China to support the Taliban?

[Beagle]

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Dave Stewart *

I have no illusions about the Chinese government. I think it has dangerous territorial ambitions - many mainland maps of China claim Everest is in its borders. And then there are the maritime territorial disputes with Japan, Vietnam and the Philippines. It is increasingly assertive in the world.

I agree with this. Note: China invaded Vietnam in 1979.

I think China has often adopted an aggressive stance towards the United States, especially in respect of its support of Taiwan. China is very sensitive to criticism over Tibet. (The refusal to allow the Dalai Lama to speak at the UN world religious conference a few years back was abominable.) China caused a domestic storm over the bombing of its embassy in Belgrade. It could have not done that, as it chose not to with the US spy plane on Hainan island. China is hardly a close friend of America.

Personally, I can see why China thinks it has a claim on Taiwan. Historically, it is China. Problem is, Taiwan has a democratically elected government, recently. I am biased in favor of pluralistic non-totalitarian systems. The rest is unassailable.

As much as I am in support of any country which seeks to throw off its colonial shackles, I think Britain made a mistake in handing back Hong Kong to China (not that Thatcher had very much choice). Already, the decline in the rule of law here is noticeable. Hong Kong would have been better off being its own country, like Singapore.

I am sure you know much more about the Hong Kong street perspective than I do. I don’t know much about Hong Kong right now, not for lack of trying. Once it was ceded to the Chinese it is almost as if it disappeared. Nothing mysterious, the media is often inattentive.

I’m saying this so I can avoid being painted with the partisan brush you have daubed China Guy with.

I am sick of being called a McCarthyite or a cold warrior. First of all, I am a libertarian. (small “l” as I am not a member of the party) I am quite cognizant of the fact that Russia now has a multi-party system. I am also aware that China is becoming an economic powerhouse. Everyone who shops in this country knows that. Practically every household item is “Made In China.” I even read books and watch the news, party favor noise, or in the alternative pin a medal on my chest to treat me as some kind of ignoramus is a sure way to infuriate me. I was an honor student, debater, archaeologist, and a history major in college. I have a graduate degree, a Juris Doctorate, and am versed in history and foreign policy.

So, as an occaisional critic of China, I think what you’re saying just makes no sense.

I can live with that.

Anti-hegemonism is better achieved through alliances with regional powers like Russia, India and Japan. Not through sending soldiers to their deaths by American bombs in a (with respect to any Afghans) very unimportant country.

Other than the four “motives” I mentioned in a previous post above on this page, I will add some more reasons for China to be there.
5. Bolster the Afghani air defenses enough for one good shot. (See, Kosovo, F-117 stealth fighter shot down and falls into enemy hands) If the Chinese can bag a B-2, F-18, or any number of advanced missiles it will help their defense efforts. All they need is one semi-intact B-2 and they jump forward 20 years in passive stealth technology.
6. Gain useful intel. on U.S. SpecOps tactics.
7. Get their hands on some of our new ground systems. We have a new gun, among other things.
8. Help the Taliban kill just enough U.S. soldiers that the U.S. pulls out. Vietnam, we did not lose–we left. The U.S. tolerance for casualties is high in polls. Wait and see.
9. Arms sales. No proof, just a suspicion. The Taliban has heroin money.

Weakening the US military? Until the election of the current President, it has been American military policy to be able to fight any two major conventional wars anywhere in the world. No one else can do that. So even if you halved the military strength of the US, and left the US involved in Afghanistan, it can still fight the Chinese over Taiwan. Sending a bunch of guys to fight the US without air support is not going to weaken the US military.

You are correct. The two war strategy was our policy, unfortunately our readiness is lousy and has been for several years. Remember when we ran out of cruise missiles a couple years ago? [I never use them but the “eek” smilie would be appropriate here] I think, and Rumsfeld has hinted that, we are not ready for a two front war against major powers. He has come out against the two war policy, and has mentioned readiness concerns. We waste a huge amount of defense money maintaining WWII era bases to make individual Congresspersons happy. We have fraud in defense contracting. I could rattle off a half dozen more, suffice it to say we have some defense problems.

Cruise missiles? The only ones I’ve seen in Afghanistan were made in the USA or the UK. Do you know how much cruise missile technology costs? Afghanistan is dirt poor. They rely on AK47s and pick-up trucks.

The story (available from many other sources) indicates that China purchased some dud cruise missiles from Al Quaeda and the Taliban. We shot them at Afghanistan (Al Qaeda training camps) during the Clinton Administration, some of them failed to detonate (add this to the list of defense problems above). China had plenty of money, and wanted advanced missile technology. This establishes a military link between China, The Taliban, and Afghanistan. Yes, it did not happen yesterday.

I don’t think you’re crazy - I think you’re just too stubborn to see the absence of logic in what you’re advocating. You’re saying China would send cannon fodder to Afghanistan in order to annoy America. Its unsubstantiable. You under-estimate your own country’s might in the world, and under-estimate China’s ability to perceive that.

I don’t think you are a loon either. I think the Chinese leadership takes the longterm view. They do not have a defeatist attitude. They think that if they can master our stealth, computer, and missile technologies they can challenge our “imperialist hegemony” around the world. Maybe they do not say these exact words much anymore, but the the leaders learned it in school. Zemin seems OK, to me he is no Stalin or Mao–of course they were genocidal bastards. I would want to shift the power balance if I were them. That is, unfortunately, what nation-states do. They feel that with their nascent but potentially dominant economic power that in a decade or less everything could change. Countries get strong, complacent, overconfident, then weak. China has seen it happen to dozens of upstart world powers. We have been strong (not dominant) for maybe 90 years–with the advent of our large dreadnaught fleet. We have been dominant off and on since the end of WWII, due mostly to an edge in technology, primarily air power.* 56 years of touch and go “dominance” is not insurmountable in China’s eyes.

*During the Cold War the USSR may have had a slight advantage several times–nothing to risk a global thermonuclear war over though. Robert McNamara was right about one thing, MAD worked. (Mutual Assured Destruction)

[Beagle]

“…this estabishes a link between China, the Taliban, and [Al Qaeda].” Not, “Afghanistan.”

[China_Guy]

Beagle, since you provided a list of reasons at perhaps my request, I should respond.

1.fighting U.S. “hegemony”. Actually the US has been gradually reducing presence in Asia. First pulling out of Taiwan, closing and/or reducing presence in Japan and pulling out of the Philippines. Much more accurate would be to say Chinese territorial expansionist ambition. If China was going to really stand up to US hegemony, it makes a lot more sense to take over Taiwan and then dominate the South China Sea. See next point.

2.weaken the U.S. military to simplify an attack on Taiwan. This one gets thrown out a lot. I would first ask why would China attack Taiwan now instead of 5 or 10 or 20 years ago? China has more to lose by attacking Taiwan as time goes by. Also, perhaps you are ignoring the fact that Taiwan will not be a cakewalk, and China doesn¡¯t even have anywhere near to an adequate number of military landing craft to ferry over an invasion fleet. MAD also comes into play as Taiwan would likely drop nukes on a few major cities in China, and Shanghai, where I live, would be a prime target.

Just from an economic point of view, invading Taiwan makes no sense. The cost of invading Taiwan would be enormous economically even if all the collateral damage is limited to the island itself and not China. This is a different leadership than the bozo¡¯s that brought China the Great Leap Forward and mass starvation in the early 60¡¯s. Maybe the current leadership wants a return to Year Zero, and just maybe they like wine and cars and DVD¡¯s and the internet and nice clothes and pizza.

3.protect the sphere of influence China covets. This is kind of a stretch. China already has the traditional border region of Xinjiang under control. The Shanghai Cooperation Organization has more formally spelled out the sphere of influence in that part of the world. It¡¯s fair to generalize that all of the countries involved would not like to see a permanent US presence in Afganistan. Several of the countries are allowing US troops to establish bases during the current operations. So, if it¡¯s true for China, would it also make sense that the other members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, including Russia, also secretly infiltrate troops into Afganistan to fight against the Americans? They too would benefit from some of your reasons posted.

4.China has ties to Al Qaeda and the Taliban. They are certainly neighbors and everything I¡¯ve ever seen suggests the ties are extremely tenuous. Certainly China never recognized the Taliban government. US has ties to the Taliban as well, and for all we know, Al Qaeda. China has sent business delegations to try sell among other things a mobile phone network. If true, buying a crashed cruise missile does not necessarily imply that they are allies.

5.Bolster the Afghani air defenses enough for one good shot. It¡¯s possible, but worth going to war over? Is this easier or more plausible than trying the espionage route?

6.Gain useful intel. on U.S. SpecOps tactics. What by trying to repel an SAS attack? There are plenty of SpecOps veterans and mercenaries that would probably work as consultants. Brunei has plenty of these experts on their payroll, and perhaps a little cooperation there. And please, I am not trying to cast aspersions on the loyalty of SpecOps people, but there¡¯s got to be an easier way they standing in the path of a Delta Force attack.

7.Get their hands on some of our new ground systems. We have a new gun, among other things. Again, do you think it would be really hard to buy samples? If such ground systems do get lost in Afganistan, don¡¯t you think the Afganistanis will try to sell them. You can just buy these systems rather than go to war over them.

8.Help the Taliban kill just enough U.S. soldiers that the U.S. pulls out. Then flush from their victory, the Taliban infiltrate into Xinjiang and help their brethren revolt against the Chinese rule.

9.Arms sales. IIRC the biggest arms seller in the world is the US (but I could be wrong on this). Peshawar is famous for the production of guns used when the Russians were still in Afganistan. China could be selling arms, but compared to the rest of their exports, it¡¯s just a piddly amount. Certainly, the money we are talking about is not big enough to influence foreign policy.

While some of the above reasons may make sense, I don¡¯t think either singularly or collectively that they make a compelling argument for risking a direct Chinese confrontation with the US, and anything that would cause such a direct confrontation with the US implies a direct confrontation with the rest of the industrialized world. A big suitcase of cash would probably accomplish at least half of the above goals and at least be plausibly deniable. The average Chinese wants a car or a tractor a lot more than they want a war with the US.

[Dave_Stewart]

Every indication, aside from the loss of face at APEC, is that Taiwan is becoming more and more warm to the idea of reintegration.

Long term attitudes have changed: Taiwan initially said it was the legitimate government of China. Then it started saying that it was different enough for China to be an independent country. But Taiwanese investment in the mainland is huge, Taiwanese and mainland chinese both speak Mandarin (Fukien aside) and Taiwan itself is desperately short of labour. Then you have the precedents of the HK Special Administrative Region and the Macau Special Administrative Region. “One country two systems” does (more or less) work. Taiwan could buy into the same deal, with negotiations.

China doesn’t need to distract the US to launch an invasion of Taiwan (and as China Guy says, it doesn’t have the naval resources to do it anyway). China just needs to be patient long enough for Taiwan to drop into its lap.

[Beagle]

How about the Taliban themselves? You have to read between the lines a little. Not surprisingly, the Taliban do not come right out and say that Chinese advisors or troops are in country. Sure, the Taliban might be lying, they often do.

Sun Tzu dictates in a case like this (superior force and all) that the Chinese admit one thing and do another, BTW. It is a great read, you should check it out.

[phartizan]

*Originally posted by Dave Stewart *
Every indication, aside from the loss of face at APEC, is that Taiwan is becoming more and more warm to the idea of reintegration.

It’s a little more complicated than that. The issue seems to be becoming increasingly divisive, with the hardcore “Taiwanese” wanting independence, a second group of people who’d like the situation to stay just as it is; together neither of these want reunification. The minority in favor of reunification includes a small number of businessmen who’d like reunification so business would be easier. True the businessmen are getting more anxious and their ranks are growing, but the numbers involved are not that big.

Meanwhile divisive ex-prexy Lee Teng-hui is a genius at manipulating the issue and rallying the pro-independence camp, which bugs the hell out of the Chinese.

[China_Guy]

*Originally posted by Beagle *
How about the Taliban themselves? You have to read between the lines a little. Not surprisingly, the Taliban do not come right out and say that Chinese advisors or troops are in country. Sure, the Taliban might be lying, they often do.

Well, it’s possible but again I’m dubious. Please remember that China-India relations are rocky, China-India has had border skirmishes (the last major action I remember was around 1987), China occupies land that India claims is their territory, China and Pakistan have close ties, and of course India and Pakistan are at serious odds with each. So, it would not be out of line to look at any reports coming out of Indian press regarding China/Taleban connection with a healthy dose of skepticism.

You’re quite a challenge Beagle. I seriously am at a loss for how to convince you that it is at best highly unlikely China has been helping the Taleban against the US and company. Do the math. What would China possibly gain that would be worth a serious confrontation with the US and by extension most of the industrialized world?

Regarding Taiwan, perhaps we should start a seperate thread. If a national plebicite were to be held today whether to reunify with China or become de facto and de jeure independant, the Taiwanese would vote overwhelmingly for independance. China has often stated that even attempting to hold such a plebicite would be treated the same way as if Taiwan declared independance, and that is a military response. Maybe some of our Taiwanese dopers can weigh in here.

[China_Guy]

*Originally posted by Beagle *
**Sun Tzu dictates in a case like this (superior force and all) that the Chinese admit one thing and do another, BTW. It is a great read, you should check it out. **

(Smart ass reply self censored.) Bing Fa or the Art of War was one of Mao’s favorite books.

[China_Guy]

Beagle, here is a link that addresses the greater Sino-US relationship. http://www.feer.com/2001/0111_01/p036china.html

I think you might find it interesting. For what it’s worth, the Far Eastern Economic Review has been pretty on the money in my view for most matters Asian. I’ve been reading this reputable weekly news magazine pretty closely for over 15 years.