If the people of Hawaii generally wanted to be independent, AND the islands had no real strategic value, AND 70 years had passed, I genuinely believe the U.S. would just let them go. Countries change. The U.S. was once British, Belgium was once Spanish, Spain was once part of the Muslim caliphate. Sometimes you have to let the past be the past. I think Americans are smart enough to know that.
I’m always confused at people’s understanding of history when they say things like this. An entity comprising roughly the “core” of modern China was unified under the Qin dynasty in the 3rd Century BCE, some elements of modern Chinese culture trace back to this time, and some a little earlier. Before the Qin unification of China the region was dominated by warring countries with varying languages and cultural customs, many of which are not well documented. The Shang Dynasty in the 13th century BCE is as far back as written history in the region goes and whether or not Shang Dynasty is meaningfully identifiable with modern Chinese culture at all is highly debatable.
In human scale these “regions” have always been there, the Italian peninsula and the Greek peninsula, the Nile River valley, the Euphrates and the Tigris in Mesopotamia–these have existed for many thousands of years and have produced cultures for just as long. Modern Western culture, is as much linked to the Ancient Greeks of 2400 years ago as modern China is to the Qin Dynasty about similarly long ago–which is to say “there are some links and you could argue the Ancient Greeks represent an ancient foundational era in Western culture”, but it’s not like things have been static for the last 2400 years in either the West or in the Greater China region. Religions and cultural philosophies have changed dramatically over that time in both the West and China. States has risen and fallen in both regions, both regions have been devastated by large scale invasion by “barbarians” (in both cases often semi-nomadic people with origins in the Steppes who were less culturally developed.)
Although I don’t quite agree with this example as an analogy, I think it illustrates a point, which is that deterrence only works if the side doing the deterring is more vested in the thing at stake than the side being deterred. This is why NATO worked pretty well in deterring a Soviet attack of western Europe during the Cold War, for instance - the Soviets were interested but not that interested in conquering western Europe, and NATO made it not worth their while to attack. The NATO nations had more interest in not being conquered than the Soviets had in conquering.
But if one side has gotten it into their head that they truly must achieve Objective XYZ - regardless of whether XYZ is a fair, right, moral, or even rational thing - then no amount of deterrence will suffice - and any attempt to deter them will simply make them work harder to overcome the deterring force to get XYZ.
Is China at that point? Don’t know. But if they are, then deterrence will not work.
It’s an apples to orangutans comparison, so not sure how one could even answer this. Taiwan was never part of the CCP and was only briefly part of the ROC…from the end of WWII until the end of the Chinese civil war. Before that, Taiwan had been occupied by the Empire of Japan since the late 1800’s.
Hawaii, on the other hand, was a US territory since the late 1800’s and a state since the 1950’s. Plus, it’s a state, where we settled the whole leaving the Union thingy in 1865. So, the US would have a bit more claim on taking Hawaii back than the CCP does on taking Taiwan, a province that was never under their control and only under their enemies control for about 4 years or so.
Other than those minor things and small things like why would Hawaii ally with China and how could China support Hawaii against the US I suppose the answer is the US would almost certainly never give up it’s claim to Hawaii…or any other state, unless the people of Hawaii somehow overwhelming voted to leave the Union and there was some sort of political change in Congress or something that allowed a state to leave the Union…both of which are vanishingly small probabilities.
Not a chance. If we were talking about Guam, maybe, but a state? What makes you think the US would just give up a state at this point? The only precedents for this in our history kind of ended badly for those who tried to do this before…and that wasn’t some sort of revolution and coup. This would be a fundamental shift in US policy dating back to the Civil War, and I just don’t see that changing, certainly not as described (a Communist revolution overthowing the state government? No way that would stand.)
I do not believe that China would in any way agree that either condition applies to Taiwan.
Each of these examples required major, devastating wars for the releasing country to relent to the territorial changes.
Certainly the CCP wouldn’t agree to either condition. It’s certainly of vital strategic importance to them as it breaks the first island chain, pushes the US out of the region almost completely and puts Japan squarely in their sights, plus there is economic importance and there is a huge political dimension as well.
That’s true, though this wasn’t exactly an exhaustive list. Cuba was once part of Spain, and while it wasn’t exactly a peaceful transition it didn’t require a major war. India was once part of the UK, and that didn’t require a massive, devastating war either. Not sure what point you are trying to make, but sometimes things like this require war, at others they don’t…it depends. Taiwan probably won’t be independent without a war (or the collapse of the CCP), but the status quo only requires a war if the CCP pushing for a change.
Hawaii is a bad theoretical, mostly because it’s a full-blown state. The historical example of the Philippines is probably better. Or perhaps the idea that Puerto Rico finally decides to change the status quo and wants complete independence from the US. America is not going to put the boot down on Puerto Rico if they wanted independence.
I disagree with this conclusion as you aren’t factoring in the political dimension. Basically, IF the CCP pushes this to war they MUST win…and win relatively easily and relatively cost free. And relatively painlessly wrt damage to Taiwan. If they win but basically destroy Taiwan the political ramifications will be dire. Same goes if they win and take ruinous losses both in terms of men and material. If they lose then the CCP probably ceases to govern…I don’t think that even a different faction from Xi’s would survive such a defeat.
So, while I do think the CCP is on a course to do this, while they certainly have poured in plenty of resources specifically geared towards this goal, spent tons of political capital on firing up the nationalism on this, if they actually think they might lose, or that it will be way more costly, then they won’t pull the trigger…much as that also will hurt them. Just letting it go (for now) would hurt less than rolling the dice and losing it all, which they very well could do.
The trick, though, is convincing them that the juice isn’t worth the squeeze. And the problem there is that at all levels of their government, the lies roll up hill, and at all levels people tell them what they want to hear. That is a real issue.
Agreed. Guam I think is the best example, though obviously that one isn’t exactly a parallel…but if you are trying to torture out an analogy, I’d say Guam would be your best bet, or or maybe US Samoa. Neither is likely to even vote for a Communist takeover and want to ally with China (I’m laughing even thinking of Samoa doing this), but then neither is Puerto Rico. But in both those cases, the US might be willing to give them up IF the inhabitants voted for it. They aren’t states, and while they are both important strategically to the US I think that if there were enough votes we’d do it and move out of there. Puerto Rico though…while not a state, it’s the closest to one of any of the territories (and basically isn’t a state because of politics), and inhabitants are full US citizens in every sense of the word.
I wasn’t replying to an exhaustive list. I was replying to 3 specific examples, about territorial changes and countries “moving on.”
I disagree the CCP is going to lose control of the PRC if it fails in a military attempt to take Taiwan. I think that vastly underestimates how entrenched the CCP is in its control of the PRC.
That being said I think the single biggest risk in all of this is China assuming America won’t respond, “revisionist powers” have almost always precipitated very large, ultimately very destructive wars, because of a belief certain parties would not act over certain provocations. They usually had good reason to believe it, too, for example–previous provocations being mostly ignored. But I actually believe if PRC attempts to seize Taiwan by force, we will be at war with China. I don’t know what that war looks like, I strongly suspect it resembles the Falklands War, in that both sides try to avoid full strategic commitment, and both sides try to structure it in a way to avoid the war “growing in context”, but it will be much, much more dangerous than the Falklands because it will be between two nuclear superpowers and the escalatory dangers are far more serious than between Argentina and Britain.
From a purely historical perspective, Guam or the Philippines may be better. From a country’s view of the value of the territory, China clearly views Taiwan as more important than the US view(ed) either Guam or the Philippines.
You disagree it’s a potential outcome? What do you base that on? Just curious, not trying to pick a fight here, but you don’t see it as a possibility…or are you thinking I said it was 100%? It’s not, though I think the chance are good that if they fail to take it that will be it for the CCP. Not only will they get a ton of censure from the rest of the world (trade embargo, sanctions and the Europeans being disappointed) but they will have lost a major war that THEY have been pushing for and have been building their people up for. Plus, a lot of their most elite military are CCP members or their families, and these are the folks likely to be dying in droves (pilots, officers, especially in their navy, etc).
Interestingly I do think the important trade ties between the U.S. and China are why there hasn’t been a serious conflict between the U.S. and China since the Korean War, and why China hasn’t done something like invade Taiwan. So part of the theory that “trading partners don’t go to war”, long ago espoused and since rejected by many…holds up to at least some degree. I actually think the importance of those trade links are why things haven’t gotten worse than they are. At the same time, I think restraining China if it is going to be a revisionist power that invades other countries, is an important enough goal that it would be worth entering a Cold War footing with China, even with the ensuing economic recession, as a response.
I think Xi is actually a pretty terrible leader, and has gone against the grain of almost 40 years of shrewd Chinese leadership. He’s like a Putin except Putin who doesn’t understand the risks involved and doesn’t understand his own limitations, Putin controls a much weaker country than China but Putin understands what Russia can and can’t do, Xi is much less realistic about his situation on a number of fronts. Paradoxically part of Xi’s lack of realism AFAICT is his belief that China has to act in his lifetime, I think he fears he’s getting caught in the sort of “power squeeze” Imperial Germany feared in the late 19th, early 20th century. But his policies are what is causing the power squeeze, and if some of those policies were rolled back, China attempted to be more of a leader in region instead of a hegemon, you’d likely see many more years of quiet Chinese consolidation of power.
It’s just not a realistic possibility, no. The USSR broke apart in part because it already had semi-autonomous governing structures for some of its constituent parts, and was in part only possible because of years of political liberalization under Gorbachev. There has been absolutely nothing like that in China. The USSR didn’t fall apart suddenly, it was just perceived to have fallen apart suddenly by people who hadn’t paid attention to the USSR from 1985-1990. China likewise is not going to fall apart over a singular event, especially not some foreign policy blunder.
China lacks the sort of regional autonomy going on that the USSR had, it has one powerbase–Beijing. It also doesn’t have nearly the ethnic divisions the USSR did (it certainly has ethnic divisions, but the USSR was a much more ethnically and culturally heterogeneous country.) So without the risk of regional breakup, which did in the USSR, you need a collapse of the party itself in Beijing. That just isn’t likely for any reason that happens here and now. Such a collapse would require a serious loss of esteem and legitimacy, and it just wouldn’t happen over a single war. The old Chinese idea was that a government lost the “Mandate of Heaven” and thus was no longer entitled to rule. While we aren’t living in old Imperial China, the idea kind of still applies. There would have to be a widespread belief among the Chinese people that the Chinese government was illegitimate. This has happened many, many times in Chinese history. But it always involved severe failures of government and severe economic / military / disease / famine etc shit going on. Like the CCP didn’t collapse during Mao Zedong’s famine, it’s not going to collapse over some ill thought out naval campaign that results in a few thousand deaths (speculating on one possible outcome.)
The old concept, of course, was the Mandate of Heaven. If the PRC provokes a war and gets its ass handed to it (assuming it stays non-nuclear and we aren’t all screwed), I wouldn’t be convinced that it would still have the support of the people. That doesn’t mean the government will collapse but I could see plenty of individuals in the government being killed or disappeared.
Then totally disagree with you. Sorry, if you think there is no possibility then I don’t see how anyone following this stuff would agree. As to falling apart slowly, seriously…have you been following events? China IS falling apart and has been for a while. It’s part of why they have gotten so brutally totalitarian. Still, today, right now, the majority of the Chinese people are still engaged with and believe in the CCP. But losing a war would fundamentally change that and change the peoples perception of the CCP and their right to rule. It would be the final pillar knocked out.
Even winning but costing a lot would probably see Xi et al posing for gun fire or ‘purged in an anticorruption campaign’, but a complete loss? There is more than a slight change this would be the end, especially with the massive ramifications of even trying a war would have. China is floundering now with just Covid and the various economic issues they are having along with their trade wars with the US and Australia. If they attempted an invasion of Taiwan then most countries that aren’t Russia and a handful of other totalitarian/authoritarian states would embargo them…ESPECIALLY if the US actually won. The economic ramifications would be…dire.
I mean it goes back to you have been posting a lot about China lately, and it all relates to, in my opinion, unrealistic takes on the position of the CCP in China. There’s a big difference between China is in danger of decline, and the CCP is in danger of losing power. There is significant evidence China is in danger of decline, while there is no evidence the CCP’s political authority is being questioned in China. Can you show me any clear alternate party movements in China? Any major popular demonstrations? Anything like that?
Exactly. As for the government collapsing, I think you’d have a combination of Xi’s faction getting the axe, other factions either struggling for control or trying to get their families and assets out (which, again, has been happening for a while now for many of the elites)…it would be chaos. And I have my doubts that after such a defeat the PLA-whatever would be unified in what they want to do. Certainly the very large internal forces would be breaking into factions, again, as they are already since Xi controls some and other factions control others. The reason Xi hasn’t given all his enemies the axe is he can’t…not yet.
There are protests in China (we are talking the mainland) all the time. You simply don’t hear about them in the western media. There is a lot of anger, especially right now over a host of things from real estate to natural disasters to other land issues. There is a lot of anger over the systemic corruption. Sorry if you haven’t heard of any of this stuff…it’s all out there, if you can either sift through what the CCP censors, stifles, bans or the double speak of the people who have to talk in code about these things on their social media to avoid the repercussions.
I don’t think I have an unrealistic view of where the CCP is now…I think you aren’t really seeing what’s going on, and are filtering it through a standard westerners view of things. You probably know a bit about the real estate crisis, but you are probably putting that in terms of the 2008 meltdown in the US and thinking it’s really just the same thing. You’ve probably (well maybe) heard about the natural disasters, but are thinking in terms of what happens in Europe or the US when such things hit. You probably know about the elites and celebrities being targets by the government for yet another crackdown but probably think this is a good thing and no real implications or repercussions. You probably know about the gaming crack down, but again you put it in a context like what is happening in Europe. You probably know about or have heard about the labor issues and people out of work in droves in China but, again, you think in terms of the US or Europe, where when folks are out of work the government is giving them assistance and help.
All of this stuff is very different in China. This and a bunch more is happening right now…and if there was a war on top of that, and a war they lost? And the economic fallout? Seriously, you need to think about that more because the chances of the CCP going down without all that stuff, while poor aren’t exactly zero today. WITH all that stuff it’s better than 50/50 IMHO.