China: Five triggers for a Chinese attack on Taiwan

Asia Times ^ | 08/21/04 | Lawrence E Grinter

[TigerLikesRooster]

SPEAKING FREELY

Five triggers for a Chinese attack on Taiwan

By Lawrence E Grinter

Speaking Freely is an Asia Times Online feature that allows guest writers to have their say. Please

click here if you are interested in contributing.

With the re-election of Chen Shui-bian as president of the Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan, continuing trends toward Taiwan's de jure independence and this summer's military exercises by China, the United States and Taiwan, it seems useful to review China's stated or implied "trigger" events for a People's Liberation Army (PLA) attack against the democratically governed nation of Taiwan.

Beginning with former president Jiang Zemin's Eight Points proposal in December 1995, and amplified in subsequent statements, China's leadership has stated or implied five events that they say would cause them to use force against Taiwan. Throughout these pronouncements, Chinese authorities have continued to publicly treat Taiwan as an internal Chinese province, although the Republic of China has never been ruled by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).

Each of China's five conflict triggers lends itself to Beijing's particular interpretation. However, it is probable that the Chinese leadership's internal definitions of when and how Taiwan might be crossing a "red line" is fluid and under debate within the CCP Standing Committee and Central Military Commission. The five trigger events are:

1) A declaration of independence
Taiwan is de facto independent and has been since the sovereign ROC government took over administration of the island in 1947. The Republic of China government, established by Sun Yat-sen on the mainland in 1912, was a founding member of the United Nations and a formal security treaty ally of the United States between 1954 and 1979. Provided the PRC has no plans to attack Taiwan, President Chen Shui-bian has twice formally promised not to declare de jure independence. So what might constitute for Beijing the threshold of Taiwan's de jure independence? Evidently not the recognition of the Taiwan government by 26 other sovereign governments. Nor Taipei's recent use of referenda or a proposed constitutional revision that speak about sovereignty. I assume President Chen's forthcoming constitutional proposals also will be carefully crafted. So, short of an explicit formal independence declaration by the president of Taiwan, Beijing faces the dilemma of having to live with Taiwanese measures that come right up to, but stop just short of a formal declaration.

2) A military alliance by Taiwan with a foreign power
When the United States dropped its recognition of the Republic of China in January 1979, the US-ROC bilateral Mutual Defense Treaty also ended. In its place came US commitments under the Congressional Taiwan Relations Act of 1979, pledging Washington to make available to Taiwan necessary defensive equipment. Since 1979 Taiwan has purchased billions of dollars of weapons and equipment from the United States and Mirage 2000 jet fighters from France. Evidently, for Beijing, these weapons purchases, related training and resupply pipelines have not constituted a "military alliance". But what if Taipei votes for the money to purchase new theater missile defense or Aegis fire-control systems? There seems to be very little Beijing can do about it. What seems to most disturb Beijing is potential new US-ROC technological cooperation that could deflect or negate China's growing offensive threats against Taiwan.

3) Internal turmoil in Taiwan
Taiwan is a democracy with a robust political system and an essentially wide-open media. Beijing has no choice but to live with this. So, just what might constitute sufficient "turmoil" in the Republic of China for the People's Republic of China to mount an attack? Interestingly, demonstrations last spring in Hong Kong against Beijing's proposed internal security provisions saw nearly 500,000 Hong Kong citizens take to the streets, and Beijing did very little about it. Nor did Beijing intervene following the apparent assassination attempt on President Chen and Vice President Annette Lu one day before the election of March 20 in Taiwan.

So what is Beijing's definition of "turmoil"? Clear examples of that took place in Beijing in May and June 1989, when nearly a million Chinese citizens demonstrated in Tiananmen Square, demanding democracy, and Deng Xiaoping finally ordered in the PLA to drive them back. And in 1999, when Chinese internal security forces squelched 10,000 Chinese citizens (belonging to the Falungong) in Beijing. Given the offshore distances, Beijing would seem to have a high "turmoil" threshold regarding Taiwan. However, one can assume that PRC security services have thousands of agents inside Taiwan, agents trained in instigating "turmoil". Presumably Taiwan authorities are prepared for such actions.

4) Possession of weapons of mass destruction
The Chinese government has operationally deployed about 450 nuclear weapons. By summer 2004, the PLA had pointed nearly 600 short-range ballistic missiles (M-9s and M-11s) at Taiwan. By contrast, Taiwan has never operationalized a weapon of mass destruction (WMD), and threatens no one. Taiwan signed the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1988, and ROC nuclear reactors are under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) full safeguard inspections. Since then, no evidence has surfaced from Beijing, Washington or Taipei about any ROC WMD. From Beijing's viewpoint, what would constitute WMD in Taiwan? Biological, chemical, nuclear radiological materials? Unassembled or operationalized? Offensive or defensive? Information warfare capabilities? ROC missiles capable of retaliating against a PRC attack? What if Chinese agents placed WMD materials inside Taiwan, and Beijing announced their "discovery" to the world? How would Taiwan disprove such WMD?

5) Unwillingness to negotiate on the basis of 'one China'
Former president Jiang Zemin stated this war trigger in December 1999. Over the past five years, Taipei has made hundreds of offers to meet with PRC representatives in open or closed discussions on unification matters with no prior conditions. President Chen reiterated his offer after his May 20 re-election. However, Beijing has stonewalled all of Taipei's offers. One wonders what else the ROC can do to appear reasonable in Beijing's eyes, short of capitulation.

Of China's five war "triggers", the three that President Hu Jintao's government is currently emphasizing are a formal independence declaration, emergence of technology to defeat a PRC attack and lack of progress in negotiations. With no Taiwanese WMD in the picture, the Chen government being cautious on independence declaration rhetoric and continuing to make negotiation offers to Beijing, it seems to be the US-ROC defensive arms purchase that is most worrying Beijing. Once again, China faces the dissonance between its stated policies, or "triggers", and the changing power realities across the Taiwan Strait and in Washington.

Lawrence Grinter is professor of Asian Studies, Air War College, United States. The views expressed here are those of the writer and do not necessarily represent the views of the US Air Force or the US government.

[dennisw]

Seeing how the Athen's Olympics have been such a bust, such a non-boost to a nation's prestige, the 2008 Olympics in China may not be a factor in China waiting past 2008 to annex Taiwan by force.

[Jeff Head]

Based on my own vivists to the far east, including the ROC and China, the PRC is embarked on a massive economic reform plan that has been going on for years.

But, based on my own observations, this reform has nothing to do with the creation of a large, economically independent middle class or helping the people.

It is not a reform of their government form towards freedom, it is a reform of their economy towards economic independence and hegemony.

What they have done is to ingeniously find a way to fund their communistic...which is evolving more and more into a fascist, totalitarian regime. The Marxist and Maoist models failed. They saw very starkly what happens when that economic failure is ongoing and systemic...the regime and the entire system fails like it did with the Soviets.

So the Chinese found a way to introduce some open market capital principles into their system. They have done it to lure our investment and money into their system...in essence having the west fund their rise to manufacturing, energy and ultimatley to economic independence. Once they reach that critical mass and become independent...they will be in a position to nationalize it all, cut us loose, and hurt us tremndously economically in the process.

I have seen them put on quite a show for visiting American CEOs and political dignataries. The people really benefiting are the old members of the party which represents 7-9% of the population, and their military and political establishment. The problem is, that this 7-9% of 1.3 billion is a big number...close to 100 million.

100 million well off, elite, ruling people can put on quite a show...whole cities, or large suburbs of major cities are outfitted for display. Entire manufacturing complexes and sectors are equally outfitted. American are impressed and salivate over the cheap labor now and the promise for a vast emerging market potential and so they throw more and more money at it. But back in the hinterlands, the masses work for pennies an hour in miserable conditions.

The ruling elite there have no interest in helping those masses rise. Those masses are the ticket, via cheap labor, to the PRC's rise. So there will be no huge market potential under this sytem...just a fly-trap to bring in western monies.

The only way those massew will rise is when they rebel. In order to do that, the economic, political and military rule of the elite communists must somehow be broken. Right now, we will have to bankrupt them to do that...and I believe we still can if we have the will. Otherwise, sooner or later it will come to a shooting war IMHO.

Sorry for the length.

[SunkenCiv]

---

The New Chinese Empire: And What It Means for the United States by Ross Terrill Paperback reviewed by Chang Yun-ping Google search for Ross Terrill	China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Inc.: The Dynamics of a New Empire by Willem van Kemenade tr by Diane Webb library binding reviewed by Orville Schell

---

NOT A PING LIST, merely posted to: ASA Vet; Boundless; belmont_mark; Dr. Marten; dennisw; Filibuster_60; Fishing-guy; genghis; HighRoadToChina; hedgetrimmer; Jeff Head; Khurkris; ken5050; maui_hawaii; Pearls Before Swine; risk; Squantos; sukhoi-30mki; TigerLikesRooster; Travis McGee; tallhappy

[SunkenCiv]

Wow! Great post!

[SunkenCiv]

George: "Dad, it's me. Hey, listen, I was at Fortunoff's the other day, and, you know what, you were right."

Estelle, feigning a Chinese, muffled voice: "Chinese food."

Frank, hanging up: "Sorry, George, our Chinese food just came. Talk to you later."

George: "Chinese food?"

http://www.stanthecaddy.com/the-junk-mail-script.html

[Fishing-guy]

A massive revolt will creat whole bunch of warlords with nuclear weapons. That just makes the world much much more dangerous.

Besides, I don't think Americans will put up with the severe rise in prices if we cut off trade with them. I am more in favor of FAIR trade.

[JasonC]

The "trading nations don't invade" line is ahistorical poppycock. It is something IPE (international political economy) types within political science departments ginned up and as an article of faith and a reason not to know anything about security and real politics. All the historical evidence is against it. The US and UK in the 20th and 19th centuries respectively, were the two biggest trading nations in the history of the world. And fought literally hundreds of wars, many of them aggressive. Tell Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia, Panama... Or read a little book by James Farwell called "Queen Victoria's Little Wars". Trading nations have in fact frequently waged wars of predation or opportunity or in defense of trading or property interests, especially against smaller and technologically weaker opponents.

[JasonC]

Actually, I don't give a rats rear about prices in this context. And free and independent subsets of China would be much more reasonable about nukes than China is. China helps NK and Iran, who are seeking nukes with us as the target. China's military teaches the doctrine of "assymmetric warfare". They are not remotely our friends, under the present dictatorship.

[dennisw]

The "trading nations don't invade" line is ahistorical poppycock. .............

Classic case was Germany invading France in WW2, it's largest trade partner

[tallhappy]

Fishing-guy -- one of the many ChiCom lovers here at FR.

[Jim Noble]

3. How close are the supercavitating weapons to deployment?

[Fishing-guy]

How do we know you are not a Chicom lover, since you are against the Republic of China (free China).

[tallhappy]

I'm not against Republic of China.

You, on the contrary, never miss an opportunity to lie about ROC and smear their leaders and people in deference to ChiCom position.

[Fishing-guy]

You are for Republic of China?

Then you must be against Taiwan Independence?

[tallhappy]

No. Republic of China is independent Taiwan right now.

Supporting ROC is not mutually exclusive with an indpendent Taiwan, ie changing the name to Repuboc of Taiwan either.

I support my fellow free people in the decisions they make.

Your lame attempts to distort are sad ChiCom nonsense. All you do is support the ChiComs now.

[Fishing-guy]

Taiwan independence is not compatible with Repbulic of China. Taiwan independence is to dissolve Republic of China.

You got some explaining to do with your comrades.

[tallhappy]

You are not honest, but still, even if your assertion that "Taiwan independence is not compatible with Repbulic of China. Taiwan independence is to dissolve Republic of China" were true, what would be wrong with it?

Why can the people of Republci fo China freely decide to change the name of their country? Are you against this freedom and right?

Currently the President of RoC not allowed to visit the WhiteHouse. The US says RoC is not a nation. Do you agree with these policies? I do not.

Should the White House host the President of the RoC with State visits as is done for other heads of state? I say yes.

Should the US establish diplomatic relations with the ROC? I say yes.

[tallhappy]

If Taiwan, as you assert, is not independent now, what is it dependent on?

Republic of China is an independent sovereign nation. Do you agree?

[Fishing-guy]

Well, are you for Republic of China or are you for Taiwan independence (Republic of Taiwan)? Make up your mind.

Personally, I am for Republic of China (free China).

As for free people making up their own minds, I am all for it. That's why we need to know exactly what is Taiwan independence and who are behind it.

[tallhappy]

Answer the questions.