China gears up for showdown, ball in Taiwan's court

AlertNet ^ | July 5, 2004 | Benjamin Kang Lim

[twntaipan]

China gears up for showdown, ball in Taiwan's court 05 Jul 2004 06:05:03 GMT

By Benjamin Kang Lim

BEIJING, July 5 (Reuters) - When China holds war games on Dongshan island off its southeastern coast this month, its SU-27 fighters will battle for air superiority and back up an amphibious landing in a mock invasion of Taiwan.

Convinced that Taiwan President Chen Shui-bian will push for statehood during his second four-year term, China is readying for a showdown with the island which Beijing has claimed as its own since the end of the Chinese civil war in 1949.

Booming China wants to avoid conflict, analysts say. The ball is in Taiwan's court -- whether conflict breaks out hinges on how far Chen pushes the envelope.

"They do not wish to use force...This is not their preferred course of action. But they are preparing for worst-case scenarios," said David Shambaugh, an expert on the People's Liberation Army (PLA) at George Washington University.

"I've been coming to China every year for the last 25 years, I have never sensed a higher level of anxiety over the Taiwan issue than at the present time."

Chen's predecessor, Lee Teng-hui, has played down the threats and likened China to a "barking dog that won't bite".

Taiwan has apparently been emboldened by U.S. President George W. Bush's pledge to do whatever it takes to help the self-ruling democratic island defend itself, but analysts said it may be miscalculating Beijing's resolve.

"The danger of war truly exists," said Wang Jisi, director of the Institute of International Strategy at the Central Party School, which trains Communist apparatchiks.

PAPER TIGER?

"We're not a paper tiger. We're a real tiger," he said, adding that China needs to "strengthen the credibility" of its longstanding threat to attack if Taiwan declares statehood.

Lee dismissed Chinese threats after war games following his landmark U.S. visit in 1995 mellowed into little more than a war of words when he, and later Chen, pushed for independence.

Taiwan's leaders are betting that China will not risk breakneck growth, which is needed to create enough jobs, avert social unrest and perpetuate Communist Party rule.

Military conflict would certainly invite a boycott of the 2008 Beijing Olympics and diplomatic isolation worse than in the years after the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests were crushed.

Instability would drive away foreign investors and Taiwanese who have poured $100 billion into China since the late 1980s. It would also rattle the global chip industry and financial markets.

Taiwan, armed to the teeth with U.S. and French jet fighters and warships, is counting on U.S. help in the event of conflict. Washington switched diplomatic recognition from Taipei to Beijing in 1979, but remains Taiwan's biggest arms supplier and ally.

"The chances of a full-scale invasion of Taiwan before 2012 are very low" because the PLA is incapable of taking on the United States, said Chong-Pin Lin, a former Taiwan deputy defence minister. He did not rule out more sabre rattling.

But Kenneth Lieberthal, a Sinologist at the University of Michigan, said Taiwan is wrong when it assumes Beijing is "all bluff when it talks about the use of force".

"The second assumption is: if the first assumption is wrong, then Chen nevertheless has a military blank cheque from the United States...I believe both assumptions are wrong," he said.

Washington has no desire to be dragged into a conflict with China over Taiwan. But the three are faced with a potentially vicious circle: Taiwan flirts with independence, leading to Chinese invasion threats which force the United States to back the island which in turn further emboldens Taipei.

Chen appears determined to adopt a new constitution in 2008, a move seen by Beijing as a formal declaration of independence.

China on the other hand has painted itself into a corner by beating the drums of war. No Chinese leader can afford to be seen as weak by giving in on the mission of reunification.

Beijing does not trust Chen, but he believes it will eventually deal with him. "The chances of dialogue resuming will be high after the year-end parliamentary elections and the U.S. elections," a senior Taiwan government source told Reuters. (Additional reporting by John Ruwitch and Juliana Liu)

[twntaipan]

Might this be the reason the US is deploying 7 Carrier Strike Groups to the Western Pacific?

[carl in alaska]

Yes...also for a possible quarantine of shipping from N. Korea because of NK trading in WMD components. The covert wars are heating up into real conflicts.

[185JHP]

We can make Thug China even more backward than it is, with our submarines. They aren't stupid enough to push W enough to find out the costly way.

[WestVirginiaRebel]

The Chinese know that our forces are stretched thin, and they may be testing us as we get closer to the election. I would strongly advise them not to push too hard.

[185JHP]

We're not stretched thin enough for them to push us, as you say. They shouldn't let their emotions get out of hand. Thanks for your response.

[neutrino]

Well, well.

Taiwan is toast. They don't realize it, but they are.

The U.S. won't back them at all. Why, you ask. Notice that over $100,000,000,000 has been invested in China, much by U.S. companies. China has become the world's center for manufacturing.

The U.S. in not going to risk its investments. We cannot win a war against China, since we've denuded ourselves of manufacturing infrastructure.

Taiwan may as well realize that, given a choice between sacrificing their lives and freedom on the one hand, and cheap Chinese junk on the other, we will defend cheap trinkets first.

Behold, free traitors - the first installment on the bills you're running up is about to come due. But what the hey - it's only a few million people's freedom. Enjoy your trip to Wally World.

[endthematrix]

"Taiwan is toast." "The U.S. won't back them at all." "We cannot win a war against China"

Utter nonsense.

"We've denuded ourselves of manufacturing infrastructure""Why, you ask. Notice that over $100,000,000,000 has been invested in China, much by U.S. companies. China has become the world's center for manufacturing. "

You're getting warmer...

"cheap Chinese junk "

Right on target!

[Lessismore]

Taiwan's exports to China were something like $19 B in the first 4 months of 2004. Their imports from China were about $3 B.

Taiwan's semiconductors, LCD displays, and other high tech products go to China for assembly with plastics, mechanicals and other parts produced in China.

The finished goods are shipped mainly to the US.

Taiwan's economy would be totally trashed by a Chinese embargo.

[twntaipan]

Could be toast, or could be not. The biggest foreign investor in China (that $1 billion you talk about) is not the US--it's Taiwan.

[neutrino]

The biggest foreign investor in China (that $1 billion you talk about) is not the US--it's Taiwan.

So if Taiwan were taken, that investment would be controlled by the PRC. Sounds like an invasion could generate some short term profit...for the PRC.

[GregB]

Don't forget their partner Wally World....

[dennisw]

Please don't forget that Taiwan has countless billions invested in China. Taiwanese are also very busy exploiting China's vast sea of cheap labor. It could well be that many Taiwanese capitalists would not mind be taken under China's wing (so to speak) if they could freely pursue their world trade in electronics, computer items and other hi tech products.

[neutrino]

It could well be that many Taiwanese capitalists would not mind be taken under China's wing (so to speak) if they could freely pursue their world trade in electronics, computer items and other hi tech products.

That's a very good point. And if the PRC is as clever as I suspect they are, they wouldn't hesitate to offer very profitable agreements in exchange for political support.

Which would let the US off the diplomatic hook of needing to defend Taiwan...

Which might suggest that U.S. corporations would be willing to kick some bucks into the arrangement too.

(sigh)

[demlosers]

Ping

[twntaipan]

But the prospect for future investment from Taiwan would be...NIL. Taiwanese businesses don't keep all their cash in Taiwanese banks.

[neutrino]

But the prospect for future investment from Taiwan would be...NIL. Taiwanese businesses don't keep all their cash in Taiwanese banks.

Hmm? I'll bet those businessmen would pay a lot to get their relatives out, wouldn't they? And if I can think of that, I dare say the PRC can too.

[twntaipan]

When and if it comes, I get the feeling you'll be cheering the PRC. Is that the case?

And, in reality, just how well do you think the PLA swims? They still don't have the force capacity to take Taiwan short of nuclear. I mean, how successful has the US been with only missile strikes and air strikes. The PLA won't be able to take Taiwan with ease and they know it.

I was in Taiwan in 1996 when the PRC lobbed missiles off the island to intimidate the voters (which failed miserably). Those with the most money (everyone seems to have money in Taiwan) had their money and their families long gone by the time the missiles flew.

[snowsislander]

I believe that neutrino is correct, we cannot even fight a war (excepting a full-scale nuclear first-strike) with China, much less win one.

It boils down to steel, ammunition, oil, and the sad truth that there are no permanent allies, only permanent interests.

Steel: Let's take steel first, since I just finished doing the numbers:

Source: My compilation of data from press releases at AISI at http://www.steel.org

Month	Domestic net tons	Import net tons	Total net tons	% imported
2003-01	8,435,000	2,423,000	10,858,000	22.32%
2003-02	8,087,000	1,757,000	9,844,000	17.85%
2003-03	9,117,000	2,199,000	11,316,000	19.43%
2003-04	8,845,000	1,806,000	10,651,000	16.96%
2003-05	8,567,000	1,873,000	10,440,000	17.94%
2003-06	8,692,000	1,710,000	10,402,000	16.44%
2003-07	8,424,000	2,008,000	10,432,000	19.25%
2003-08	8,629,000	1,615,000	10,244,000	15.77%
2003-09	9,027,000	1,883,000	10,910,000	17.26%
2003-10	9,273,000	1,701,000	10,974,000	15.50%
2003-11	8,485,000	1,831,000	10,316,000	17.75%
2003-12	9,038,000	1,690,000	10,728,000	15.75%
2004-01	9,082,000	2,304,000	11,386,000	20.24%
2004-02	9,104,000	1,940,000	11,044,000	17.57%
2004-03	10,042,000	2,399,000	12,441,000	19.28%
2004-04	9,143,000	2,436,000	11,579,000	21.04%
AVERAGES	8,874,375	1,973,438	10,847,813	18.15%

We are importers of steel, to the tune of 18% of what we use. In a serious war, we could only count on our own factories and what tiny fraction comes from Canada (if you will trust my guesstimate, it only averages maybe 400,000 tons per month from my perusing the press releases; if you would like to verify, please look at the end of the "import" press releases, which come at the end of the month. The domestic net tonnage comes in the middle of the month.) A steel plant is not something you can put up in a day or even a year. We have closed a lot of them over the last few years: Birmingham and Georgetown come to mind immediately; I was just in Pittsburgh, and I don't believe that the Steel City has any major steel operations going. (By the by, looking at these steel production numbers makes me strongly doubt that we are in any sort of substantive economic recovery. We have only just barely managed to get above the 16 month average each of the last 4 months in total net tonnage; taking into account all of the bubble construction going on (it's enough so that www.steel.org has set up a second website devoted only to that business) and guesstimating that it is consuming a reasonable fraction of the steel consumed, I don't see how the huge "productivity" numbers from Washington correspond to any reality of things made.)

Ammunition: As has been mentioned many times, we don't sufficient capacity at Lake City to manufacture cartridges to handle Afghanistan and Iraq. One would have to believe that any conventional war with China would consume enormous quantities of ammunition, which with even the plans to acquire more would still be insufficient.

Oil: (A lot of this is just wild surmise, based off some extrapolation from WWII and quickly scanning some websites for rough numbers.) We import over 50% of our crude oil, and we have about a strategic reserve that will hold us out, by itself, for about 30 days, meaning that we could, assuming that we were to use about the same amount of oil in a crisis as we do now that we could get along for about one year. Of course, that is ludicrous. If we get into a major shooting war with China, our consumption of oil, just as in World War II, will skyrocket. Taking some very wild guesses that we would go to 30 million barrels of consumption per day, and that we uncap enough currently unprofitable wells to get us to 10 million bbls/day production, then we are still only about 30 days supply before the reserve was empty and we would have to revert to what only we could produce out of the ground. It's not insubstantial, but it will not suffice to run our economy at enough of a pace to rearm and reindustrialize our nation and fight the world's most populous country.

The world likes to bet on a winner, and there are plenty of countries that aren't our allies now and won't be in the event of war with China, and this includes the strategically critical India. Our greatest ally, Japan (they spend a mint each year, their equipment is first rate -- take a look at their military budget and read the assessments of their forces at Global Security ) is agonizingly dependent on oil shipping through the naval conflict zone. They would have to repose great faith in us, or simply decide that they will honor their treaty with us at a cost that could be greater than what they lost in WWII, in order to openly support us.

The tally:

• Steel : Dangerously dependent on foreign supplies;
• Ammunition : Lack of ammunition, must do capacity building, interim plan to go to Israel not feasible in time of hot war with China.
• Oil : Cannot last more than 30 days if we are going to try to reindustrialize, rearm, and engage in large-scale combat.
• Allies and Enemies : Britain would come, but how much will that bring us? Japan might; they don't have any record of breaking their word even in the most onerous circumstances, but it will be at tremendous cost, and I don't know. If they don't support us, or even ask us to leave Japan, we stand no chance against China. If India decides to back China (India is certainly not our ally, though they have very bad blood with China, such as the Tibetan mess), it could get very interesting. The Indians do have some capabilities, but like China, it's not clear how much force that they can exert at any remove from the subcontinent. Moreover, India's recent rapprochement with Pakistan could crumble in a moment if they get into some sort of adventure. What about Russia? Who knows. The Bear will probably ally with whomever he guesses as strongest. But Russia also fears the Dragon, and might decide that this would be the time to take a little starch out of them.

I think that it is clear that we would cede Taiwan rather than risk a major defeat or at least very ugly stalemate with China. No Subic Bay, maybe no Yokosuka, just Guam and Diego Garcia for resupply

Many will say, yes, but our forces, small they may be, are far superior to China's and can devastate their war machine and economy. Taiwan will defend themselves, they would say (I do not -- I don't know what might happen, but I firmly believe that there will be significant fifth column activity), but Taiwan's military is equally tiny. If China can even get a foothold on the island say, even by a flotilla of Mariel-type craft, with no thought to resupplying their troops, it would cause enough panic in Taipei that I think that there is a good chance that they will simply sue for peace. Certainly, there will be plenty in the business community, just as in Hong Kong that will welcome the PRC. (See The Fall of Hong Kong: China's Triumph and Britain's Betrayal for the cynical shenanigans of many in the Hong Kong business community).

If China elects to go to a blockade of some sort, I think that it might succeed, and is probably their best strategy. I don't think we would try to break the blockade, because the risk of hot war would be far too high.

If they try to simply pepper Taiwan with missiles, that strategy is probably a loser for them. It will cost them dearly in the world's view, and even with significant fifth column activity probably won't succeed in causing a complete capitulation.

[neutrino]

When and if it comes, I get the feeling you'll be cheering the PRC. Is that the case?

Certainly not. I'm trying to open people's eyes to the dangers so it won't happen. It isn't an easy fight. Too many value cheap junk from the PRC over freedom for Taiwan - or anyone else.

And, in reality, just how well do you think the PLA swims? They still don't have the force capacity to take Taiwan short of nuclear. I mean, how successful has the US been with only missile strikes and air strikes. The PLA won't be able to take Taiwan with ease and they know it.

Today, it would be tough. But the PRC is building its military at a rapid rate - in terms of missiles, aircraft, and ships.

What happens if the PRC launches conventional missiles - they presently have 550 aimed at Taiwan - in an initial wave, followed by aircraft. I believe it takes less than 20 minutes for their aircraft to get to Taiwan? In the meantime, special forces already in place attack command-and-control centers, aircraft runways, and infrastructure.

Will Taiwan be able to sink an invasion fleet? Will they be able to react effectively after such a blow?

I was in Taiwan in 1996 when the PRC lobbed missiles off the island to intimidate the voters (which failed miserably). Those with the most money (everyone seems to have money in Taiwan) had their money and their families long gone by the time the missiles flew.

So how long will the troops fight if the elite abandons the island?

[twntaipan]

The Taiwanese military is large relative to the size of the population and every male has compulsory service (though they now have an alternative version of compulsory service). Survivability of a first wave attack is their military's major focus. While their naval forces are not on par with the USA, they are well ahead of the PRC, and will likely stay that way (a few anti-ship missiles lobbed from shore or from small craft can do significant damage to any PRC naval vessels in an attack, and the PRC, even if it gets advanced weapons systems hss no track record of being able to actually maintain them for very long).

As to troops fighting if the elite leave: The island's voting population was almost exactly evenly divided in the recent election. But should the PRC actually attack, many who voted against Chen Shui-bian (because of his seeming commitment to Taiwanese independence) would swing against the PRC. Nothing motivates people to defend themselves like an attack on their homeland, and that would be especially true for Taiwan.

Bottom line: If the PRC thinks Taiwan is an easy grab, they are mistaken--regardless of the US joining in (and I for one think that with GWB as president the US will come to Taiwan's defense--heck, even Clinton sent a carrier task force down the Taiwan straits back in 1996).