China VS. Taiwan

[STING2]

1) Do you believe Taiwan has the right to officially declare its independence from China?

2) If China attempts to invade Taiwan(regardless of whether Taiwan had declared independence or not), do you support US and international military intervention to stop China?

 

[deep]

1. no

2. no U S intervention (U S supports – one China policy)



China will not invade
without serious provocation fron nut-jobs in Taiwan.

 

[financeguy]

1) Yes

2) On balance, no, as it is nothing to do with the international community, it is to do with China and Taiwan.


On a side note, one wonders what responses this allegedly far-left forum would throw up, if the following questions were asked:-

'(a) Do you agree with the concept of territorial integrity?

(b) If the US and other countries attempt to invade or attack Iran, would you support hypothetic Chinese/Russian intervention to stop the US and allied states?'

On another side note, another question could be posed:- 'Would you have supported international intervention to defend Catholics/Nationalists from Loyalist pogroms in Belfast and Derry in 1969?'

 

[cardosino]

1) Do you believe Taiwan has the right to officially declare its independence from China?

2) If China attempts to invade Taiwan(regardless of whether Taiwan had declared independence or not), do you support US and international military intervention to stop China?

1. No.

2. Maybe. Depends how China will handle Hsinchu.

 

[STING2]

1. no

2. no U S intervention (U S supports – one China policy)



China will not invade
without serious provocation fron nut-jobs in Taiwan.

1. Yes

2. Yes

Although I would support Taiwan officially declaring its independence from China, I would hope that they do not or at least delay such a declaration for some time, because it would help to avoid a conflict. Taiwan is already independent, its been independent for nearly 60 years now, it just has not officially declared its independence. If one day, democracy comes to China, I would then hope that Taiwan would reunify with mainland China. But as more time goes by, more and more people in Taiwan see themselves as an independent country. The majority of the population today was born in a Taiwan that was independent of the Chinese government.

The United States supports the "one China Policy" but has reserved the right to intervene with the US military if China decides to resolve its dispute with Taiwan with military force.

The US Navy and United States Marine Corp are deployed to rapidly come to Taiwan's aid in the event China attempts to invade. An entire Marine MEF(over 20,000 troops) is stationed in Okinawa and could be rushed to Taiwan in the event of an invasion.

 

[BonosSaint]

1. Yes.
2. Maybe. Are you talking about a real international intervention
or another US and "a coalition of the willing"? Cause we are
not ready to take on China. Reserve opinion for now.

On a side note, one wonders what responses this allegedly far-left forum would throw up, if the following questions were asked:-

'(a) Do you agree with the concept of territorial integrity?

(b) If the US and other countries attempt to invade or attack Iran, would you support hypothetic Chinese/Russian intervention to stop the US and allied states?'

On another side note, another question could be posed:- 'Would you have supported international intervention to defend Catholics/Nationalists from Loyalist pogroms in Belfast and Derry in 1969?' [/B]

a) Define. My instincts say yes. My intervention answers may
contradict.
b) Sigh. Yep, hypthothetically China would have the right to bring
in a military presence. Nasty can of worms we're opening up
here since I think China may be the next superpower.
c.) Yes.

 

[Axver]

1. Yes. I've always viewed Taiwan as a separate country anyway.

2. In the case of defending allies from external aggression, yes.

 

[financeguy]

c.) Yes.

I would argue that the consequences of intervention would have been worse than any actual consequences that happened given no intervention.

Which is part of the reason I asked the question (and I admit I phrased it in a slightly leading way), and also part of the reason why I am sceptical of the idea of exporting freedom, and also of the idea of the 'international community' intervening to defend 'human rights', whether it is sponsored by the UN or by 'coalitions of the willing' acting more or less independently of the UN, given that in Northern Ireland there were always competing points of view, as in many other situations.

The problem in Northern Ireland in the late 60's/early 70's was often framed in terms of 'those loyalists are trying to oppress the innocent Catholics/nationalists', etc, hence leading people to adopt the view 'better send in an international force to protect them', etc. But it was never as simple as that. These things rarely are.

I note in passing that those lovers of freedom, the poor oppressed Kurdish nationalists, the noble freedom fighters against Saddam's oppressive regime, have seemingly been involved in recent TERRORIST atrocities in Turkey. Which begs the question, once again, when does a freedom fighter become a terrorist?

And frankly there isn't an easy answer to that question.

 

[STING2]

1) Yes

2) On balance, no, as it is nothing to do with the international community, it is to do with China and Taiwan.


On a side note, one wonders what responses this allegedly far-left forum would throw up, if the following questions were asked:-

'(a) Do you agree with the concept of territorial integrity?

(b) If the US and other countries attempt to invade or attack Iran, would you support hypothetic Chinese/Russian intervention to stop the US and allied states?'

On another side note, another question could be posed:- 'Would you have supported international intervention to defend Catholics/Nationalists from Loyalist pogroms in Belfast and Derry in 1969?'

(a) To a certain degree yes. But, I do not support the idea that territorial integrity gives a country a right to engage in ethnic cleansing or other gross human rights abuses without having to face international intervention. Territorial integrity also does not give a country the right to engage in activities that threaten regional and global security.

(b) No and the Chinese and Russians would not intervene even if they wanted to. China does not have power projection capablities to fight a war hundreds or thousands of miles from its borders. The old Soviet Union had a border with Iran, but Russia does not and would have to cross through several independent countries and hundreds of miles of rough terrein to be positioned to intervene. Russia's military today is small and their power projection capabilities are a fraction of what the Soviet Union's was. Russia was nearly powerless to support their "Serb brothers" in the Kosovo war back in 1999.


In the Northern Ireland situation, the United Kingdom is a democracy and it was only a matter of time under which Catholics would receive the rights and protections they deserved. Unfortunately, the British Army and British Government made mistakes that worsened the conflict. The British Army was initially welcomed in Derry by the Catholics back in 1969 from what people told me when I was there 6 weeks ago.

 

[financeguy]

In the Northern Ireland situation, the United Kingdom is a democracy and it was only a matter of time under which Catholics would receive the rights and protections they deserved. Unfortunately, the British Army and British Government made mistakes that worsened the conflict. The British Army was initially welcomed in Derry by the Catholics back in 1969 from what people told me when I was there 6 weeks ago.

I agree with you 100% on all of these points.

 

[verte76]

1. Yes.
2. No. We're in no shape to take on China in a military confrontation. Hopefully the dispute could be worked out in a way that eventually satisfies all of the major players without bloodshed. That's probably too utopian........like a hell of alot of my ideas.

 

[phanan]

1. Yes
2. If there was a strong coalition of allied forces of the other largest countries in the world, then yes, But if it was a so-called U.S.-led coalition that consisted of us, Britian, and several smaller countries with very limited support, then no.

 

[financeguy]

Territorial integrity also does not give a country the right to engage in activities that threaten regional and global security.

'Activities that threaten regional and global security'......hmmmm.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

1) Do you believe Taiwan has the right to officially declare its independence from China?

Yes they do have the right, but I certainly don't think they should. Like you say, Taiwan is effectively independent and has been for some time. What do they gain from declaring? Other than a warm fuzzy feeling, it's more trouble then it's worth. At this point, in 2005 there is no need or point. Who knows how it will play out in the future, as China evolves, maybe at some point in the future it will be a good and fine thing to do, with a smooth transition, but now, no need, no point, other than to put the middle finger up at China and to deliberately stir trouble.

2) If China attempts to invade Taiwan(regardless of whether Taiwan had declared independence or not), do you support US and international military intervention to stop China?

Depends on how it plays out. If China made the first move to aggressively 'take back' Taiwan, seemingly out of nowhere, then I believe they (China) are in the wrong. By that I mean the Chinese military invade or seriously provoke (eg Chinese Navy blockades Taiwan or something). How the US and international community would react to that depends on timing more than anything. In 5-10 years who knows, but in 2005 I'd bet no shot would be fired and it would be years and years of 'talks' over the matter. However, if Taiwan takes steps to aggressively seperate from China, thus provoking a reaction, I think they are fools. Again I don't think it would actually come to a foreign military intervention, but it depends. Regardless, the US and every country on earth would be in both their ears telling them to hold the status quo and I'd bet that's the way it stays for years and years. The last thing China, the US and every other country in the world (particularly neighbours) want is China and the US staring each other down, let alone fighting. That would be absolutely devestating. Only an absolute madman would allow that to actually happen. So no, I do not agree with military intervention. Taiwan is in a tough spot, but they are effectively independent, and any moves to become more so, at worst, could result in something truly horrific. At best, there's not a hell of a lot that they'd gain. Weight it up and their best bet is to hold out for a better environment in the future, whenever that may be. China and the US squaring off is probably the worst case scenario in the world today.

 

[STING2]

Yes they do have the right, but I certainly don't think they should. Like you say, Taiwan is effectively independent and has been for some time. What do they gain from declaring? Other than a warm fuzzy feeling, it's more trouble then it's worth. At this point, in 2005 there is no need or point. Who knows how it will play out in the future, as China evolves, maybe at some point in the future it will be a good and fine thing to do, with a smooth transition, but now, no need, no point, other than to put the middle finger up at China and to deliberately stir trouble.



Depends on how it plays out. If China made the first move to aggressively 'take back' Taiwan, seemingly out of nowhere, then I believe they (China) are in the wrong. By that I mean the Chinese military invade or seriously provoke (eg Chinese Navy blockades Taiwan or something). How the US and international community would react to that depends on timing more than anything. In 5-10 years who knows, but in 2005 I'd bet no shot would be fired and it would be years and years of 'talks' over the matter. However, if Taiwan takes steps to aggressively seperate from China, thus provoking a reaction, I think they are fools. Again I don't think it would actually come to a foreign military intervention, but it depends. Regardless, the US and every country on earth would be in both their ears telling them to hold the status quo and I'd bet that's the way it stays for years and years. The last thing China, the US and every other country in the world (particularly neighbours) want is China and the US staring each other down, let alone fighting. That would be absolutely devestating. Only an absolute madman would allow that to actually happen. So no, I do not agree with military intervention. Taiwan is in a tough spot, but they are effectively independent, and any moves to become more so, at worst, could result in something truly horrific. At best, there's not a hell of a lot that they'd gain. Weight it up and their best bet is to hold out for a better environment in the future, whenever that may be. China and the US squaring off is probably the worst case scenario in the world today.

Just to clarify, If China suddenly attempted to invade Taiwan tomorrow, without any provication from Taiwan itself, would you support or not support US or international military intervention to protect Taiwan?

 

[anitram]

1. Yes.

2. Most likely no. I don't really want to die of radiation burns, thanks. In the event that the entire world sided with the US against China, maybe. If there's a split down the middle, I don't think the island is worth WW4, likely to be nuclear.

 

[BonosSaint]

I would argue that the consequences of intervention would have been worse than any actual consequences that happened given no intervention.

Which is part of the reason I asked the question (and I admit I phrased it in a slightly leading way), and also part of the reason why I am sceptical of the idea of exporting freedom, and also of the idea of the 'international community' intervening to defend 'human rights', whether it is sponsored by the UN or by 'coalitions of the willing' acting more or less independently of the UN, given that in Northern Ireland there were always competing points of view, as in many other situations.

The problem in Northern Ireland in the late 60's/early 70's was often framed in terms of 'those loyalists are trying to oppress the innocent Catholics/nationalists', etc, hence leading people to adopt the view 'better send in an international force to protect them', etc. But it was never as simple as that. These things rarely are.


And frankly there isn't an easy answer to that question.

I then defer to you. For now

 

[financeguy]

(b) No and the Chinese and Russians would not intervene even if they wanted to. China does not have power projection capablities to fight a war hundreds or thousands of miles from its borders. The old Soviet Union had a border with Iran, but Russia does not and would have to cross through several independent countries and hundreds of miles of rough terrein to be positioned to intervene. Russia's military today is small and their power projection capabilities are a fraction of what the Soviet Union's was. Russia was nearly powerless to support their "Serb brothers" in the Kosovo war back in 1999.

Maybe not in Iran but....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/14/AR2005081400927.html

Snip "China tries to put the Taiwan question into every issue, but for Russia that was never the purpose of the exercises," said Dmitry Kormilitsyn, an analyst at Chinacom, a Moscow think tank that studies China and Russian-Chinese relations. "In Central Asia, on the other hand, Russian and Chinese interests are very close: maintaining the status quo and pushing back against the very active U.S. presence."

The two countries have invited observers from the Central Asian republics of Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan, which together with Russia and China form the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.

That group recently called on the United States to set a timetable to withdraw its forces from bases in Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan, which are used to support military operations in Afghanistan. The Uzbek authorities later gave U.S. forces 180 days to pull out, after the United States criticized the Uzbek government for suppressing demonstrators in the city of Andijan in May, leaving hundreds dead, according to human rights groups.

"The reason that China can have a joint military exercise with Russia is that mutual understanding between the two countries has reached a certain level, and this gives out a signal to neighboring countries," Ni Lexiong, a military expert who teaches at Shanghai Normal University, said in an interview with the China Times newspaper. "I believe the implied message of Peace Mission 2005 is very obvious: We are facing the same threat."

 

[Earnie Shavers]

Just to clarify, If China suddenly attempted to invade Taiwan tomorrow, without any provication from Taiwan itself, would you support or not support US or international military intervention to protect Taiwan?

It would certainly warrant the threat, but I believe that what that could escalate to is simply not worth it. Surely everyone would sympathise with Taiwan and surely most of the globe would be unified in it's protest towards China. But seriously, a war between the US and China? No way. Not worth it. Of course there are a lot of details there that you can't predict (eg if China were to mount a 'relatively' bloodless take over is one thing, if China launched a ruthlessly slaughterous attack with the point of virtually destroying is another, plus the political games are very hard to predict - what would Russias position be, how would the US pre-emptive strike policy play against them etc). However, as a simplified hyperthetical question my answer is no.

Would you support intervention if you had the belief that it stood a 50% or more chance of becoming a wider, major war between China and the US etc? Do you really think it's worth it? I've got all the sympathy in the world for Taiwans position and hope one day they have full 100% independence, don't get me wrong, but seriously, I never, ever want to see a war of that scale in my lifetime and can't support anything that risks that occuring. It really simply isn't worth it. China could not mount such an attack without punishment, and they would not simply be left to do it and bask in it. There is something in between that and all out war that would be the answer. It's a situation that would be a flashpoint equivalent to the Cuban Missile Crisis in my opinion, and should be treated as such. A gung ho military solution could be the worst possible answer.

 

[financeguy]

I never, ever want to see a war of that scale in my lifetime and can't support anything that risks that occuring. It really simply isn't worth it.

Why do you hate freedom?

 

[Earnie Shavers]

(b) No and the Chinese and Russians would not intervene even if they wanted to. China does not have power projection capablities to fight a war hundreds or thousands of miles from its borders. The old Soviet Union had a border with Iran, but Russia does not and would have to cross through several independent countries and hundreds of miles of rough terrein to be positioned to intervene. Russia's military today is small and their power projection capabilities are a fraction of what the Soviet Union's was. Russia was nearly powerless to support their "Serb brothers" in the Kosovo war back in 1999.

Remember the reaction to the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive strikes and the concern that raised. Sure, by one argument a level headed government may have a right to attack a location or country if they believe an attack from them is imminent (and I don't want to turn this into a 'was Iraq a threat' debate so leave that part well away from this) but the fear was that a precedent was set with little or no guidelines, rules or boundaries as to what constitutes a threat and an agreeable reasoning for launching such an attack. It basically sets up a situation, and this is in part where the failures of Iraq come into the argument (even if you don't think there are failures, there certainly are widely perceived failures that can be used effectively in an argument) because who says what is a threat and what isn't, what evidence or argument is needed, what role does the UN and international community play etc? Apparently no-one knows, so the fear has always been that once the US set that precedent, someone else will jump in and then point the finger back at the US. Lets say the US did take action against Iran. China/Russia may be pissed off by that, but unable to retaliate directly as Sting says. China however, for example, may point to the US supplied missiles etc on Taiwan and say "Threat! Pre-emptive strike necessary as per the US lead and as per the evidence of an aggressive US in recent history!!" and off they go. Messy, no? So while the reality is that China or Russia or whoever depending on the situation could kick up whatever stink they want over Iran, any retaliation over it will probably come elsewhere and will be more to spite the US than anything else. Cool with that Sting? It would be Bush's rules they're playing with. Ridiculously hyperthetical of course, but it's the worry people have or had with the US pre-emptive doctrine, and with how the lead up to the Iraq war went down. China might well be able to build a stronger case for Taiwan as a threat than the US could against Iraq or Iran? The US arming them to the teeth, the US conducting naval training right there, all time. The US happily launching invasions on countries left, right and centre. China may find this threatening? Strike first! The rules now say we can! Not trying to divert the argument, but that's where the issue could lie, not so much in the US and Russia/China clashing directly over Iran, but more a freakin' mess everywhere. Again, not of it is even close to likely, but it's not like 'worst case scenario' type things haven't happened before, and this is the kind of fire that could be played with.


And as an additional scenario type question for Sting - ignoring the Iranian question here, but what if out of nowhere tomorrow, China starts employing the exact same game plan the US used over Iraq, but over Taiwan? Claimed it as an imminent threat that they have a right to get to first? As a starting point, what if China demanded that Taiwan be disarmed?

 

[STING2]

Remember the reaction to the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive strikes and the concern that raised. Sure, by one argument a level headed government may have a right to attack a location or country if they believe an attack from them is imminent (and I don't want to turn this into a 'was Iraq a threat' debate so leave that part well away from this) but the fear was that a precedent was set with little or no guidelines, rules or boundaries as to what constitutes a threat and an agreeable reasoning for launching such an attack. It basically sets up a situation, and this is in part where the failures of Iraq come into the argument (even if you don't think there are failures, there certainly are widely perceived failures that can be used effectively in an argument) because who says what is a threat and what isn't, what evidence or argument is needed, what role does the UN and international community play etc? Apparently no-one knows, so the fear has always been that once the US set that precedent, someone else will jump in and then point the finger back at the US. Lets say the US did take action against Iran. China/Russia may be pissed off by that, but unable to retaliate directly as Sting says. China however, for example, may point to the US supplied missiles etc on Taiwan and say "Threat! Pre-emptive strike necessary as per the US lead and as per the evidence of an aggressive US in recent history!!" and off they go. Messy, no? So while the reality is that China or Russia or whoever depending on the situation could kick up whatever stink they want over Iran, any retaliation over it will probably come elsewhere and will be more to spite the US than anything else. Cool with that Sting? It would be Bush's rules they're playing with. Ridiculously hyperthetical of course, but it's the worry people have or had with the US pre-emptive doctrine, and with how the lead up to the Iraq war went down. China might well be able to build a stronger case for Taiwan as a threat than the US could against Iraq or Iran? The US arming them to the teeth, the US conducting naval training right there, all time. The US happily launching invasions on countries left, right and centre. China may find this threatening? Strike first! The rules now say we can! Not trying to divert the argument, but that's where the issue could lie, not so much in the US and Russia/China clashing directly over Iran, but more a freakin' mess everywhere. Again, not of it is even close to likely, but it's not like 'worst case scenario' type things haven't happened before, and this is the kind of fire that could be played with.


And as an additional scenario type question for Sting - ignoring the Iranian question here, but what if out of nowhere tomorrow, China starts employing the exact same game plan the US used over Iraq, but over Taiwan? Claimed it as an imminent threat that they have a right to get to first? As a starting point, what if China demanded that Taiwan be disarmed?

Very interesting post. I'm going to respond a little later though because I want to keep the thread focused on the first couple of questions and hear some other people's responses to those two basic questions. I'm then going to tally up the poll results and try to sum up in general why it seems people voted the way they did.

 

[BVS]

1. Maybe
2. No

 

[unosdostres14]

If we were in direct war against China, wouldn't there be significant negative impacts on our economy considering EVERYTHING is 'made in china'.

Even if we have the right to take military action, it would hurt us so much and we would be defeated economically.

The Chinese are also buy LOTS of our debt. If they stopped this, our nation would plunge into a depression that may be the Greater Depression.

 

[A_Wanderer]

1) Do you believe Taiwan has the right to officially declare its independence from China?

Yes I do, I think that until China is able to improve it's human rights and political freedoms the One China policy will be inherently repressive.

2) If China attempts to invade Taiwan(regardless of whether Taiwan had declared independence or not), do you support US and international military intervention to stop China?

I think that any limited war with China risks escelation, there are to many lives in the balance for war ~ the cost / benefit ratio is not there. As for if they would do it, I seriously doubt it, the cost in trade alone don't exactly make war cost effective.

 

[nbcrusader]

1) Yes

2) Yes, the US is the only thing that could prevent the elimination of Taiwan

 

[A_Wanderer]

What if the cost of defending Taiwan from assimilation militarily exceeds that of other means. Could a covertly backed insurgency campaign against China be used instead? The heavy handed response that the Chinese would have towards it could be used to get a united front internationally for Taiwanese independence.

All hypothetical of course but any direct military action could lead to carnage beyond total war. Australia would honour it's ANZUS treaty and support the US if it ever came to such a situation but with two major powers squaring off with nuclear weapons as a strategic option things could get very nasty.

I would much prefer economic engagement with China leading to a softening of positions, if a greater middle class can be allowed to emerge internally then I think that the chances of war - as remote as they are - will decrease even furthur.

As far as pre-emption goes, China already has Weapons of Mass Destruction, it has controls on those weapons, it is a signatory to it is a target of Islamist terrorists, it is authoritarian to be sure but there has been slight softening on that front (although the sight of female protestors skulls blasted out across dirty ground do not make me enamoured towards the PLA).

Unless the situations in the world changed drastically I cannot see war being in the interests of anybody.

 

[A_Wanderer]

And as an additional scenario type question for Sting - ignoring the Iranian question here, but what if out of nowhere tomorrow, China starts employing the exact same game plan the US used over Iraq, but over Taiwan? Claimed it as an imminent threat that they have a right to get to first? As a starting point, what if China demanded that Taiwan be disarmed?

I do not think that the conditions that are needed to justify intervention such as violations of international law and the convergence of strategic interests and benefit exist for such a move to be approved. Taiwan is not a rougue state.

 

[Sonoftelepunk]

Nasty can of worms we're opening up
here since I think China may be the next superpower.
c.) Yes.

China already is a superpower. Several countries around the world are considered so. What is dominating over all is the one 'megapower' in the world. Right now that is the United States and I don't believe that will change for hundreds of years.

Many people mistakingly identify a larger army and/or civilian population as being superior. In today's world, that is not true. Although China has the largest standing army in the world(2.2 million), they lack the sophistication to carry out an effective war against the United States. China relies on inferior technology(Migs) for it's air force. They have no aircraft carriers as their entire navy air force is land based. Their main battle tank is a copy of the American Abrams tank in appearance, but it is plagued with performance issues. Most importantly, China is not developing enough new warfare technology to compete with the U.S. It is the ability to surpass that certifies domination. Not the ability to copy. If they continue to keep copying waht other nations have developed in full, they won't stand a chance in the event of war.

 

[phanan]

China already is a superpower. Several countries around the world are considered so. What is dominating over all is the one 'megapower' in the world. Right now that is the United States and I don't believe that will change for hundreds of years.

Many people mistakingly identify a larger army and/or civilian population as being superior. In today's world, that is not true. Although China has the largest standing army in the world(2.2 million), they lack the sophistication to carry out an effective war against the United States. China relies on inferior technology(Migs) for it's air force. They have no aircraft carriers as their entire navy air force is land based. Their main battle tank is a copy of the American Abrams tank in appearance, but it is plagued with performance issues. Most importantly, China is not developing enough new warfare technology to compete with the U.S. It is the ability to surpass that certifies domination. Not the ability to copy. If they continue to keep copying waht other nations have developed in full, they won't stand a chance in the event of war.

The last I checked, their copied nuclear bombs would still be very effective.