A shadow of war over Taiwan

Philadelphia Inquirer ^ | 12 March 2005 | Sam Crane

[Lando Lincoln]

"If you want peace, prepare for war," goes the old Roman saying, and on the question of Taiwan, both China and the United States are following that advice. But strategic conditions in East Asia could make war more likely.

Tensions are rising primarily because Taiwan's political transformation is moving it away from mainland China. In the last two decades, the island nation has remade itself from an authoritarian state, dominated by the Nationalist Party, into a vibrant multiparty democracy. In 2000, executive power was peacefully transferred through free and fair elections to the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP). Chen Shui-bian, the DPP president, won reelection last March - though not without controversy and a protracted recount - while in December the Nationalist Party held on to its parliamentary majority in competitive legislative elections. Freedom of the press is exercised and civil liberties are protected. By any measure of democratization, Taiwan is an admirable success.

Taiwan's triumph, however, is China's embarrassment. Although economic and social change has swept across China, its political system remains an anachronistic communist dictatorship that crushes dissent and controls the media.

The growing contrast between dictatorial China and democratic Taiwan is more than just a matter of political form. It is an element of national identity. Although important facets of Taiwanese culture - ancestry, language, cuisine - are Chinese, many people in Taiwan now see themselves as a distinct country, a free nation that has grown away from China. They are Taiwanese, not Chinese.

Since democratization began, the "return to the mainland" myth has further receded. The democratic political life shared by millions of Taiwanese is forging a common civic identity, and it cannot be dismissed as an invention of those who want to publicly declare independence.

Nowhere is this more evident than in the notion of the "status quo." For mainland China and the United States, it refers to the "one China" principle, a reflection of the politics of the 1970s - before democracy took root in Taiwan. For many Taiwanese, perhaps most, it has come to mean the situation that has actually prevailed since 1986, an empirical independence that allows them to rule themselves without Chinese control.

The Democratic Progressive Party has given political voice to this national aspiration and even the Nationalist Party, which for many years has accepted the idea that Taiwan is a part of China, has had to change its rhetoric to attract votes for the growing number of self-identified Taiwanese.

China, of course, rejects any hint of separation and doggedly holds on to the "one China" ideal. Even though the Communist Party has never administratively controlled the island, it claims sovereignty over Taiwan and has long threatened the use of force should Taiwan formally declare independence. When the Nationalists ruled Taiwan, there was little possibility of such a declaration; but more recently the DPP leadership has flirted with actions and announcements that come perilously close to formal independence.

Realizing that Taiwan is slipping away, China has now upped the ante. On Tuesday, an anti-secession law was introduced in China's pliant legislature. The measure, which will certainly be enacted, authorizes "nonpeaceful means" to counter any move by Taiwan toward independence or secession. Previously, China would not renounce the use of force in contemplating a complete Taiwan breakaway; now it is positively committed to military action in a wider array of scenarios. The bill calls for a coercive response not just in the case of a formal declaration of Taiwan independence, but also in the event that "major incidents entailing Taiwan's secession from China should occur, or that possibilities for a peaceful reunification should be completely exhausted."

Conceivable interpretations of that include a declaration by Beijing that a large-scale public demonstration favorable to Taiwan independence, such as voting for DPP candidates, is justification for attack. The clause is open-ended enough that China might simply conclude that Taiwan is no longer committed to reunification and invoke the new legislation.

Beijing is also working hard to develop the military tools that would be necessary to invade or significantly damage Taiwan. Although the numbers are murky, Western analysts believe that China is building up its naval forces, its amphibious assault capability, and its ballistic missile threat.

The hardening of China's policy toward Taiwan has not gone unnoticed in Washington and Tokyo. On Feb. 18 the United States and Japan announced that security in the area around Taiwan is their "common strategic objective." Stripped of its diplomatic understatement, this new policy suggests that Japan, which had previously taken a more neutral position on the Taiwan question, would support a U.S. counterattack against a Chinese assault on the island. The long-standing U.S. commitment to militarily support Taiwan, as evidenced in the Taiwan Relations Act and in American actions over the years, is now bolstered by the addition of Japan.

It is, therefore, a dangerous time; one that calls for careful diplomacy and shrewd policy. China and Taiwan are growing apart. China is prescribing military action for a greater number of contingencies. The United States and Japan are committing themselves to defend Taiwan. Perhaps nobody wants war but, then again, who really wanted war in Europe in 1914?

[FYREDEUS]

Better to 'equip' JAPAN with them ['subtly' of course due to Japanese sheeple sensitivity on the issue].

No one with any sense of History wants Japan to nuclearize [which they could do almost instantly] including the Japanese so the alternative of 'pre-positioning' AMERICAN nukes there [Hey if the Sovs could do it with Cuba...;-)]...in a manner that gives their pols plausible deniability natch...might seem an attractive alternative to Japan's 'serious people' as PRC and DPRK developments become increasingly worrisome.

I'm NOT saying that Condi and Rummy made any such arrangements on their recent trip or that they necessarily will in the future...but the possibility must be worrisome to the Chinese and North Koreans and keeping them guessing may itself be of value in the short term eh? ;-)

Long term is another question...

*in Holmes voice*

The Game is afoot!

[FYREDEUS]

HARD yes...but the question is more how FAST and how SHORT eh? ;-)

[FYREDEUS]

Potential MILITARY pool a lot larger than the TOTAL U.S. population...

Which means in a war with U.S. forces on the mainland they could absorb a LOT of damage and KEEP ON FIGHTING probably indefinitely.

But then no one envisions the U.S. invading China to fight a land war...nor Chinese armadas invading California...

DEFENDING against the minority of PRC forces that could invade Taiwan is a lot more thinkable...hence the multi carrier battlegroup exercise 'show of force' last summer...but it would be FAR from quick or easy or painless...and the risk of escalation to nuclear confrontation by miscalculation would be worrisome...:-(

[panzer_grey]

Surely you are joking? The problem with the submarines is that the Taiwanese are demanding they be built in Taiwan at an increased cost of 100s of millions of dollars. In case you missed it, the U.S. plans to build the Israeli variant of the German Dolphin submarine in the U.S. The Kidd class destroyers have been updated to be compatible with the AEGIS system. That makes them part of the ballistic missile screen. And the submarine hunting P-3 aircraft are as modern as anything we have.

What's holding it up is Taiwan is not committed to defending itself.

[Goldwater4ever]

Name one shipyard in the United States that has built a diesel submarine in the last 5 years.

As for the Kidd Class:
- That the DDG-993 Kidd-class destroyer is more than 20 years old and its structure and equipment are aged;

- That the destroyer has a displacement of 9,783 metric tons with a draught of 10 meters, meaning it would be unable to anchor at any of Taiwan's existing military ports;

- That with its huge size and low mobilization speed during wartime, it would be an easy target for Beijing's forces;

- That the destroyers were designed exclusively for Iran and its combat system is less efficient than its counterpart Spuance-class destroyers that the U.S. Navy is currently using;

- That its special design and specifications require expensive logistic and maintenance costs;

- That the destroyer was designed for long-haul ocean-going combat missions, which runs counter to Taiwan's need for vessels capable of coastal combat missions;

- That the number of personnel aboard one single Kidd-class destroyer is around 400, making it a heavy financial burden simply in personnel costs and related training fees;

- That its mechanical 3D radar system is less sophisticated than the Aegis radar system of the Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, which he claimed are the backbone of the U.S. Navy, while its air surveillance capability is not as good as that of early-warning surveillance aircraft;

- That its Standard II anti-aircraft missile system is not capable of deterring missile attacks;

- That its command, control, communications and intelligence systems are incompatible with those of the Lafayette-class frigates which are currently in ROC Navy service;

- That the cost of NT$25 billion for four Kidd-class destroyers, plus costs for initiation of weaponry systems and related equipment, port reconstruction, logistics and personnel will be a mammoth expense for the government; and

- That the United States tried twice in 1998 and 1999 to sell the four Kidd destroyers to Greece and Australia, but were turned down.

Hence, are not Aegis equipped destroyers.

[rmlew]

Israeli policy regarding China needs to be changed. We should not allow any more arms deals.
The iron y is that it is not in Israel's interest to arm China. China needs Arab oil far more than Israeli weapons. In the long run, China will simply copy Israeli desings and sell them to the Arabs.
The problem is that US policy to Taiwan and China is unclear and the US arms Israel and the Arabs. (Egypt and Jordan get military aid, even though Egypt trains to fight Israel.) Israel feels cornered and would love to neutralize Chinese anti-Israel policies.

[brivette]

Uh, it was just a throw away statement. Besides, I'm a Republican. You?

[SkyPilot]

I am in Korea right now, and the threat of war is always right around the next checkpoint. You can see the seriousness in the faces of the South Korean guards---they know this is not a game.

The relative peace in the last 50 years of North Asia is the most it has known in its history. There will be war here again---you can feel it.

[SwankyC]

What would Wal-Mart do?

Dont let certain people that tell me 90% of Walmarts goods are American hear you say that.

[panzer_grey]

LOL. CHECK THE LINK BELOW!!! Is the friend you sent this to for an informed reply still in the Taiwanese Legislature??. Folks like Lee Ching-hua want Independence as long as it doesn't cost them and Taiwanese money or Taiwanese blood.
From now on, try to form your own opinions, don't rely on other people to form them for you. See the link below, I could refute it point by point, but hey, do I know more than a distinguished member of the Taiwan's Legislative Yuan?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/taiwan/2001/taiwan-010425.htm

"- That its mechanical 3D radar system is less sophisticated than the Aegis radar system of the Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, which HE claimed are the backbone of the U.S. Navy, while its air surveillance capability is not as good as that of early-warning surveillance aircraft"

[Goldwater4ever]

Whether Lee is in the legislature or not does not obviate the fact that 1) you falsely claimed the American shipyards build diesel submarines-they don't 2) that the Kidd class is equipped with the Aegis Missile System. It is not.
Here is the news from the Bush administration:
On April 24, 2001, President George W. Bush authorized the sale of a major package of arms to Taiwan, including destroyers, diesel-powered submarines, and anti-submarine aircraft, but he deferred Taipei's request for U.S. destroyers equipped with the advanced Aegis combat system.

Is Jane's a good enough source for you?

A major arms package, but no AEGIS, for Taiwan

By Peter Felstead, janes.com Web Editor

China was today lodging official protests over the US announcement yesterday of a major arms deal for Taiwan: a move that signals a continued US preparedness to support the island state that Beijing has always considered a renegade province.

A sizeable package
The arms package announced for Taiwan yesterday may be even larger than the biggest previous US sale to the island: the 1992 supply of 150 F-16 fighters worth US$6 billion. Its major components are as follows:
# Four Kidd-class destroyers (currently mothballed). Further details of the Kidd-class destroyer are available here.
# Eight diesel-electric patrol submarines
# 12 P-3 Orion maritime patrol aircraft
# Paladin self-propelled howitzers
# MH-53E minesweeping helicopters
# AAV7A1 amphibious assault vehicles
# Avenger surface-to-air missiles
# Submarine- and surface-launched torpedoes

The defence package agreed for Taiwan was influenced largely by the build-up of missiles facing Taipei from the Chinese mainland, although the recent strain in Sino-US relations over the collision between a US EP-3 surveillance aircraft and a Chinese J-8 interceptor will not have put the US government in a conciliatory mood. China critics in the US Congress were dismayed by President Bush stopping short of selling Taiwan warships equipped with the AEGIS integrated combat system, but they were somewhat mollified by the decision to go ahead with the supply of submarines. These would provide a potent blockade-breaking capability and serve as a deterrent to any invasion of Taiwan by the People's Liberation Army.

Submarines from where?
How these submarines will be supplied is another matter, since the USA no longer has an indigenous capability to build diesel-electric patrol submarines. One obvious potential source of supply would have been the link-up between US companies Litton Ingalls Shipbuilding and Lockheed Martin and Dutch boatbuilders RDM, a joint venture formed to offer Moray class submarines to Egypt.

RDM, however, has been blocked in the past from selling submarines direct to Taiwan by the Dutch government - despite the Dutch having supplied Taiwan's two Hai Lung-class patrol submarines in 1987/88. Yesterday a Dutch Foreign Ministry spokesman told the Bloomberg News Service that current Dutch policy meant that "no weapons are to be sold to Taiwan or to third parties for resale to Taiwan".

Germany would be a possible alternative source, but Berlin, too, has shied away from selling submarines to Taiwan for fear of incensing the Chinese. A spokesman for German Chancellor Gerhard Shroeder told Bloomberg yesterday: "We wouldn't permit the sale."

France, which also builds diesel-electric submarines, has in the past supplied Taiwan with six Kang Ding (La Fayette) class frigates, Mirage 2000 fighters and other weapons - but at the cost of much deteriorated relations with Beijing.

Still waiting for you to name the US shipyard that builds diesel subs. In the interim, I will defer to Jane's

[Paul_Denton]

Yes but the key words is was dictatorial. Thanks to Lee Teng-hui, Taiwan IS democratic now.

[Paul_Denton]

because China could turn around and give them to Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Lybia, etc ...

China is already doing just that, arming Taiwan with nukes would be a fitting punishment for spreading nukes to islamic states like Pakistan, Iran, Lybia (which gave up its nuclear program) etc.

[Paul_Denton]

Taiwan has not demonstrated a willingness to sacrifice for its independence and freedom unlike, say, Israel. Have they acted yet on the $18 billion arms package that U.S. defense experts say is the minimum they need to protect themselves from PLA assault?

No, Taiwan has its own set of leftists that have so far managed to block te 18 billion dollar arms prchase.

[ServesURight]

Yeah, Chang was kind of like Mislovec of Serbia.

[Paul_Denton]

DEFENDING against the minority of PRC forces that could invade Taiwan is a lot more thinkable...hence the multi carrier battlegroup exercise 'show of force' last summer...but it would be FAR from quick or easy or painless...and the risk of escalation to nuclear confrontation by miscalculation would be worrisome...:-(

Well then I say risk it. We risked nuclear war to protect the ungreatful western europeans.

[panzer_grey]

The JANES article is 4 YEARS OLD!!! Whoever is sending you these OLD stories from 2001 is feeding you some bad propaganda. I am all for the U.S. defending Taiwan - as long as Taiwan is willing to defend itself. When your "friend" sends you stuff from the BEGINNING of W's FIRST TERM, it should raise a flag in your head. I rely on CURRENT information, not something almost 4 year's old article in JANE's. JANE's is great, but 4 YEARS OLD??? As for building diesel subs in the U.S. - its clear that we *got* the plans. If you don't think W means what he says, and says what he means, you have been asleep the last 4 years. Your "friend" whom you rely on to send you OLD, DATED, and BAD stuff, either has an axe to grind against U.S. shipyards or who knows what.

Here is something from the Taipei Times, and its been written in the LAST MONTH!!! This is what should concern us all who care about Taiwan.

Arms budget limbo sends negative message to US

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2005/02/26/2003224639
By Nadia Tsao
STAFF REPORTER IN WASHINGTON
Saturday, Feb 26, 2005,Page 3
Taiwan's failure to approve the US arms procurement budget has sent a negative message to the US that Washington's commitment to Taiwan's security has been unnecessary, according to Assistant Defense Secretary Richard Lawless.

He made the blunt remark during a closed-door defense industry meeting held in Washington by the American Chamber of Commerce in Taipei (AmCham) in the middle of this month.

Lawless told the group that Taiwan would be seen as a burden by its allies if the arms purchase from the US -- three Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) missile batteries, 12 P-3C maritime patrol aircraft and eight diesel powered submarines -- continues to be held up by the legislature.

He said the US has yet to see any consistency about national security at the strategic planning level and the arms purchase budget has became a hostage among the different parties.

He said some Americans are impatient and have the impression that Taiwan doesn't care about its own security so a US commitment to it was unnecessary.

He said Taipei doesn't seem to understand how serious a withdrawal of Washington's support for Taiwan's security would be.

He said he hoped that Taiwan would not only swiftly approve the arms deal, but increase its annual military budget.

However, he said if the special arms purchase bill continues to flounder, Taipei might communicate with Washington and seek to get 60 percent of budget passed first.

TRANSLATED BY RICH CHANG

[TheForceOfOne]

I say we tow the island farther away from the mainland towards Hawaii and annex it, problem settled. :P lol

[Goldwater4ever]

There is nothing in the article concerning your claim that Kidd Class destroyers have aegis systems. Nor is there any evidence as to where the subs are to be manufactured. Still waiting to hear about the US shipyard that makes diesel subs.

[Lexinom]

Taiwan bump