You have commented 358 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
China-Japan-Koreas
Get ready for war Hu tells troops
2005-03-14
President Hu Jintao was named China's top military chief yesterday, promptly telling the army to prepare for war to safeguard the country's territorial integrity, in an apparent reference to Taiwan. In a move that marked the final step in China's first bloodless leadership transition, Hu, 62, replaced ageing former leader Jiang Zemin, 78, as chairman of the state's Central Military Commission (CMC). He was selected by an overwhelming majority of 2,886 votes to six against and five undecided at a meeting of China's legislature, the National People's Congress (NPC). Hu used his appointment to show China's new leadership intended no let up in its determination to stop rival Taiwan from becoming independent. The president told a meeting of military delegates to the NPC that China's top priority was safeguarding its territorial integrity. "We must ... always place the task of defending national sovereignty, security and territorial integrity and safeguarding the interests of national development above anything else," Hu said.
I'm beginning to think these crazy SOBs are really going to do it.
Beijing insists that "non-peaceful means" will be used only as a "last resort." Hu indicated that reunifying with Taiwan by force, as Beijing has often said it would do if necessary, was not far from China's mind. "All comrades of the military should correctly understand the situation and resolutely perform the military's historical mission in the new century and the new development stage," he said. "We shall step up preparations for possible military struggle and enhance our capabilities to cope with crises, safeguard peace, prevent wars and win the wars if any," Hu said. The Chinese president had already succeeded Jiang in September as chairman of the Communist Party's CMC, which holds the real power over the world's largest military. Yesterday's appointment marks a further consolidation of power by Hu. With his appointment, Hu has taken over all of Jiang's responsibilities.
Posted by:Steve White

#59  Taiwan is about whether we will allow a free democratic country to be swallowed by a communist dictatorship - cut and dried. I suggest we won't, and the Chinese will face a hard-learned lesson, and a pyrrhic victory if they somehow win the island.
Posted by: Frank G   2005-03-14 10:30:31 PM  

#58  How sad is it that the North Koreans will be more free and better fed under Communist Chinese rule?
Posted by: trailing wife   2005-03-14 9:54:33 PM  

#57  Taiwan is about the legitimacy of the Communist Party of China. There is no real economic benefit by invading it and it will almost certainly be a severe setback to the CPoC. The place to watch is Mongolia. China has a similar historic claim to Tibet, it has oil and gas perhaps a lot, it has lost it's Russian protector, and geography makes it impossible to support militarily.
Posted by: phil_b   2005-03-14 6:17:38 PM  

#56  They can have it and the South, afaiac.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis   2005-03-14 5:30:03 PM  

#55  Nonetheless, the official state media have recently come out with pronouncements from Chinese historians that an ancient Korean kingdom - encompassing a chunk of Northeast Asia that is now Chinese soil - really ought to be considered an ancient Chinese kingdom).

yup. And a young friend of mine who is following the Korean situation closely (he's Korean American) expects China to move in and take that territory when the NORK regime falls.
Posted by: too true   2005-03-14 5:27:55 PM  

#54  ZF: come hell or high heaven.

That should have read: come hell or high water.
Posted by: Zhang Fei   2005-03-14 4:58:02 PM  

#53  mrp: I suspect that the current sabre-wrattling is a reaction to some serious domestic turmoil within the PRC.

99.99% of the time, a cigar is just a cigar. The current saber-rattling may simply be another in a long string of diplomatic warnings so that neighboring countries are not surprised (and subsequently do things that are prejudicial to the Chinese war effort) when an invasion actually happens. China's justifications for such an operation have been repeated ad infinitum, and most countries in East Asia have accepted its rationale, at least on the surface. (What they'll do if China finally acts is unknown, at least to us, but none of these countries probably wants to deal with that contingency). It's the same kind of reason that Uncle Sam went to the UN over the invasion of Iraq, to broadcast loud and clear to all and sundry that he was going in, come hell or high heaven.
Posted by: Zhang Fei   2005-03-14 4:57:04 PM  

#52  Tiannamen Square II is what those people truly fear, and everytime the Taiwanese hold a (relatively) free and fair election, the mandarins tremble.

There is something to this...sound plausible
Posted by: BigEd   2005-03-14 4:32:08 PM  

#51  I suspect that the current sabre-wrattling is a reaction to some serious domestic turmoil within the PRC. Now, take the recent Bennett-Peoples Daily interview with its strange riff on relativistic democracy, add a few multi-hundred thousand pro-democracy demonstrations in Lebanon, blend with elections in Iraq and Afghanistan, and you have a brew that's pure poison for China's Communist dictators.

Tiannamen Square II is what those people truly fear, and everytime the Taiwanese hold a (relatively) free and fair election, the mandarins tremble.
Posted by: mrp   2005-03-14 4:29:21 PM  

#50  BigEd: Also, anybody - What happened to the 6 that voted against Hu?

Not much of anything, I imagine. Mao was the last Chinese leader able to command the absolute and unified obedience of the rank-and-file of the Communist Party. Some of this was due to Mao's charisma and talent for political maneuvering, and some of it was due to the great post-Liberation prestige of the Party. But that era is over. The 6 who voted against Hu doubtless have their own power bases. Hu cannot move against them without risking retaliation. Inter-factional fighting probably presents the biggest risk of civil war, not civil disturbances. Throughout China's history, disgruntled officialdom have latched onto these disturbances to launch their bids for power.

Hu is the first among equals, but he must move with the consensus of the party leadership to command continued authority. Hua Guofeng, Mao's appointed heir, marched to the beat of his own drummer, and was replaced by Deng Xiaoping.
Posted by: Zhang Fei   2005-03-14 3:28:47 PM  

#49  Also, anybody - What happened to the 6 that voted against Hu?
Posted by: BigEd   2005-03-14 3:13:06 PM  

#48  #26...As regards China's location...

So you are saying the same thing about crossing Russia, or proto-Russia yet in the opposite direction than others...

The same think Hitler and Napoleon found out...

Russia is awfully big, and non-native empire builders when attempting to cross Russia are eventually going to run into the problem of spreading themselves too thin and having too long a supply line through alien territory?
Posted by: BigEd   2005-03-14 3:11:51 PM  

#47  Zhang Fei, either you've been drinking again or you're just prejudiced! ;)
Posted by: Rremble Glavise6984   2005-03-14 2:34:10 PM  

#46  MD: Goading the Japanese into allowing the "Self-Defence" forces to get involved in the defence of Taiwan with the Americans was a poor use of this influence.

Japan is Taiwan's former colonial overlord. Before Uncle Sam took custody of Taiwan after WWII, the relationship between Japan and Taiwan was similar to the one between Japan and Okinawa - more friendly than antagonistic. To expect Japan to stay out of a conflict between Taiwan and China is pretty unrealistic. The Japanese never declared their intentions openly, to avoid an open rupture with China. If you've ever dealt with the Japanese, you'll know that just because they don't say something doesn't mean they aren't concerned about an issue. The Chinese have long taken this into account.

Don't take Japanese protestations of their pacifistic intentions at face value. The moment Uncle Sam pulls away his (free) shield, Japan will re-arm vigorously. The Chinese have never seen the Japanese as a peaceful nation. And China is merely preparing the diplomatic ground for an invasion of Taiwan - first it has to scare off Taiwan's potential allies if it can, and at least serve notice of its intentions so that no one is surprised (which can lead to panic and alliance with Uncle Sam) when China finally acts. South Korea is likely to be on the sidelines, and no Southeast Asian nation has joined Japan. Even Australia has demurred with respect to automatic Australian involvement. The point here is to impress upon Taiwan's potential allies that they need to understand that they could find themselves at war with a nuclear-armed China. (It's a lot like Eisenhower threatening to nuke China during the Korean War because the Chinese refused to come to the negotiating table, even as he had no intention of doing so - it's an empty threat, but the opposition may be fazed anyway).
Posted by: Zhang Fei   2005-03-14 1:53:03 PM  

#45   expansion of its influence with all of its neighbors

Goading the Japanese into allowing the "Self-Defence" forces to get involved in the defence of Taiwan with the Americans was a poor use of this influence.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis   2005-03-14 12:57:26 PM  

#44  CS: Taiwan is the "Holy Grail" for the mainland.

Let me revise what I just said in agreeing with CS that Taiwan is the Holy Grail. Taiwan is not actually the Holy Grail. It is an important step along the way to the Holy Grail, which in Chinese eyes, is the world's acknowledgement of the Chinese state as richest and strongest power. China's ambition is not only to recover its past glory, but to expand upon it. In the short to medium term, this means the expansion of its influence with all of its neighbors, with a special focus on its former tributary states in East and Central Asia.
Posted by: Zhang Fei   2005-03-14 12:35:20 PM  

#43  And, one more thing. Polynesians are fairly light skinned, Melanesians are dark skinned.
Posted by: Sobiesky   2005-03-14 11:48:00 AM  

#42  That is correct - this is an ideology that predates any number of ism's in China's history. In this view - lands that Chinese troops have won and that China has ever claimed as its territory are inalienably Chinese territory.

Same as the Muslims. Once a Muslim territory it must remain a Muslim territory. Part of their so called Dar-al-Islam. This is why they hate and want Israel back. Spain too but not so much since it's not a spear thrust into the heart of Arabia
Posted by: sea cruise   2005-03-14 11:46:15 AM  

#41  seacruise, there were NO darker natives at the time of Kuomintang. There were just natives. The original polynesian folk was simply replaced/disolved in preceding 2 centuries. You also forgetting influx of Japanese between 1895 and 1945. Get it into your head.
Posted by: Sobiesky   2005-03-14 11:43:49 AM  

#40  CS: Taiwan is the "Holy Grail" for the mainland.

That is correct - this is an ideology that predates any number of ism's in China's history. In this view - lands that Chinese troops have won and that China has ever claimed as its territory are inalienably Chinese territory.

CS: They are willing to pay any cost for reunification.

China has a long history of limited wars for territorial gain. I wouldn't say the Chinese are willing to pay any cost - they wouldn't be willing to initiate a nuclear attack (and pay the price in the form of the ensuing nuclear retaliation), for instance. But they're willing to pay a significant cost. And they're willing to lose a few times before they get it right.

CS: If they invade and lose 100,000 troops, they will bear the cost.

I agree. And they'll bide their time and wait for the next opportunity to attack.
Posted by: Zhang Fei   2005-03-14 11:39:23 AM  

#39  

#37 sea cruise, native Taiwanese were darker skinned people (Polynesian
Malay) about 250 years ago, but about as dark skinned as Chinese peasants
working in fields, eposed to elements.



What has that to do with today's Taiwan?



Sobieski: This has to do with conquest (invasion) of Taiwan by Chiang Kai Shek
and his fleeing Kuomintang. The darker natives were treated as inferiors.
Taiwanese were treated as second class citizens for years though it has gotten
much better. Look at the political parties there. I think they are based on this
divide of mainland Chinese versus native Taiwanese, semi Polynesian as you call
them.



SeaCruise






Posted by: sea cruise   2005-03-14 11:37:42 AM  

#38  But on the whole there are several things driving this. 1) Economics, the govt of China needs to continously grow, slowing down will cause a crash, this what can be likend to a metastatic order (imagine a spinning plate on a pole).

The Taiwanese foreign currency reserves and the existent manufacturing base are the prize, but not the reason. China is no longer broke if it has the reserves. China can upgrade its industrial base by a decade or more....

By seizing Taiwan and it's hi tech base. Factories will not be moved anywhere except in the sense that Taiwanese manufacturing is always migrating to low cost China while the R&D stays on the islands. My motherboards are made in China whereas 5 years ago most were still made in Taiwan

I basically agree with what Valentino and Chuck have said.
Posted by: sea cruise   2005-03-14 11:30:50 AM  

#37  sea cruise, native Taiwanese were darker skinned people (Polynesian Malay) about 250 years ago, but about as dark skinned as Chinese peasants working in fields, eposed to elements.

What has that to do with today's Taiwan?

Chinese started to immigrate to Taiwan about that time and intermarried with locals. Further waves of immigrants changed the character of the island and in the middle of 19th century, you would not find any difference between mainland and Taiwanese people.
Posted by: Sobiesky   2005-03-14 11:25:15 AM  

#36  "A racial divide. Am I wrong?"

Yep you're wrong. Taiwan itself was basically invaded by mainland China several times. Heck a good portion of the current Taiwanese population aint exactly Taiwanese natives ya know ;)

But on the whole there are several things driving this. 1) Economics, the govt of China needs to continously grow, slowing down will cause a crash, this what can be likend to a metastatic order (imagine a spinning plate on a pole). The economy needs to grow at a faster rate in order to be stable or it will simply fall apart. This means that China has to often look at addition sources of fresh income for its economy..guess what Taiwan is, its the New Hong Kong they NEED to acquire.

2) China believes that since it once held Taiwan it must regain it, this is true of a lot of lands they say they once held. We can argue about a lot of details here, but theres quite a bit of literature in their own words that say they have a right to even Japan and the Aleutian islands. (not that I'm saying they're correct, I think they're bloody idiots if they think this).

3) Finally the CCP believes it cannot continue unless it re-acquires Taiwan, its made it a central premise of their government. Why this is so is partially because of the above two reasons. The CCP knows theres a growing restlessness in China itself, it doesn't want another Tiananmen. It needs to divert the peoples attention. (What better way than an invasion to stir up nationalism eh?)
Posted by: Valentine   2005-03-14 11:18:02 AM  

#35  Taiwan is the "Holy Grail" for the mainland. They are willing to pay any cost for reunification. If they invade and lose 100,000 troops, they will bear the cost.

The Taiwanese foreign currency reserves and the existant manufacturing base are the prize, but not the reason. China is no longer broke if it has the reserves. China can upgrade its industrial base by a decade or more by moving Taiwanese factories to the mainland. It's what the Soviets did after WWII and I'm certain the Chinese would follow the same model.

Race wise, current China is a mix of colors and languages. The Han are on top, but it hasn't always been that way in Chinese empires.

Various Chinese leaders have pronounced territorial claims to parts of the Russian Far East, Korea, Japan, the Philipines, Taiwan, Southeast Asia and South Asia. And they continue to mention that Admiral who sailed around the world, and to America a whole lot. Chinese Imperial ambition is limited only by their imagination.
Posted by: Chuck Simmins   2005-03-14 11:07:48 AM  

#34  MD: You have selected facts from only the last 20 years. But if one looks at the last 200, the record is not as good. Time will tell whether China can keep the train on the tracks.

Statecraft has to do with getting what you can with the resources at hand. In all of the past 200 years, including now, China has been a laggard in technological and economic terms. And yet it has kept its empire together, even as all the European empires have fallen apart. When it lost the Anglo-Chinese Wars (Opium Wars to the Chinese), it gave away ... Hong Kong - a fishing village and got a bustling metropolis back 100 years later. If that's not statecraft, I don't know what is. Now that the Chinese leadership has committed to modernization, the train is essentially unstoppable. Like I said, think of China as Taiwan when it started industrializing, but 60 times bigger. Even the form of government is identical - except for the occasional Marxist platitude.
Posted by: Zhang Fei   2005-03-14 11:01:16 AM  

#33  "Native Taiwanese are dark skin people. Too bad most are gone now"

http://www.modelminority.com/comment5097-808-5095.html

Bugger off Phil and Sobieski. You lose on the racial divide and on the wealth at stake/// Whiter Asians always look down on their darker brothers. How much they look down and dominate depends on the situation.

Just follow the money. China wants Taiwan because they have so much money (cash reserves in their national bank) and very nice high technology plus they are right next door. Taiwan is viewed as ripe for the plucking
Posted by: sea cruise   2005-03-14 10:53:00 AM  

#32  #30 What an amazing coincidence!
Posted by: Sobiesky   2005-03-14 10:49:45 AM  

#31  That is a generalization not backed up by a preponderance of facts.

You have selected facts from only the last 20 years. But if one looks at the last 200, the record is not as good. Time will tell whether China can keep the train on the tracks.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis   2005-03-14 10:47:55 AM  

#30  That ancient Korean kingdom also happens to include most of North Korea.
Posted by: Zhang Fei   2005-03-14 10:45:03 AM  

#29  BH: I thought I read somewhere that China considers the Korean peninsula a part of China too. Is this correct? Why do we hear nothing about their historic claims to Korea, are they saving Il Senor Kookypants for last?

Fighting your enemies one at a time is generally consistent with limiting the cost of war without letting go of your long-term objectives. This way, your enemies do not form alliances against you. (Nonetheless, the official state media have recently come out with pronouncements from Chinese historians that an ancient Korean kingdom - encompassing a chunk of Northeast Asia that is now Chinese soil - really ought to be considered an ancient Chinese kingdom).
Posted by: Zhang Fei   2005-03-14 10:41:01 AM  

#28  The big deterrent of the past (supposedly) was that taking Taiwan would be too costly so the PRC wouldn’t do it. If they attacked Taiwan, the losses in both men and material would be great. The U.S. couldn’t launch a relief effort for at least a week (probably longer) and it would be a dangerous journey for the troops who had to cross the Pacific to fight. That is only if the President had the political will to mount an effort to defend Taiwan. We kind of know what Bush would do, but what about a President Hillary, McCain, Kerry, etc.? I won’t even pretend that the EU or NATO would lift a finger to help anyone, because they can’t. The PRC doesn’t seem rushed to vanquish Taiwan and could wait until the political winds turn in their favor. Taiwan has a great military and may even have nukes, but I doubt they could win a prolong war with the PRC.
Posted by: Cyber Sarge   2005-03-14 10:29:13 AM  

#27  I thought I read somewhere that China considers the Korean peninsula a part of China too. Is this correct? Why do we hear nothing about their historic claims to Korea, are they saving Il Senor Kookypants for last?
Posted by: BH   2005-03-14 10:29:10 AM  

#26  MD: Zhang, I'll definitely defer to you, but it seems to me they kept their continental scale empire by having a pretty good geographic location and supplementing it as necessary with walls.

As regards China's location, I think every region in the world has had some degree of luck, good and bad, from the standpoint of geography. If the ancient Romans had been next to the Chinese states at the inception of the Roman empire, there would have been no Roman empire. If Greece had been next to what is now China at the time of the creation of the Greek empire, Alexander would have been crushed by armies of one Chinese state or another, and the entire Greek population massacred. If Europe had been next to Mongolia at the time of Genghis Khan, Europe would have become one large Mongolian satrapy. I understand that the average layman's understanding of Chinese military history is that of an army of laundrymen or fast food takeout deliverymen, but there is a reason that the Chinese historical work Sangoku (San Guo Zhi - Records of the Three Kingdoms), which records the century-long conflict among the three post-Han Dynasty Chinese states, is also a classic among military-minded Japanese.

MD: Their track record since having to deal with the entire world is not that great.

That is a generalization not backed up by a preponderance of facts. The reality is that China has gotten into the WTO. It has gotten its products into various markets, by selectively offering inducements and proffering threats. It has isolated Taiwan and pried the country away from its longtime sponsor, Uncle Sam, such that the US does not even have an embassy on Taiwan, and has to horsetrade with China over what weapons it is allowed to sell to Taiwan. It has fostered close relations with neighboring countries, such that opinion polls in the region show China ahead of Uncle Sam from a popularity standpoint - even as it has aggressively pried territory away from the weakest of them. That is statecraft - getting your neighbors to like you even as you are sticking it to them. What the State Department has accomplished - getting Uncle Sam's "allies" to hate the US even as it is doing good things for them - is the reverse of statecraft.

MD: They are currently exploiting their entry into capitalism and their pool of low cost labor.

There are large pools of low cost labor everywhere - some that are much closer to their end markets in Europe and North America (meaning transportation costs are far lower), such as Latin America and Africa. China is on the other side of the world - a full 12 time zones away. And yet China is the country that is modernizing its infrastructure to the point that a phone call to China - a continental-sized country - costs less than a call to neighboring Jamaica.

MD: Whether, or what it will take for them to become sufficiently integrated with the western world as have the Japanese remains to be seen.

I'm not sure that's the point. China does not need to become integrated with the Western world in the same sense that neither the US nor the EU (each as a continental-scale powers in its own right) needs to become integrated with anyone. China is a power pole all by itself. Countries will or will not trade with China based on whether they perceive this to be advantageous from a national perspective. But China will grow, whether its rivals like it or not, simply because it has a government that has gotten a lot right. It's record isn't perfect, but then again, neither was Taiwan's record, which spent most of its post-war experience under China's present form of governance, while becoming one of the Asian tigers. Think of China as Taiwan, but with 60 times the population. This is why even anti-China Taiwanese businessmen are in Taiwan - because this is a production base (and potential market) they cannot ignore. China has cast off an alien ideology - Marxism - in all but words and reverted to the kind of commercialism that led, among other things, to the Chinese invention of paper money.
Posted by: Zhang Fei   2005-03-14 10:28:04 AM  

#25  sea cruise you are just Sh** for brains. Go away.
Posted by: phil_b   2005-03-14 9:58:44 AM  

#24  It's secondary. China wants Taiwan because that's where the money is.

I am thinking about some dignified reply...
Crapola. Howz that?
If money was what they were after, they would leave Taiwan alone and get trading busily. The fastest way how to lose money vis-a-vis Taiwan is to try takeover.

Am I wrong?

Yes. The only differences were cultural. The natives were fishermen and farmers. The newcomers had more of an urban character.
Posted by: Sobiesky   2005-03-14 9:17:17 AM  

#23  I'm taking a guess that the native Taiwanese were darker and browner than the 1947 Kuomintang invaders. Who are more "white", higher IQ and from the Middle Kingdom to which all must bow.

A racial divide. Am I wrong?
Posted by: sea cruise   2005-03-14 9:03:52 AM  

#22  The preserve-face issue is dominant.

Not true. It's secondary. China wants Taiwan because that's where the money is. Taiwan is low hanging fruit for a dragon monster like China. Same as Kuwait with it's oil reserves was an irresistible target for Saddam Hussein.

Taiwan has huge foreign currency reserves and a fantastic hi-tech sector. EXAMPLE: All recent laptop manufacturing and innovation has been done on Taiwan. China wants this done all under the name of China, not Taiwan. With the profits to accrue to the ascending capitalist class and the princeling (sons and daughters of high level communists) class of China
Posted by: sea cruise   2005-03-14 9:00:00 AM  

#21  sea cruise, since you know 100%, why on urdth you ask, then?

There may be some oil under Taiwan or uranium ore inland. But that is nothing trade agreements would not solve. The preserve-face issue is dominant.

Mrs. Davis, the indigenous Taiwanese are Chinese too. They sort of resented the invasion of Kuomintang Mainlanders for a while, but nowadays, that has been largely blurred out, they all consider themselves Taiwanese.
Posted by: Sobiesky   2005-03-14 8:31:36 AM  

#20  Don't discount the strategic importance of taking out 3-G Dam.Not only would it do serious damage to China's electrical suppy,the resulting flood would destroy billions of dollars in property and the loss of life would staggering.The Yangtzhe River Valley is China's"Bread basket"and"Rice bowl"much like the Mid-west is to the U.S.One of the primary drivers for construction of the dam was to control flooding in the Yantzhe Flood Plain.
Posted by: raptor   2005-03-14 8:27:49 AM  

#19  Sobieski, ZF, I'm no ethnologist, but I thought the Taiwanese considered them selves non-Chinese, like the Tibetans, and that the Chinese who are there came over in 1949. True?

And just like the Japanese, but without the good reasons, the Chinese are picking a fight with the wrong guy. No body would begrudge them Siberia if they could do it without starting a nuclear war.

They may have concluded that the liklihood of war with the eagle is a lot lower than war with the bear. But the bear hibernates and once the eagle is pissed, you're toast. I don't think they've figured out that last part.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis   2005-03-14 8:18:39 AM  

#18  Wrong answer sobieki though you 10% have it right.
Posted by: sea cruise   2005-03-14 8:03:43 AM  

#17  sea cruise, why does China want Tibet? (I know they have it already, they still want it, don'dey?)
Or a chunk of Sibiria?

Taiwan was a part of China's territory for quite a while. The people that inhabit it are Chinese. If Mainlanders they say goodbye to Taiwan today, they may say goodbye to Tibet tomorrow.

Sibiria, no, it was not part of their territory, but in their eyes, it is just lying there idly. It is an affront to them to see idly lying chunks of land. Especially when they are 1/4 of humankind.

Chinese imperialism is alive and well.
Posted by: Sobiesky   2005-03-14 7:54:02 AM  

#16  They've talked themselves into wanting it back as a face issue. Reconstitutes the Chinese empire at its maximum extent. Sort of like getting Hong Kong back. Face. Shows they can make Uncle Sam back down so other smaller regional powers should back down before them.

Zhang, I'll definitely defer to you, but it seems to me they kept their continental scale empire by having a pretty good geographic location and supplementing it as necessary with walls. Their track record since having to deal with the entire world is not that great. They are currently exploiting their entry into capitalism and their pool of low cost labor. Whether, or what it will take for them to become sufficiently integrated with the western world as have the Japanese remains to be seen.

Given a choice between India and China, I'd go long India and short China.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis   2005-03-14 7:52:32 AM  

#15  1)China wants Taiwan.


Why does China want Taiwan? This is not a trick question.
Posted by: sea cruise   2005-03-14 7:38:05 AM  

#14  Standard Chinese state craft.

1)China wants Taiwan.

2)Even though the Norks are a bit troublesome for China,they potentially are a great asset for China when dealing with the US.

3)I think this latest move is just another making it clear what China wants in trade for direct help with North Korea.

It could backfire...For instance;

Japan,South Korea,Taiwan,Ausies could really invest big time with the US on defence in the area.

and theres always the law of unintended consequences to contend with. (bites)

BTW thanks Jimmy,Bill,and Halfbright for f*cking things up even worse-r.


Posted by: Rremble Glavise6984   2005-03-14 6:00:04 AM  

#13  Funny, just an hour ago I was reading about how a large portion of the East China Sea Fleet is based right near where I live, including a Naval Airbase. Wheee! The submarine that intruded into Japanese waters a while back was based at an island a bit offshore.
Posted by: gromky   2005-03-14 4:26:00 AM  

#12  An attempted invasion of Taiwan would be a catastrophe for what is now a heavily trade dependent economy. The resulting economic shock would almost certainly cause severe internal problems and IMO bring down the communist regime. I.e. I don't think China will invade unless some highly disruptive geopolitical event occurs and the world is far more concerned about it than Taiwan such as the MM's start a nuke war, pandemic, etc. Talk is cheap.

Concerning the 3 gorges dam, I think it may well be a target. Whether that is just to knock out its power production (which is huge) or bring down the dam itself which would kill millions depends on a number of factors.
Posted by: phil_b   2005-03-14 3:53:43 AM  

#11  3dc: Zhang Fei - Would the supreme tactical target on the planet survive the attack? Yeah I am thinking of 3 Gorges.

My impression from reading about successful attacks on the Ruhr river valley dams in WWII is that they're really not such a big deal. The biggest hit would be to power generation - big chunks of the surrounding areas would lose power, dealing a severe economic blow to the regional economy given what will have been its dependence on cheap and abundant hydro power. I don't see Taiwan attacking this unless it wants to see attacks on its power plants and cities. Interdiction is far more important - fuel depots, ammo dumps, weapons factories, naval bases and aircraft hangars.
Posted by: Zhang Fei   2005-03-14 2:04:54 AM  

#10  Zhang Fei - Would the supreme tactical target on the planet survive the attack? Yeah I am thinking of 3 Gorges.

I just can't see Taiwanese (not the ROC) leaving it standing if attacked.
Posted by: 3dc   2005-03-14 1:54:52 AM  

#9  JM: No matter what, I doubt China will wage war for Taiwan and NOT make any move to knock out either Japan or SK, espec Japan. China will move ags Japan-SK whether when she moves ags Taiwan or after Taiwan.

China will attempt to strictly limit the scope of the war in order to avoid having countries in the region cooperate with the US via bases - or even troops. Hence, I do not see attacks on US bases in Korea or Japan, which would be viewed as casus belli by both countries, as well as every other East Asian nation. If China widened the war, a loss by China would lead to the official recognition of Taiwan by other East Asian nations, which would now see Taiwan as a bulwark against future Chinese territorial expansion.
Posted by: Zhang Fei   2005-03-14 1:53:02 AM  

#8  China also has the advantage of being able to play the role of spoiler, knowing that Uncle Sam will undo any damage rendered by Chinese deals with the devil. Without Uncle Sam around to prevent an Iranian monopoly on Middle Eastern oil, China would not be selling Iran both nuclear and ballistic missile technology. Because Uncle Sam has committed to securing Middle Eastern oil supplies for everyone and is capable of doing so, albeit at some cost to himself, China can sell to Iran, secure in the knowledge that Uncle Sam will step in if Iran gets out of hand. China knows Uncle Sam can take care of Iran - and the kicker, from China's standpoint, is that any confrontation with Iran also has the benefit of weakening the US by draining its resources.
Posted by: Zhang Fei   2005-03-14 1:48:14 AM  

#7  Ther are many reasons given, with the real answer snakin' its way somewhere thru few or all of them, includ VOTE FOR HILLARY 2008!?
No matter what, I doubt China will wage war for Taiwan and NOT make any move to knock out either Japan or SK, espec Japan. China will move ags Japan-SK whether when she moves ags Taiwan or after Taiwan. GMD in East Asia plus the USA in the ME and CENASIA = Chinese Communism-centric hegemony is finis before it even begins.
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2005-03-14 1:47:19 AM  

#6  Hu's on first, Kim's on second, Khatami's on third. Sorry.
Posted by: Rex Rufus   2005-03-14 1:45:07 AM  

#5  VII: While the Chinese are not particularly crafty or gifted at geopolitics, I don't think they'd dare open that can of worms.

That's where I have to disagree. China is the only continental-scale empire that has lasted over 2000 years. They are gifted at geopolitics - playing a weak hand with a mixture of bluff and bluster during times of weakness, and expanding their territory via military conquest combined with large-scale settlement and assimilation / expulsion of the natives during times times of strength. Uncle Sam's the one that's a real loser at geopolitics - think about how powerful the United States is economically and politically - and then think about how difficult it is to get its "allies" to do anything that is in Uncle Sam's interests. China routinely compels other countries to do things that are in its interests. That is the meaning of talent at geopolitics - being able to compel others to do as you wish. The US had to invade Afghanistan and Iraq to get Muslim countries to stop financing anti-American Muslim terrorists. China solved its Xinjiang problem without invading any Muslim country. Think about it.
Posted by: Zhang Fei   2005-03-14 1:38:31 AM  

#4  Disagree, ZF. That is, WRT China invading. While the Chinese are not particularly crafty or gifted at geopolitics, I don't think they'd dare open that can of worms. Besides, decisively thwarting any sort of invasion will remain fairly easy for the US/Taiwan alliance for a long, long time, given limited Chinese military capability. Launching missiles at Taiwan to induce a financial blow will produce blow-back magnified by a factor of 10 in Beijing's face. The smart course for Taipei is blindingly obvious here. Declare undying fealty to national unity, but under a civilized, democratic, free-market system, and state specific terms (infeasible in the short run) for Beijing to meet for formal reunification.
Posted by: Verlaine in Iraq   2005-03-14 1:23:57 AM  

#3  " doubt it - they need ships to get there. Ships are expensive things - once sunk, it takes a while and a lot of moola to build new ones. If you add up the total capacity of Chinese shipping, I doubt they have enough to do a Normandy-style landing involving 100,000 troops"

Junks, fishing trawlers, ferries, etc. I think ZF ;) Doesn't mean they cant take a lot of losses if you got someone with a cool head and an eye for logistics and artillery know how on the defending side.
Posted by: Valentine   2005-03-14 1:18:13 AM  

#2  Sobiesky: One of reasons may be an attempt to reduce the pool of unmarriable males due to disparity caused by chinese population policies throughout the last 20 years. (51.7% mal/48.3% fem; 1-25 age group).

I doubt it - they need ships to get there. Ships are expensive things - once sunk, it takes a while and a lot of moola to build new ones. If you add up the total capacity of Chinese shipping, I doubt they have enough to do a Normandy-style landing involving 100,000 troops, without most of their ships ending up at the bottom of the Taiwan Straits. That barely scratches the surface, with regard to the pool of Chinese males of military age.

Hu was also known as the Pacifier of Tibet during the Tiananmen troubles. If he secures Taiwan, his reputation in Chinese history is secure. If he gambles and loses, he'll still be known as someone who tried, but failed. He can't lose, from the standpoint of his long term reputation. This is why a (limited) conflict over Taiwan is likely.

I think people can relax - China will not use nukes (against the US or Taiwan) over Taiwan. China has a long post-Liberation history of fighting limited wars for territorial gains. No Chinese leader is going to trade Shanghai or Beijing for Taipeh. But China is very likely to invade - it's just a matter of time. Economists are filling Chinese heads about how necessary China is to the continued financing of the US trade and budget deficits. They will take the calculated gamble that the US will not do anything in regard to trade with China, and will not, in any event, be able to force its major trading partners to stop trading with China, in the event of a conflict.
Posted by: Zhang Fei   2005-03-14 1:04:17 AM  

#1  One of reasons may be an attempt to reduce the pool of unmarriable males due to disparity caused by chinese population policies throughout the last 20 years. (51.7% mal/48.3% fem; 1-25 age group).

Yea, I know, Taiwanese had nothing to do with it.
Posted by: Sobiesky   2005-03-14 12:39:40 AM  

00:00