China and Taiwan

Great Debates
41

It was pretty recent that the Taiwan government changed the official stance on Mongolia. A quick google search didn’t ping when, but the official cabinet level Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs Commission was abolished less than a year ago.

Here’s a link
On 20 January 2003, the Taiwan government made a long-overdue decision to abolish the Cabinet-level Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs Commission, and to replace it by a newly-formed Taiwan-Tibet Exchange Foundation.

The old Commission was a left-over from the Kuomintang-period, when the regime in Taipei still maintained it was the legitimate government of China, and claimed sovereignty over Tibet and Mongolia. The new Foundation is primarily designed to maintain ties with the Tibetan government-in-exile in Dharamsala, India. The foundation will consist of government think-tank members, DPP members and private entrepreneurs familiar with Tibetan affairs.

42

Unlikely. First of all, I don’t get your GW supposition (why is Bush any more likely to be interested in defending Taiwan than anyone else?) But second of all, there is no guarantee that China could catch up in the space of a single decade. As of now, they are not even seriously TRYING to catch up in terms of their navy or air engagement (though missle tech is a major concern). There isn’t a lot of point. Unless they are going to start looking like they are arming for war by churning out tons and tons of new ships and subs and so forth, it’ll take much longer than a decade to catch up. By which time, who knows what else the US will have on the field?

43

The US is light years ahead of China…and maintains a significant annual budget towards our military (a larger anual budget that China by far). Rather than closing the gap, I see the gap widening between the US and China in the future. It will take them decades to catch up to where we are today. In decades, the US will be even further ahead then now. As an example, just look at stealth technology. The US has had it for over a decade. The Russians, for example, STILL don’t have it…and neither do the Chinese. Afaik, they aren’t even close to making the breakthroughs (from what I understand it has to do with specialized computer software/hardware that both countries still lack, among other things). And thats just ONE aspect of the US’s military machine.

As to China invading Taiwan…how? How would they get there? Even if they had the ships for the invasion, they’d be flying into the teeth of a top notch airforce (Taiwan’s) with inferior fighters AND training. Not to mention that the US would most likely be there as well with the Navy. It would be a blood bath IMO. China COULD always resort to nukes, admittedly, but even discounting the fact that Taiwan might have them also and retaliate, what good would Taiwan do China if it was a smoking puddle of glass?? Not to mention what that would do to China’s relationships with the rest of the world.

I hope that there is never a US/China military confrontation over Taiwan. I’m somewhat soothed by some of the posters that are saying that this is simply business as usual. That was what I HOPED I was reading myself, but its nice to see other posters who obviously know more about China/Taiwan than I do (my knowledge, such as it is, is more limited to military aspects than politics in the region).

-XT

44

My apologies, I see that wasn’t as clear as it should have been. I was referring to Chinese military capacity relative to Taiwan, not the U.S. The Chinese have embarked on a long-term modernization program. They’ve also made it clear that they have serious regional ambitions, both in Taiwan and in the Spratleys.

Keep in mind that the U.S. could probably wreck a sea-born invasion across the straight without being, ahh, visibly involved. Assuming the Taiwanese couldn’t do it themselves, a couple of attack submarines would probably be enough to stymie the massive troop movements necessary to land in force. The U.S. would never have to admit they were actually there if it didn’t want to. Of course, everyone would know what had really happened but plausible deniability would be maintained.

As for why GB is likely viewed a strong defender of Taiwan, my first thought was his original statements regarding increased american support and recognition of Taiwan. While these overt statements were quickly retracted, cooperation and support has, in fact, been dramatically ramped up. Think, for example, of the now-infamous submarines the U.S. agreed to “sell” Taiwan (even though it doesn’t actually make them!)

In any case, GB tends to view the world in black and white, good guys and bad guys. It’s highly unlikely he’d sit by and watch the bad ol’ communist Chinese militarily crush the democratic, freedom-loving Taiwanese. If you’re Taiwan, do you want to rely on the support of George Bush or Howard Dean?

45

Read the post I am replying too. Sorry if I didn’t explain myself enough, but I was being silly about another posters odd political beleifs about China and Korea. I found it funny that he seemed to beleive that China was heading in the right direction from the mid 50’s to the early 70’s (if I understood him right), and that China had gone down hill since.

46

furt, I think I understood you well enough. I followed what you meant about the attitudes of the young people in Taiwan moving away from Beijing, and that being a threat to the present day government. But I was considering that the attitudes of the young people in Beijing are also changing. They, too, don’t know a time when Taiwan was a part of China; all they have are the stories grandpa told at the dinner table. When the hawks of Beijing pass, then the new leaders won’t care so much about Taiwan; at least not to the point of war. The new generation is more concerned with money than with ideals. So if it would be more profitable to them for Taiwan to be independent than reunited, then that will be OK. It is primarily the old ones who want to see a “reunified China”; and recognizing the attitude of the young, they know this will have to be accomplished by themselves if it’s to be done at all.

Apos, I did in fact mean China against Taiwan only. Of course they do not want to take on the US; thus the need to get them out of the equation. If the US could be convinced to stand aside, then an attempt at taking Taiwan would be more immediate.

As for the certainty of a US victory against China, that would depend on the level of commitment the US made to such a war. If we went in only half-hearted, as we’ve done a few places elsewhere, then the outcome wouldn’t be so sure. All we could accomplish then would be a lot of casualties on both sides with little to show for it once the smoke cleared. Our weakness is that we are too often unwilling to commit totally to war and all that it requires. We want a battle that can be fought and wrapped up in a week or two with no more than a half-dozen casualties. We are reluctant to engage in long-term, high casualty campaigns. And that’s what would be needed in a war with China. They may have much less firepower, but they have many more personnel.

The US doesn’t help the Taiwan situation when it remains intentionally vague. On the one hand, we have said we believe in One China, and would not support Taiwan independence. On the other hand, we have said we oppose an attack against Taiwan, and will help defend them provided they don’t try to declare independence. These are understandable as far as they go. But what would we do if it were Taiwan who fired the first shot, or if Taiwan did formally declare independence? Each of those variables are not covered by the security treaty. Would we stand back in those instances? Because we don’t want a war with China any more than they want one with us. And it is this unknown which is tickling the back of the minds of those in Beijing who would play brinkmanship. They are looking at what commitments we wont make as much as the ones we will.

47

Yibaikuai, the US is deliberately vague to keep from giving Taiwan and wild card. Also, with the passing of strom thurman, jessie helms and other rabid anti-commie/Taiwan supporters from the US congress/house, I wonder how much support Taiwan can get when [ush comes to shove.

Also, from China’s point of view, who is playing bringmanship? Axis of Evil, invasion of Iraq, refusing to negotiate with nor korea? It ain’t black and white. Especially when you think about China supported the US into Afganistan - post 9-11 deal that the world didn’t notice. Anyhoo, for the first time ever that I can think of, China supported meddling in a sovereign countries affairs. Pretty wierd when you think of if.

Another snippet you can take or not. The extended Bush family has a lot of investments in China, including some golf courses. I can’t prove it to you but I’m convinced. Allows for some “influence” on the prez…

48

**Yep. The other one is a blockade. China’s Navy can’t beat Taiwan, but they can dare Taiwan to fire the first shot. If Taiwan does, they lose a lot of world support. If they don’t, even a relatively brief blockade would threaten the global economy and bring pressure on Taiwan to make some concessions.
**

A blockade is an act of war. If Taiwan fired on Chinese ships blockading the island, they would not lose any support, although I think it’s kind of moot anyway since Taiwan enjoys about as much international support as Israel. For most of the world, craven economic interests are supreme, and most nations are more willing to cast Taiwan aside than risk upsetting China.

**The U.S. certainly could never be able to invade and occupy mainland China without widespread support from the Chinese people (which they would almost certainly never get), **

The US wouldn’t have to. China is more than sophisticated enough with enough pro-democracy factions to quickly transition to democracy without a US occupation. If it came to full scale war between the two nations, the US would only have to take all the major cities and let the Chinese work out the rest for themselves. As for remaining Communist resistance, the combination of US and Taiwanese air support, along with Taiwanese and pro-democracratic Chinese military would handle that, although it would take a long time to finish that battle for good.

49

Bwahahahahahahahahahaha. What pro-democracy faction? Taiwan military in China. WTF? This is even more fanciful than Iraqi transitioning to peace and democracy overnight.

You make a good point though. Most nations of the world have already cast aside Taiwan for China economic interests - decades ago.

50

ChinaGuy, I agree that we don’t want to give Taiwan any leeway to move beyond certain limits. And your comment about the passing of the rabid anti-commies in the US falls in with what I was saying about the passing of the older generations in Taiwan and China. I also agree that GWB is himself playing brinkmanship. His comment about an Axis of Evil was certainly not diplomatic. Even if he truly believed this, as President of the US he shouldn’t have said it publicly. It left him no room for any discussion with them. Now if he makes any concessions or even talks to them, he’ll be seen as compromising with Evil. He’s tied his own hands with regard to N Korea. He can’t negotiate with them now; all he can do is hope for their destruction. But the US can’t try to take on NK as long as there is a possibility of China coming to their support, just as China can’t try to take on Taiwan as long as there is the possibility of the US coming to their support.

Another thought on China’s comments with respect to Taiwan: if one country knows that another one will always do the opposite of what it asks (demands), then it can begin to use that predictability to its advantage. It has been pointed out that China was belligerent just prior to the last Taiwan election with the result that the Taiwanese elected the candidate in favor of declaring independence rather than a “One China” candidate, as China indicated it wanted. Now China is again issuing inflammatory statements just prior to a referendum in Taiwan, saying basically, “Don’t you dare vote for independence!” Could this be an attempt to actually bring about that outcome? Which brings us back to my earlier speculation – Would the US continue to stand in defense of Taiwan if Taiwan were seen as the provocateur? This question is especially vexed if the rumor of Bush’s investments in China is correct.

51

Yibaiyuan, you correctly pointed out that China is somewhat predictable. The reaction of the Taiwanese is somewhat predictable. Whenever China threatens to invade, the Taiwanese say over my dead body. Or vote for the pro-Taiwan candidate.

thing is that in China there has been a generational change in leadership. One could say the same about Taiwan where the opposition candidate found out there is a big difference between being in the opposition and the reality of actually trying to govern.

Anyone remember Lee Teng Hui making some very loud Taiwan Independance comments a couple of months ago? China didn’t take the bait, and more or less ignored the comments rather than give the pro-independance supports ammunition.

52

**Oh, it could get significantly worse. China could try to make it a them-or-us thing for trade, the way it already is for diplomatic recognition. Of parties, Taiwan would be least capable of holding up under even a short blockade/embargo.

**Which is why, even though Taiwan would probably be within their rights to shoot, they would get labeled as the bad guys. For that matter, the legal waters are muddied if “Taiwan is a part of China.”

**No. There are significant pro-democracy sentiments, but they are primarily underground student things, not organized forces at all. The only significant civic institution outside of the party is the army. None of the psychic and cultural infrastructure that we take for granted exists there. The VAST majority of those 1.2 Billion people are barely touched, if at all by the outside world, and xenophobia and loyalty to government are deeply ingrained in the culture. I am a firm believer that freedom and democracy (defined very broadly) are universal human desires … but even I don’t think it works like this.

**Sweet Baby Jesus, man, think what you just said. All the major cities? Well, that’s 10 million dead in Shanghai, 9 million in Beijing … shall we go on? If your point is that the US can blast anyone in the world into the Stone Age, well yes.

Even if we did somehow surgically remove the party from power, it’s not going to lead to some sort of nirvana. You’ve got dozens of ethnic, religious, cultural and lingustic minorities, all paying obiesience to Beijing, partly because they have no tradition or history of independance, partly Beijing keeps the reins loose most of the time and partly because they fear the chaos that another revolution could bring. They are not going to suddenly whip up a parliament for all 1.2 billion of them. There is going to be bloodshed on a scale the world’s never seen. Even if 75% of the people were enthusiastic supporters of chucking their 5000 year history and embracing their waiguaren overlords … well that still leaves 300 Million people opposed to it.

Given that the People’s Army already is as much a set of economic fiefdoms as a organized fighting force, the most likely scenario is that every Colonel with a rifle battalion sets himself up as overlord of his own little realm. Then the shooting starts, followed by the starvation. We’re talking Mad Max potential here.

There are many possible approaches to China. Unless the US is fighing for its survival, intentionally destabilising the Communist government is not one of them.

53

Taiwan is an Independent nation, and has been for 50 years. Yes, true, China does claim it, and up to a decade ago contra-iwise, but it is independent.

It is also fairly democratic, and a modern industrialized nation. The shame of the USA & the UN is that they want trade with China more than they want to recognize a nation that has a lerger population and economy than 90% of the “nations” in the UN. Well, OK some of the nations in the UN are just afraid of China, but same diff.

I don’t giev a rats ass about losing trade with China- considering the trade deficit with them it would be a Good thing anyway. We shoudl recognize Taiwan, and pay not a nickle to the UN until they do also. Time to get a Pres with guts on this issue, rather than one whose party is beholden to large amounts of soft money from the Chinese (both the Dems & GOP have their heads down in that hog trough).

54

furt -

I agree that this is a likely scenario, but could you explain what you meant by the first part?

Regards,
Shodan

55

I don’t think you understand the scale of the things you speak of.
Just to give you a comparison China’s largest cities are overwhelmingly larger and more populated than U.S. cities in comparison. China itself is nearly the size of the continental U.S. The U.S. can barely contain a bunch of backyard guerillas and farmers in pea sized Iraq as it is how do you expect them to occupy the world’s most populous nation? That’s probably the biggest joke of the century. This isn’t pre industrial revolution 19th century China we’re talking about. China is a heavily militarized largely modernized nationalist government with millions of civil police, soldiers, guerillas, and all sorts of people that would vehemently fight any occupation to the end. China has a BIG chip on its shoulder from the way the Brits treated them in the opium war and the Japanese in ww2. They don’t forget easy and any modern day foreign encroachment into China would be viewed as a great patriotic cause that most Chinese would take up arms against.

56

Well, I was exagerrating for effect, but essentially the government years ago (Mao era) told the People’s Liberation Army that they were going to be at least partly self-supporting. So the Army starts their own farms, factories, etc. which operate independant of the party apparatus. Instead of sitting around or training for war, soldiers operate these businesses, which become very big indeed. You probably own things in your house made by the PLA under some front or another.

More recently, the CCP started getting nervous about this threat to the Party’s monopoly on power and wanted to re-nationalize the means of production, or even privatize, but the Army says no. Most of the businesses make a profit, and that profit is passed up the chain of command with everyone taking their slice.

So a typical situation might be a tank unit that also runs a factory making plastic whatnots. The officer in charge may also have farms from which his unit eats. In theory he’s only trying to make enough money / food to subsidize training and readiness … but since he gets some of the profit, you can guess how that works. Moreover, if the Colonel kicks in some money to the general, maybe he gets to expand the factory…

I won’t go further, since I’m not an expert, but you get the idea.

Oh, hell, maybe I should just ask some experts:

"It is generally agreed that official figures for business turnover as well as profits certainly under-represent what military enterprises actually earn from their commercial operations. Under reporting of profits is acute, especially among lower level military units, … Military enterprises are allowed to keep a substantial portion of their earnings. They retain between 20 to 40 per cent of their profits for reinvestment and other uses. The remainder is divided between the GLD which keeps between 40 to 60 per cent, regional and provincial military authorities who keep between 10 to 20 per cent and the local PLA unit gets 10 to 20 percent. The average profits received by the GLD is between 2.5 to 4 billion per year (since 1993 onward).

Parent military units get the money from the enterprises which are used for training and improvement in the living standards of troops. One group army is reported to have allocated 85 per cent of its total profits to barrack construction and repair, food subsidies, medical coverage for troops, and miscellaneous facilities. At the same time, a substantial amount of money is also spent on luxury items and services for senior officers and executives of the military conglomerates."

http://www.ciaonet.org/olj/sa/sa_jun00mod01.html

"The vast majority of the PLA’s commercial activity – probably more than 80% – are small- and medium-scale enterprises owned by military regions and districts. Even senior PLA officials are unsure of the true numbers and types of all PLA companies under their nominal control. **In 1993, the head of Xinxing, the large conglomerate owned by the General Logistics Department, was quoted in the Hong Kong press as saying that his company had difficulty calculating how many subsidiaries it had, since “so many were opening or closing without informing us.” **

http://hongkong.usconsulate.gov/uscn/state/1997/1106a.htm
Bolding mine.

Feudalism in waiting.

57

There’s no doubt Taiwan and China are a complex situation that pits US ideals (self-determination, democracy) against US interests (not pissing off what is likely to be the next superpower in 30 years).

  1. Suppose Taiwan declared independence and China used whatever military force it had. Officially, it seems the US has declared it would pull a France, decrying the tragic deaths, wring its hands, call for talks, etc. But I can see an idealistic president of either party intervening on the Taiwanese side. Given a Wilsonian president, I don’t think the Taiwanese would be crazy to call the US’s bluff–declare their independence, then see if the US would be so callous as to refuse to aid them.

  2. Suppose China attempted to reunify by force, without a major Taiwanese provocation. Officially, the US seems to imply it would oppose that militarily. But I can see a ‘realist’ president of either party pulling a France here too, essentially turning a blind eye to it. Given a stronger air/naval force and a Kissingerist president, I don’t think the Chinese would be crazy to invade Taiwan.

I think the US is as much of a wild card in all this as the Taiwanese. And if the US’s reaction is unpredictable, then the Chinese are also going to be unpredictable, since they could be formulating their reactions on a completely erroneous understanding of US and Taiwanese thinking.

What I can’t understand is why China ever thought the idea of a military capable of economic autonomy was a good idea. Given the horrific problems with warlordism that China has faced over the centuries, this seems to have been something they’d be very averse to.

58

The tradition of warlordiam is part of the cause … it’s just the way it’s been done there. Also, in the 30’s, the ChiCom’s only alternative was mass desertion. No money + no food = no army.

59

Damnit. If any mod happens by, please help. If not, sorry…

60

I think the PLA information is pretty outdated. Around 1994 a bargain was struck between the PLA and the government, that in return for creating a more modern professional military (as opposed to large peasant military), the the PLA would divest itself of investments.

To a significant degree this has in fact been happening over the past decade. Defiantely the military has significant business interests but no where near the size it used to be. What percentage of the economy versus the US military/industrial complex might be an interesting topic.

DrDeth, you might look at the history of Taiwan in the UN. Taiwan removed itself from the UN in the 1960’s to protest the entry of China. Eg, at that time, clearly demonstrating that Taiwan was not a separate independant country. Certainly Taiwan is defacto independant but just to provide some context.

Second point is that you want the US to pull funding from the UN until it toes the line and votes the way the US demands. IMHO this is contrary to the spirit of the UN. Certainly the UN is highly politicized, but outright financial blackmail by the US isn’t the way democracy works, is it?