing to Mao and the communists in the Chinese Civil War.
But the outbreak of the Korean War put a big roadblock in the way of communist China's plans – the US Navy. Fearful of the fighting in Korea spreading across East Asia, President Harry Truman dispatched US warships to the waters between China and Taiwan.
The US State Department tells how close Taiwan, now a self-governed democaracy that Beijing still claims as part of China, came to a potential communist takeover.
'In late 1949 and early 1950, American officials were prepared to let PRC (People's Republic of China) forces cross the Strait and defeat Chiang, but after the outbreak of the Korean War in June 1950, the United States sent its Seventh Fleet into the Taiwan Strait to prevent the Korean conflict from spreading south,' reads a passage from the department's Office of the Historian.
'The appearance of the Seventh Fleet angered the Chinese communists, who transferred their troops poised for an invasion of Taiwan to the Korean front,' it reads.
By October 19, 1950, 12 divisions of communist Chinese troops, more than a quarter-million men, were in North Korea, according to a Brookings Institution account.
Those Chinese troops would inflict horrific losses on the US and South Korean troops they faced, eventually driving them out of North Korea completely.
But China also suffered massive losses; more than 180,000 of its troops were killed.
The first jet-vs-jet dogfight
F-80 Shooting Star Korean War-era fighter at National Musuem of the US Air Force
US Air Force
Jet fighters entered military service in World War II with the introduction of the German Messerschmidt 262. But the jet fighters didn't go head-to-head in a 'Top Gun'-style dogfight until the Korean War.
Records seem to agree that first dogfight occurred over Sinuiju in North Korea, near the Yalu River, and its border with China on November 8, 1950. The Americans, flying F-80 Shooting Star jets, were confronted by MiG-15s, Soviet-made jets that were probably being piloted by Soviet pilots from bases in China.
According to a report from the historian of the US Air Force's 51st Fighter Wing, eight to 12 MiGs came after an American flight of four F-80s that day. In a 60-second encounter with one of those MIGs, Air Force 1st Lt. Russell Brown hit a MiG-15 with fire from his jet's cannon and saw it explode in flames, becoming the first jet fighter pilot to score a kill in a dogfight, the report says.
But others dispute that account, with a report from the US Naval Institute (USNI) saying that Soviet records show no MiGs were lost that day.
What is certain is that the next day, November 9, 1950, US Navy Lt. Cmdr. William Amen, flying an F9F fighter off the aircraft carrier USS Philippine Sea, shot down a MiG-15 during airstrikes against bridges on the Yalu River.
Soviet records confirm the MiG-15 loss that day, according to the USNI report.
Four F-80 jet fighters flying at 30,000 feet on their flight from a Japanese base to their mission against the North Korean cCommunist army columns, Korea, July 13, 1950.Later in the war, the US introduced the F-86 jet to the Korean conflict. That plane won fame in battles against the MiG-15 in what was know as 'MiG Alley,' the area along the Korea-China border, where the Soviet pilots flew out of bases on the Chinese side.
The National Museum of the US Air Force in Ohio explains MiG Alley this way:
'Large formations of MiGs would lie in wait on the Manchurian side of the border. When UN aircraft entered MiG Alley, these MiGs would swoop down from high altitude to attack. If the MiGs ran into trouble, they would try to escape back over the border into communist China. (To prevent a wider war, UN pilots were ordered not to attack targets in Manchuria.) Even with this advantage, communist pilots still could not compete against the better-trained Sabre pilots of the US Air Force, who scored a kill ratio of about 8:1 against the MiGs.'
The United States never declared war
Though millions of lives were lost during the fighting on the Korean Peninsula between 1950 and 1953, they were technically casualties of what was called a 'police action.'
Under the US Constitution, only the US Congress can declare war on another nation. But it has not done so since World War II.
When North Korea invaded the South in 1950, US President Harry Truman sent the US military to intervene as part of a combined effort approved by the United Nations Security Council.
'Fifteen other nations also sent troops under the UN command. Truman did not seek a formal declaration of war from Congress; officially, America's presence in Korea amounted to no more than a 'police action,'' reads a passage from the US National Archives.
1952: US soldiers dig in to a hill in Korea during the Korean war
Hulton Archive/And those police actions have become the norm for US military intervention ever since. The Vietnam War, the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Kosovo, all have seen US troops enter combat under congressional authorizations for the use of military force (AUMF), according to the US House of Representatives website.
Though the AUMF had been around since the beginning of the republic, 'after World War II … AUMFs became much broader, often granting Presidents sweeping authority to engage America's military around the world,' the US House website says.
'The war was the first large overseas US conflict without a declaration of war, setting a precedent for the unilateral presidential power exercised today,' Emory University law professor Mary Dudziak wrote in a 2019 opinion column for the Washington Post.
'The Korean War has helped to enable this century's forever wars,' Dudziak wrote.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

China Unveils Robot with Artificial Womb
China Unveils Robot with Artificial Womb

See - Sada Elbalad

time2 hours ago

  • See - Sada Elbalad

China Unveils Robot with Artificial Womb

Israa Farhan China has revealed the world's first robot equipped with an artificial womb, designed to carry out the full process of pregnancy and childbirth. The breakthrough, announced by Chinese company 'Kaiwa Technology', has sparked widespread debate among scientists, ethicists, and the public. The innovation was presented at the 2025 World Robot Conference in Beijing. Company founder Zhang Qifeng explained that the robot can replicate the entire journey from fertilization to delivery, maintaining a fetus for up to ten months in an artificial amniotic fluid environment and supplying it with nutrients through a tube mimicking the umbilical cord. The prototype is expected to reach the market by 2026, with an estimated price of under 100,000 yuan (around 13,900 US dollars). It is aimed at people who wish to avoid the physical strain of pregnancy as well as couples facing infertility challenges. The announcement has divided opinion. Some hailed it as a breakthrough for reproductive medicine, while others voiced serious concerns over its ethical and legal implications. Zhang confirmed that discussions are ongoing with authorities in Guangdong province to establish a suitable legislative and regulatory framework. Artificial womb technology is not entirely new. In 2017, researchers at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia successfully sustained a premature lamb in a so-called 'biobag' until it fully developed. However, experts argue that moving from partial support for fetuses to enabling complete pregnancy remains a major scientific challenge. read more Gold prices rise, 21 Karat at EGP 3685 NATO's Role in Israeli-Palestinian Conflict US Expresses 'Strong Opposition' to New Turkish Military Operation in Syria Shoukry Meets Director-General of FAO Lavrov: confrontation bet. nuclear powers must be avoided News Iran Summons French Ambassador over Foreign Minister Remarks News Aboul Gheit Condemns Israeli Escalation in West Bank News Greek PM: Athens Plays Key Role in Improving Energy Security in Region News One Person Injured in Explosion at Ukrainian Embassy in Madrid Videos & Features Story behind Trending Jessica Radcliffe Death Video News Israeli-Linked Hadassah Clinic in Moscow Treats Wounded Iranian IRGC Fighters Arts & Culture "Jurassic World Rebirth" Gets Streaming Date News China Launches Largest Ever Aircraft Carrier News Ayat Khaddoura's Final Video Captures Bombardment of Beit Lahia Business Egyptian Pound Undervalued by 30%, Says Goldman Sachs Videos & Features Tragedy Overshadows MC Alger Championship Celebration: One Fan Dead, 11 Injured After Stadium Fall Arts & Culture South Korean Actress Kang Seo-ha Dies at 31 after Cancer Battle Lifestyle Get to Know 2025 Eid Al Adha Prayer Times in Egypt News The Jessica Radcliffe Orca Attack? 100% Fake and AI-Generated

The common thread in Trump's latest moves: squeezing big blue cities
The common thread in Trump's latest moves: squeezing big blue cities

Egypt Independent

time3 hours ago

  • Egypt Independent

The common thread in Trump's latest moves: squeezing big blue cities

President Donald Trump is moving systematically to tighten his grip on Democratic-leaning big cities — the geographic center of resistance to his agenda — by undermining their autonomy and eroding their political strength. Those militant goals are the common thread that links the high-profile initiatives Trump has launched in recent days to seize control of law enforcement in Washington, DC; pressure red states to draw new congressional district lines; and potentially pursue an unprecedented 'redo' of the 2020 census. These new efforts compound the pressure Trump is already placing on major cities with an agenda that includes aggressive immigration enforcement; cuts in federal research funding to universities central to the economy of many large metros; and threats to rescind federal funding for jurisdictions that resist his demands to impose conservative policies on immigration, education, homelessness and policing. Trump is pursuing this confrontational approach at a time when major metropolitan areas have become the undisputed engines of the nation's economic growth — and the nexus of research breakthroughs in technologies such as artificial intelligence, which Trump has identified as key to the nation's competitiveness. The 100 largest metropolitan areas now account for about three-fourths of the nation's economic output, according to research by Brookings Metro, a center-left think tank. Yet Trump is treating the largest cities less as an economic asset to be nourished than as a political threat to be subdued. Mark Muro, a senior fellow at Brookings Metro, said Trump's approach to the nation's largest cities is 'colonial' in that he wants to benefit from their prodigious economic output while suppressing their independence and political clout. This administration is 'treating America's great economic engines as weak and problematic colonial outposts,' Muro said. 'They view them as the problem, when (in reality) they are the absolute base of American competitiveness in the battle against China or whoever (else).' Antagonism toward major cities has long been central to Trump's message. Several times he has described American cities with mayors who are Democrats, members of racial minorities, or both, as dystopian 'rodent-infested' 'hellholes.' Trump in 2024 nonetheless ran better in most large cities than in his earlier races, amid widespread disenchantment about then-President Joe Biden's record on inflation, immigration and crime. Still, as Trump himself has noted, large cities, and often their inner suburbs, remain the foundation of Democratic political strength and the cornerstone of opposition to his agenda. A series of dramatic actions just in the past few days shows how systematically Trump is moving to debilitate those cities' ability to oppose him. DC Mayor Muriel Bowser attends a news conference on August 11 about President Donald Trump's plan to place Washington police under federal control and deploy National Guard troops to the nation's capital. Julia Demaree Nikhinson/AP Normalizing 'militarized cities' The most visible way Trump is pressuring big cities is by deploying federal law enforcement and military personnel into them over the objections of local officials. In his first term, Trump sent federal law enforcement personnel into Portland, Oregon, and Washington, DC, in the aftermath of George Floyd's 2020 murder. But after he left office, Trump, who does not often publicly second-guess himself, frequently said that one of his greatest regrets was that he did not dispatch more federal forces into cities. In his 2024 campaign, he explicitly pledged to deploy the National Guard, and potentially active-duty military, into major cities for multiple purposes: combating crime, clearing homeless encampments and supporting his mass deportation program. In office, Trump has steadily fulfilled those promises. When protests erupted in Los Angeles in June over an intense Immigration and Custom Enforcement deportation push, Trump deployed not only the National Guard (which he federalized over the objection of California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom), but also active-duty Marines. Then, the administration used those forces not only to guard federal buildings, but also to accompany ICE (and other agencies) on enforcement missions — including a striking deployment of armored vehicles and soldiers in tactical gear to a public park in a heavily Hispanic neighborhood. The underlying immigration enforcement that precipitated the LA protests constituted a different show of force. As a recent CNN investigation showed, ICE is relying much more on street apprehensions in cities in blue states than in red states, where it is removing more people from jails and prisons. The administration says that imbalance is a result of 'sanctuary' policies in blue states and cities limiting cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. But civil rights groups see the administration's confrontational blue-state approach as an attempt to intimidate both local officials and immigrant communities. (The fact that ICE last week conducted an immigration sweep directly outside a Newsom press conference bolstered the latter interpretation.) Whatever the rationale, research by the University of California at Merced suggests the administration's enforcement approach is hurting blue cities. Using census data, the school's Community and Labor Center recently found that from May to July the number of California workers holding a private-sector job fell by about 750,000 — proportionally an even greater decline than during the 2008 Great Recession. Hispanic people and Asian Americans accounted for almost all the falloff. Sociology professor Ed Flores, the center's faculty director, said he believes the decline is 'absolutely' tied to economic disruption flowing from 'the presence of ICE and the way that (people) are being apprehended' on the street. New York City, too, has seen a notable drop in the labor force participation rate among Hispanic men. Members of the National Guard face off against people protesting an ICE immigration raid at a licensed cannabis farm near Camarillo, California, on July with the military (if not ICE) presence in LA winding down, Trump has sent hundreds of National Guard troops into Washington, DC, while also utilizing a section of federal law that allows him to temporarily seize control of the city's police department. In his news conference last week announcing the DC moves, Trump repeatedly said he would supplement the National Guard forces, as he did in LA, with active-duty troops if he deems it necessary. And he repeatedly signaled that he is considering deploying military forces into other cities that he described as overrun by crime, including Chicago, New York, Baltimore and Oakland, California — all jurisdictions with Black mayors. 'We're not going to lose our cities over this, and this will go further,' Trump declared. Most experts agree that Trump will confront substantial legal hurdles if he tries to replicate the DC deployment in other places. 'What they are doing in DC is not repeatable elsewhere for a number of reasons,' said Joseph Nunn, a counsel in the national security program at the Brennan Center for Justice. Nunn said Trump can order this mission because of the DC National Guard's unique legal status. On the one hand, Nunn noted, the DC Guard is under the president's direct control, rather than the jurisdiction of a state governor. On the other, he said, the Justice Department has ruled that even when the president utilizes the DC Guard, its actions qualify as a state, not federal, deployment. That's critical because state guard deployments are not subject to the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act's ban on federal military forces engaging in domestic law enforcement. If Trump tries to deploy the National Guard to address crime in the big cities of blue states, such as Chicago or New York, Nunn argued, he would face a catch-22. Since there's virtually no chance Democratic governors would agree to participate, Trump could only put troops on those streets by federalizing their states' National Guard or using active-duty military, Nunn said. But, he added, 'once they are working with federalized National Guard or active-duty military forces, the Posse Comitatus Act applies' — barring the use of those forces for domestic law enforcement. Trump could seek to override the Posse Comitatus Act's ban on military involvement by invoking the Insurrection Act. The Insurrection Act has not been used to combat street crime, but the statute allows the president to domestically deploy the military against 'any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy.' Trump answers questions during a White House press conference on August Briffault, a Columbia Law School professor who specializes in the relationships among different levels of government, agreed that invoking the Insurrection Act to justify sending the National Guard into cities over mayors' objections would shatter the generally understood limits on the law's application. But he also believes that precedent provides no firm assurance that this Supreme Court, which has proved extremely receptive to Trump's expansive claims of presidential authority, would stop him. Trump 'could try' to win court approval of military deployments to fight crime by citing the Insurrection Act's language about ''domestic violence' and 'unlawful combinations'' and then claiming that is 'depriving the people of their right to security,' Briffault said. Whatever the legal hurdles, more widely deploying the military on domestic missions would bring substantial consequences. Mayor Jerry Dyer of Fresno, California, who spent 18 years as the city's police commissioner, says that putting military forces onto the streets of more cities would create problems of coordination with local officials and trust with local communities. 'Whenever you start sending federal resources into local jurisdictions and actually take over the policing of that jurisdiction, it can become very disturbing to that community and quite frankly can create some neighborhood issues and ultimately a lack of trust,' said Dyer, who co-chairs the Mayors and Police Chiefs Task Force for the US Conference of Mayors. Even more profound may be the implications of numbing Americans to the sight of heavily armored military forces routinely patrolling the streets of domestic cities — an image that historically has been common only in authoritarian countries. New York University historian Ruth Ben-Ghiat, a leading scholar of authoritarian regimes, wrote last week that the ultimate aim of Trump's domestic deployments 'is to habituate Americans to see militarized cities and crackdowns against public dissent in cities as normal and justified.' Step by step, she argued, Trump is seeking 'to disempower and delegitimize all Democratic municipal and state authorities.' How the redistricting war is marginalizing cities In less obvious ways, the battle that has erupted over redistricting — and the likely fight approaching over the census — constitutes another Trump-backed effort to 'disempower' large metropolitan areas. The unusual mid-decade congressional redistricting that Texas Republicans are pursuing at Trump's behest would increase the number of Republican-leaning US House seats largely by reducing the number of districts representing the state's biggest metropolitan areas, including Dallas, Houston and Austin, which all lean Democratic. The new map would further dilute the political influence of Texas' major metro areas, even as they have accounted for about four-fifths of the state's population and economic growth over recent years, said Steven Pedigo, director of the LBJ Urban Lab at the University of Texas' Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs. 'The growth in Texas has been driven by urban communities, but those communities are not going to be represented in these additional maps,' Pedigo said. In that way, the new Texas map extends the strategy that Republicans there, and in other growing Sun Belt states, used in the maps they drew after the 2020 census, said John Bisognano, president of the National Democratic Redistricting Committee. Empty seats are seen as a Texas House meeting is called to order at the state Capitol in Austin on August 5. Texas Democratic lawmakers fled the state to protest a proposed Republican redistricting such as Texas and Florida that added the most House seats and electoral votes after the 2020 census — and are poised to gain the most again after 2030 — are adding population primarily among non-White people and in Democratic-leaning metro areas, Bisognano noted in a recent memo. Yet both of those groups will be denied the additional House representation generated by that population growth if the Republicans controlling Sun Belt state governments continue to draw district lines that splinter metro populations and favor rural ones. 'They are subjugating (metro voters) to produce a partisan outcome that is not reflective of the people of those cities,' Bisognano said. The calls from Trump and Vice President JD Vance to 'redo' the 2020 census, partly to exclude undocumented immigrants, could marginalize cities even more. Even if Trump could surmount the many legal and logistical obstacles to conducting a mid-decade census, a reapportionment of House seats and electoral votes that excluded undocumented immigrants would not result in the shift of influence from blue to red states that many conservatives envision. John Robert Warren, a University of Minnesota sociologist, concluded in a 2025 paper that if unauthorized immigrants were excluded from the 2020 census, California and Texas would each lose a House seat and New York and Ohio would each gain one. 'It would make literally zero difference,' Warren said. 'If you assume Texas and Ohio go red and California and New York go blue, then it's just a wash.' Excluding undocumented immigrants from the count, though, could offer Trump another way to squeeze urban centers. Many agricultural communities have substantial undocumented immigrant populations, but half of all undocumented immigrants live in just 37 large counties, according to estimates by the Migration Policy Institute. 'Within a state that Republicans control, by not including (undocumented people), it would be much easier to draw Republican districts because you would have a smaller minority population base to work with,' said Jeffrey Wice, a redistricting expert at New York University's law school. Not only congressional representation but also the many federal funding sources tied to population would shift toward rural areas if the census undercounts the urban population, he noted. Wice, who formerly consulted for Democrats on redistricting, says blue states and cities can't assume Trump won't pursue any of these possibilities, no matter how far-fetched they now seem. The same is surely true on the deployment of federal force into blue places. The New Republic's Greg Sargent recently published an internal Department of Homeland Security memo that described the joint ICE-National Guard mission in Los Angeles as 'the type of operations (and resistance) we're going to be working through for years to come.' (Emphasis added.) During World War II, the German siege of Leningrad famously lasted nearly 900 days. Big blue American cities may be counting down the hours as anxiously for the 1252 days remaining in Trump's second term.

Trump says Xi told him China will not invade Taiwan while he is US president
Trump says Xi told him China will not invade Taiwan while he is US president

Egypt Independent

time6 hours ago

  • Egypt Independent

Trump says Xi told him China will not invade Taiwan while he is US president

Reuters — US President Donald Trump said on Friday that Chinese President Xi Jinping told him China would not invade Taiwan while Trump is in office. Trump made the comments in an interview with Fox News, ahead of talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin over Moscow's invasion of Ukraine. 'I will tell you, you know, you have a very similar thing with President Xi of China and Taiwan, but I don't believe there's any way it's going to happen as long as I'm here. We'll see,' Trump said during an interview on Fox News' 'Special Report.' 'He told me, 'I will never do it as long as you're president.' President Xi told me that, and I said, 'Well, I appreciate that,' but he also said, 'But I am very patient, and China is very patient.',' Trump said. Trump and Xi held their first confirmed call of Trump's second presidential term in June. Trump also said in April that Xi had called him but did not specify when that call took place. China views Taiwan as its own territory and has vowed to 'reunify' with the democratic and separately governed island, by force if necessary. Taiwan strongly objects to China's sovereignty claims. The Chinese Embassy in Washington on Friday described the topic of Taiwan as 'the most important and sensitive issue' in China-US relations. 'The US government should adhere to the one-China principle and the three US-China joint communiqués, handle Taiwan-related issues prudently, and earnestly safeguard China-US relations and peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait,' embassy spokesperson Liu Pengyu said in a statement. Although Washington is Taiwan's main arms supplier and international backer, the US – like most countries – has no formal diplomatic ties with the island. While Taiwan's government has yet to respond to Trump's remarks, on Saturday a senior lawmaker from the ruling Democratic Progressive Party said that Taiwan was grateful for support from 'our major ally.' 'However … Security cannot rely on the enemy's promise, nor can it rely solely on the help from friends. Strengthening our own defense capability is fundamental!' Wang Ting-yu, who sits on the Taiwan parliament's defense and foreign affairs committee, wrote on his Facebook page.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store