Posted on 03/30/2005 2:56:22 PM PST by Bald Eagle777
Around the time of the passage of the "Anti-Secession" Law, China showed that it was concerned about Taiwan and the international community's reaction to the law by trying to create an "atmosphere of peace."
Chinese Communist Party Secretary-General Hu Jintao's (JÀAÀÜ) four-point guideline does not mention military force, and Premier Wen Jiabao (·Å®aÄ_) made similar remarks.
But the law openly praises the use of non-peaceful means, laying bare the hypocrisy of the Chinese leaders.
This, however, is not the crux of the problem. Looking at the Chinese military and public opinion, we see the ghosts of war behind this law, which doesn't merely involve Taiwan.
It involves global peace, and I am sure that is the reason the international community has reacted with such vehement condemnation.
On March 5, Guo Boxiong (³¢§B¶¯) -- the vice chairman of the Central Military Commission (CMC) who always gave former CMC chairman Jiang Zemin (¦¿¿A¥Á) his full support before Jiang's resignation in September last year -- said that he would never promise to forego the use of military force.
Other military leaders made similar statements.
When Jiang during the National People's Congress resigned from his last post as chairman of the National Military Commission, the media made a big thing of Jiang's parting words to Hu: "If we are to take military action against Taiwan, then the sooner it is done, the better."
But what we should pay most attention to is the fact that Wen Zongren (·Å©v¤¯), political commissar of China's Academy of Military Sciences, has pointed out that the Anti-Secession Law, in addition to helping resolve the Taiwan issue, has a deeper significance in that it breaks through blockades implemented by certain international forces which affect China's maritime security.
Wen also believes that the law is an important expression of China's maritime development strategy, and that this is the only way that China will be able to truly rise to its destined prominence.
These statements tell us that for China, the Taiwan issue is not a matter of unification or independence, but rather of military expansion and therefore an issue that must be solved for a Chinese rising.
China's leaders are using this "rising" as a "theory" aimed at arousing nationalist fervor among its public, although it distorts reality in many cases.
If you really want to talk about a "rising," then Japan comes before China.
From its defeat in World War II, Japan has risen from the ashes without any reliance on military power, instead relying only on its own economic power to become the world's second largest economy.
If Japan with its anti-war Constitution and liberal economy could rise up, we have to ask ourselves why China must rely on military force to achieve the same thing.
The rise of the Japanese economy also led the US to put forward the "Japan Threat" theory, particularly in the late 1980s.
But have either the US or Japan ever considered engaging in war because of it? Absolutely not.
Then why is it that China feels the need to back its economic rise with military force? Has any other country ever prevented Chinese ships from engaging in trade?
Has anyone ever made a blockade to prevent Chinese ships leaving their ports?
It seems that China's belief that the US is opposed to its development has, in addition to making it paranoid, also given it cause to conceal its own military expansionist ambitions.
Ever since the establishment of the People's Republic of China in 1949, the US has maintained a policy of containment as far as China is concerned, rather than one of attack.
In contrast, China has been consistent in its expansionism. China has followed its expansionist policy in the name of the "Global Revolution," the Korean war being a classic example.
As in the case of the Korean war, the US was also forced to get involved in the Vietnam war, and it was China that was backing both North Korea and North Vietnam.
Following the emergence of Jiang Zemin (¦¿¿A¥Á) in the 1990s, the development of the Chinese economy allowed Beijing to move away from Deng Xiaoping's (¾H¤p¥) policy of biding time and concealing the country's strength, and China's military ambitions became more apparent day by day.
For several years now, it seems the military budget has grown two-fold every year.
Some shameless people have even likened the Jiang Zemin period to the years of prosperity under the Kangxi and Qianlong emperors of the last dynasty, and associated Hu Jintao with the Wudi emperor of the Han dynasty, saying that these men's "maritime strategy" surpasses that of their illustrious predecessors.
They will hardly stop at the first island chain.
Last year a Chinese submarine trespassed in Japanese waters.
Far from being an error, it was a military fact-finding mission seen as indispensable for China's expansionist goals.
The Chinese army is racing to catch up to the US, and its military training assumes that the US is its adversary.
The fact that Chinese submarines have also traveled around the island of Guam suggest that China's ambitions do not stop with Taiwan.
If the Taiwan Strait falls into China's hands, both the US and Japan will immediately come to feel aware of the absence of this buffer.
Because of its expansionist military ambitions, China has sought to hold military exercises with Russia for the last couple of years, in which Russia plays the aggressor.
Russia is currently reviewing the pros and cons of this proposition. China is also approaching the Indian army to hold joint military games.
The reason for this is that China's maritime strategy does not stop at taking a few islands in the Pacific Ocean, it also requires a number of ports on the Indian Ocean.
It is also seeking to rope Myanmar into these exercises.
Taiwan, the US and Japan are not the only ones that should be concerned about how to face Chinese expansionism.
Excellent analysis.
Yes, a well written piece with great common sense.
Taiwan and Japan need to go nuclear.
For now, I think it would be wise to build up their conventional naval strength. To join the nuclear club, that's for the Really Big Boys to decide....
If Taiwan is permitted to have a nuclear deterrence, then we could have a nuclear arms race throughout the region (a bad thing). Secondly, if Taiwan is overrun by China, Taiwan's nuclear arsenal would be appropriated by China (a bad thing). Thirdly, if Taiwan could not secure their nuclear weapons facilities properly and they fell victim to an armed assault and heist (potentially via state-sponsored terrorists?), that would be a Bad Thing (however unlikely). Lastly, how can an island nation such as Taiwan deal with radwaste?
I like the theory of a credible deterrent for Japan and Taiwan, but the nuclear card has some snags in it.
Fifth, and last, extremely far-fetched scenario, RE: Japan, I won't even say ....
China definitely needs to be quarantined, however, and hopefully Japan will step up to the plate and stop China's expansion at the Senkakus with naval forces being peacefully deployed as a deterrent to protect Japan's EEZ.
Events that are unfolding almost daily prove correct all those who have been saying for years that China is a threat.
Put me on any China threat pings you may have. I try to stay on the ChiComs round the clock, but I can't catch everything, it's an information target rich environment.
EU weapons deals; Russian sub deals; ASW weps. upgrades; guidance systems; any improvements to the Skvalls ver. 2; AAGM; anti-radiation missiles, fast sealift; ALCM, AAGM, etc
Pls. ping me and e-mail me anything you dig up. FREEPly appreciated,
FREERegards
We are already in an arms race. Taiwan keeps purchasing missile defense hardware from us while China keeps building up the missile pointed at the island. Furthermore Bush has been the only person in our government who wants to make more nukes while the ChiComs make more nukes. I think the nuclear card is a risk wirth taking.
We have been in an arms race with China for 15+ years, and only now is it apparrent to the US. I guess light does eventually dawn on a Marble Head.
Nuk card, I'll leave that call up to the top brass.
Maybe, maybe not. There are risks. Need to be careful.
Have you ever wondered why some guys get white hair pretty quick? I have and can see why
Yes, it is 100% true that every single year the number of missiles aimed at Taiwan only keeps going up. That is a key point and says a lot as to who is provoking who....
Here are some links you may find useful. I try to keep tabs on different angles of different issues, China is one of them.
THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION [November 1997]
http://www.heritage.org/Research/AsiaandthePacific/BG1146.cfm
CHINA: Possible Missile Technology Transfers from U.S. Satellite Export Policy – Actions and Chronology [January 2002]
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/crs/98-485.pdf
COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS [June 2003]
http://www.cfr.org/pdf/China_TF.pdf
ANNUAL REPORT ON THE MILITARY POWER OF THE PEOPLES REPUBLIC OF CHINA [July 2003]
http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/20030730chinaex.pdf
CHINA’S RECORD OF PROLIFERATION ACTIVITIES
[Paula A. DeSutter statement of July 24, 2003]
http://www.state.gov/t/vc/rls/rm/24518.htm
FY04 REPORT TO CONGRESS ON PRC MILITARY POWER
http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/d20040528PRC.pdf
Thanks. I never knew the EU was trying to lift its arms embargo since 1997! China's poliferation. I would not be surprised if North Korea's missiles and warheads were developed with China's help. While fighting an islamic uprsiing in its own borders, China goes far and wide to arm islamic countries.
Check this out, the Charles LaBella memo. I bet this link will get pulled, better print this one out!
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/image_archive.asp?ARCHIVE_ID=3&PAGE=87
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/image_archive.asp?ARCHIVE_ID=3&PAGE=1
94 pages! Only pp. 36, 56, 61, 62 and 63 have some "issues". 36 has an name crossed out, 56,61 and 62 are blank, 63 is 1/2 blank, but other than that, this document is OK.
Thanks for the link. Ping / CC me on anything else you dig up.
Regards,
Thanks
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.