Ignore the rhetoric, China won't attack Taiwan

Asian Times ^ | 2-11-04 | Daniel McCarthy

[John H K]

Really well-reasoned article, but the FR "The PRC Military is GODLIKE all thanks to KLINTON AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHH!!!" crowd won't like it.

I'd welcome any Chinese attempt to "invade" Taiwan, as its inevitable failure would mean the collapse of the the PRC government.

[bobo1]

President George W Bush has declared that he will do "anything it takes" to defend Taiwan,

There you have it. Walk softly, but carry a big stick. Excellent article.

Blessings, bobo

[The Old Hoosier]

Their military is not god-like, but it is so large and its commanders are so ruthless and willing to kill civilians that I would not be confident about any of this.

[VaBthang4]

Title should read:

"Ignore the rhetoric, China physically incapable of attacking Taiwan"

[Gorjus]

"Ignore the rhetoric, China physically incapable of attacking Taiwan"

Sorry, but this is too simplistic. For example, the idea of a sea blockade assumes only one form of that blockade - a distant cordon of ships/planes that don't allow ships to reach Taiwan. That's not required. There are only three real ports in Taiwan (north, west, and south), and ships in all three would be vulnerable after they reach port. It doesn't take a distant blockade. Mine the ports, or attack ships in the ports, and commercial ships stop coming. Total subjugation won't happen until there are 'boots on the ground', but Taiwan is very vulnerable to crippling attacks before an actual invasion. And there is no guarantee that a "US forces will only be used with UN permission" President won't abrogate our obligations to Taiwan. (After all, PRC is on the UN Security Council and would obviously veto any UN authority to use force.)

It is more consistent with international law to accept that the PRC has - via revolution - taken over the political entity known as 'China' than to assume, as this article does, that the PRC is a new entity that has sovereignty only over the mainland. The political entity known as 'China' did indeed include Taiwan just as the current political entity known as 'The United States' includes Hawaii (though at one point Hawaii was independent). So the argument that Taiwan was never part of the entity currently known as 'China' and currently controlled by the PRC is also wrong. (I've been to Taiwan too, and most of the people there are of mainland heritage, not indigenous to the Island. They think Taiwan is part of China. They just think they are the 'real' China. The current generation is more pragmatic and may accept independence, but it would be considered a change, not the current de jure condition.)

What should be done? Probably more of the same. Taiwan needs to maintain a strong defense, and a strong economy. The contradictions of state socialism will bring the socialists down in time. History is on Taiwan's side. And when re-unification occurs, the political system is more likely to be capitalist (Taiwan) than socialist (PRC).

[GigaDittos]

Here is what the Chinese say.

[tallhappy]

The political entity known as 'China' did indeed include Taiwan

Wrong. Not accurate.

Taiwan was ceded to Japan in 1895. Japan renounced sovereignty over it in 1951.

[tallhappy]

Here is what the Chinese say.

Read the second paragraph of #6 and you'll also know what the communists say.

[Gorjus]

Taiwan was ceded to Japan in 1895. Japan renounced sovereignty over it in 1951.

1683 - Manchus (Tartars) led by Shilang . . annexed Taiwan to Chinese Empire.

October 1945 - Chiang Kai-Chek appointed General Chen-Yi to take over Taiwan.

There have been many claims to authority over Taiwan. Some were both de facto and de jure, others were de facto only (as in the period between 1945 and 1951). Most of the changes of authority were grudging and the result of a lost battle or war. (As in 1895, and in 1945 - nothing unusual in that, of course) The culture and self-identity seldom tracked that of the nominal sovereign authority. While the Portugese claimed it, for example, the people did not consider themselves Portugese.

Bottom line: The dominant culture on both the mainland and on Taiwan itself consider Taiwan to be part of 'China'. They just have a differing opinion who has the best claim to be the 'real' China. And on whether Taiwan being part of 'China' is a good thing or a bad thing.

My own position is that all disputed territorial claims should be considered moot after ten years without active, effective effort to resolve the dispute. It makes no more sense to me to have China (PRC) claim Taiwan - or for the self-styled 'Republic of China' to claim the mainland - than to have Argentina claim the Falklands despite a hundred years of British 'rule.' But it's not my choice to make. I was just reporting on the attitude of the actual people involved.

[tallhappy]

Your history is not right.

It's kind of right, but just not.

For example in 1945 that was the allied occupation of Japanese territory. Chiang then established that day, October 25, as Retrocession day, which is a holidat in Taiwan to this day. But it was not a transfer of sovereignty (although the Chinese tried to claim it was) and more than our occupation of Japan transferred Japan's soverignty to us.

Suffice to say you have received bogus info or representation of history. One of the problems on this issue is that this Chinese centered half truth presentation is all that most people know.

Facts of the matter indicate otherwise.

Taiwan after WWII much more fell in to the status of former colony than anything else.

As mentioned, Japan's surrender of sovereignty over Taiwan did not occur until 1951.

Taiwan was part of Japan when the Emeperor fell (1911) and when the civil war began in the 1920's and throughout WWII. Taiwan had nothing to do with the Chinese civil war.

[tallhappy]

My own position is that all disputed territorial claims should be considered moot after ten years without active

I agree.

[David1]

It can be as large as a billion soldiers. They still need to put those soldiers on Taiwanese soil. I don't think the Chinese can.

[David1]

Pity The Poor Chinese Navy
http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/defense/030915b.asp

[David1]

Read post #14 for somemore info

[The Old Hoosier]

All it would take is a few ships. I find it to be a scary possibility.

[David1]

It will take more tan a few ships. But they still have to cross the straits. There they will come under immense attacks. I don't think the Chinese can do it.

[Poohbah]

Their military is not god-like, but it is so large and its commanders are so ruthless and willing to kill civilians that I would not be confident about any of this.

Killing large quantities of civilians does not win you wars. It merely guarantees that their loved ones will be motivated to keep fighting.

[Poohbah]

All it would take is a few ships. I find it to be a scary possibility.

"Never take the counsel of your fears" -- Stonewall Jackson.

It would take a LOT of ships--far more than the ChiComs actually have that can support forcible entry operations.

The initial lodgement would have to be quite large to prevent the Taiwanese from defeating it in detail, lest the PLA merely serve itself up in convenient bite-size pieces.

[Fishing-guy]

Base on your stay in Taiwan, do you find most people consider themselves ethnically Chinese or do they see themselves ethnically different?

No one has ever clearly explained the motives behind the Taiwan independence movement. After all, the current Republic of China (ROC) is de facto independent from PRC, so what is the motivation for an independence movement? Furthermore, this movement and name changing do not seem to have popular support, so who is pushing it behind the scene?