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.

[Khurkris]

To jump in here with a bit of observation:

"The question is how hard would average Taiwanese fight. Many Taiwanese are actually very liberal and I am fairly certain private gun ownership is banned."

I am by no stretch a Taiwanese expert or a Sinologist, however I have done business and traveled in & out of Taiwan for 10+ years and currently live on Taiwan.
With that let me put in $.Sid's worth.
Taiwan has only had free elections since 1996. It is a fledgling democracy that is making the transition to a representative republic in the manner that will work for it.
It is very divided along a number of different lines. Language, culture, family origins - just to name a few. The phrase you use to say 'Good Morning' to some one can start a political argument - its that sensitive.
Maybe not the same as in the USA, but they will find what works for them here.
There is much ethnic/political/societal division here. The Hakka (Aboriginal peoples), the KMT, The New Party, The DPP and a dozen or more political groups are all vying for recognition in the Gov't. Add to this an equal number of fringe and PRC subversive groups and you have a very lively mix. Its not uncommon for legislators to come to blows on the hearing floors. Real fist-fights and the resultant public apologies to "keep face" is a common occurrence. "Face" is a VERY powerful factor in life here.

Private ownership of guns in any form is extremely illegal. I am a NRA life member since 1960, and very PRO 2nd Amendment in the USA, I am also damn glad that its illegal here. PM me if you want my reasons, but that the way I feel after seeing what life here is like. And I am NOT anti-Taiwan or Taiwanese people.

The Taiwanese military would put up a very good fight. They are for the most part competent, well-trained and well equipped. The 1st Taiwanese officer to go thru SEAL school just returned and is pretty much a national hero. Would the average Taiwanese citizen fight the PRC invaders? IMHO...no. They would not. Sorry if that p.o's anyone; but that is my opinion.
The average Taiwanese just wants to make as much money as possible. If adjusting to a new form of Gov't is whats needed for them to do this...then they would adjust.

Just an anecdote with an insight into the culture here - Did you know there are no 'Stop' signs here? I have not seen one. There are traffic lights; but no stop signs.
Why is this you ask? Because its generally accepted that nobody would use them, so they save the cost of making and installing them. To hell with the cost of life and property that results from this decision. For-warned is for-armed.

[Fishing-guy]

If you don't know what is Taiwan independence movement, go do a search on the internet.

The truth will shock you, as least that is if you are pro-ROC.

[tallhappy]

The Hakka (Aboriginal peoples),

Nice post, but I'm not sure what your obsession with stop signs is.

This is an FYI post. The hakkas are Chinese, not the Taiwanese aboriginals. They are the smaller Chinese emigrant group that went to Taiwan from during the 18th and 19th centuries. In mandarin pinyin system it is kejia -- guest people. They are not aboriginal, like A-Mei for example.

People who've come from families where hakka is spoken are maybe a quarter to 30% of the population.

[LonghornFreeper]

Good hearing from someone who actually lives on Taiwan. In your experience, how do the native Taiwanese (those who were there before the Nationalists fled China to Taiwan in 1949) feel about the whole independence/reunification issue?

[Khurkris]

"Nice post, but I'm not sure what your obsession with stop signs is.
This is an FYI post. The hakkas are Chinese, not the Taiwanese aboriginals."

I do not seek your affirmation. Did your usual crack & cheap whisky medication wear off?

FYI...on the Island of Taiwan, formerly known as Formosa, the ethic group currently referred to as 'aboriginal' is popularly designated as Hakka or Hoklos. On this previous Saturday and Sunday the annial Hakka Memorial Ceremony was held in Taipei at the Taipei City Hall Square. Taipei Mayor Ma Ying-jeou spoke in Hakka asking the Yimin ancestors to guard over the country and its people. Hakka is a separate language. As is Taiwanese; as is Mandarin Chinese (the prevailing Chinese dialect on Taiwan). The Taiwanese Aboriginal affairs office, the Council for Hakka Affairs is headed by Lou Wen-jia, who is Hakka. This is a 'Cabinet' level office.

The word Hakka means "guests." It may have stemmed from the facts that the Hakka seemed to be guests to the locals when they migrated to their areas.
They appear to have their ethnological roots in the Central Plains region of mainland China; but there is record of 5 major migrations from this area.
Their recorded history strecthes 1,600 yrs, and their numbers have grown to over 65 million. There is currently an estimated 4 million Hakka living on Taiwan.
I do not presently have a date on their migration to Taiwan, but they appear to be the first group to have established permanent residence and culture on the Island. They currently are accorded "Aboriginal" stature under the laws of the Island.

Their language is unique to them. Their dress is unique as are their cultural and village legal system and local governmental affairs system. They also have their own Temple's devoted to the 'Yimins.' This is to honor those Hakkas who sacrificed in the fight against rebel oppositions movements against the Ching authorities in Taiwan.

As I made clear, I am not an expert on these matters. This is just a brief overview of the Aboriginal culture group known as the Hakkas on Taiwan.

[Khurkris]

"Good hearing from someone who actually lives on Taiwan. In your experience, how do the native Taiwanese (those who were there before the Nationalists fled China to Taiwan in 1949) feel about the whole independence/reunification issue?"

I am not trying to duck the question, but I honestly do not have a viable answer to that one. The Hakka pretty much just want to be autonomous and get their, or what they think is their due. They want political recognition. They are leading the group in a lot of enviromental concerns areas. And rightly so for them and the health of the island.

I will keep an eye on this question, which is a good one, and try to see how this should be answered.

[tallhappy]

Geez. I post a nice friendly post so you won't make a mistake again and you get all mad.

Weird.

Here, this is simply a nice gesture on my part in correcting you so you know. The aboriginals are the tribal people who've lived on Taiwan for millenia. A-Mei is the most famous one. Anthropologically they are related to malay-indonesians.

Hakka are not aboriginal they are Chinese immigrants from the 18th and 19th centuries.

An analogy to early US would be that Hakka are like, say, German immigrants compared to the minnan (Taiwanese speakers) who'd be like english or british. The aboriginals are like the American indians.

I wasn't and am not trying to criticize you in any way and the stop sign comment was meant to be in fun, if you thought it was some sort of slam.

If you haven't, take a trip to Hualien or Taitung.

[Khurkris]

Perhaps you subscribe to VP Annie "A laugh a minute" Lu's theory that Taiwanese aboriginal people are "little black people who have mysteriously disappeared."

As I re-stated, I am not an expert in this matter. I can only post that information as is current under the laws and culture of Taiwan.

[tallhappy]

I can only post that information as is current under the laws and culture of Taiwan.

You are mistaken is all. The law does not say this. You read something that was mistaken or made the mistake yourself.

[tallhappy]

Here, don't believe me, read this and see links within Taiwanese aborigine

Hakka are Han chinese.

[tallhappy]

And here, Hakka.

[jriemer]

JH - China has been building massive coal-to-gas / coal-to-oil plants in anticipation of their sea lanes being cut off from the Middle East. The only other country that built larger synthetic gassification and liquification plants was Hitler's Germany. The plant's projected total output is 4 times greater than the amount of oil that China currently imports.

Coal-to-liquid solution for energy woes

[Khurkris]

"I can only post that information as is current under the laws and culture of Taiwan."
"You are mistaken is all. The law does not say this. You read something that was mistaken or made the mistake yourself."

tallhappy...Under the current laws and culture of the Island of Taiwan, the Hakka group of peoples are considered aboriginal/indigenous peoples. This is their status. There is no way you can truthfully say otherwise. The information I posted about their origins is exactly the same as you use as reference to dis-agree with me. HOW IS THAT?

Face it...you are posting merely to argue. I do not have time to play your disruptive games.

[tallhappy]

I'm sorry, but You don't understand.

I was trying to be nice and point out your mistake so that in the future you wouldn't make such an error.

I am not arguing. There is nothing to argue about.