Category: Military Situation – Sino-Taiwanese

French / Israeli Weapons for China

This is a pretty pro-Israel blog, but I can hardly rip the Europeans for wanting to sell weapons to China, and then give Israel a pass on this one.  From the Weekly Standard:

In 1987 [Israel Aircraft Industries] was forced to cancel a program to build an indigenous fighter, the Lavi (Lion). The Lavi was a modified version of the Lockheed Martin F-16 already being used by the Israeli Air Force, but cost significantly more than the U.S.-made fighter. So the Israeli Air Force opted to stick with the off-the-shelf model.

Some time later, the technical details of the Lavi were provided to [China's Chengdu Aircraft Industry Group], although no government has ever officially acknowledged this fact. When the J-10 was rolled out in a public ceremony in Beijing late last year, a report in the Singapore Straits Times noted the obvious: "The Jian-10 aircraft that China unveiled recently bears a striking resemblance to the Lavi. . . . The Jian-10's sophisticated pilot helmet, which allows missiles to be aimed in the direction of the pilot's eyes, is almost certainly of Israeli origin. So are the missiles themselves, which appear to be based on the Python 4 variety manufactured by Israel's Rafael Armaments Development Authority. Neither side will admit it, but the Lavi aircraft died in Israel and has now been reborn in China."  [emphasis added]

And now the J-10 menaces Taiwan.  Thanks ever so much for that.  But as it turns out, the sale managed to turn around and bite the Israelis in the end:

In late October, the Russian newspaper Kommersant reported that China's Chengdu Aircraft Industry Group will sell 24 of its new-generation Jian-10 (J-10) fighter aircraft to Iran in a contract valued at $1 billion.

[…]

Last week, the Paris-based defense and strategy publication TTU reported that China is planning to supply the J-10 to Syria as well.

So, Israel sold fighter designs to China, which then sells the completed jet fighters to IRAN and SYRIA.  THAT deal certainly worked out well, didn't it?  It gives me no pleasure to say this, but what the hell were you guys THINKING?

The Chinese Jianjiji-10 multirole combat aircraft (also known as the Chengdu J-10).

(Jianjiji-10 image from Aerospaceweb.org)

Meanwhile, the French want in on the action:

France's Délégation Générale pour l'Armement (DGA), which tightly controls all arms export sales, has been trying for more than a year to complete a sale of the Thales RC400 radar and MBDA Mica missiles to Pakistan for the JF-17 fighter. Although the JF-17 is being built under license in Pakistan, it is also a Chengdu design. The Pakistani Aeronautical Complex and its Chinese partners have comprehensive agreements that grant access for both parties to any technology acquired by the other.

Since the same French radar and missiles are on board the Taiwanese Air Force's French-built Dassault Mirage 2000 aircraft, acquisition of this technology by Beijing would be a considerable blow to the defense of the island nation. India, Pakistan's neighbor and rival, also operates the Mirage 2000. If France's DGA were to allow Pakistan to acquire the radar and missiles, Taiwan and India would see their air force's investment in French jets wiped out.  [emphasis added]

The Standard goes on to say that Taiwan's investment would be wiped out because the Pakistanis have not proven themselves to be overly scrupulous in keeping Western defense technologies out of Chinese hands.

The French Mirage 2000 multirole 4th generation jet fighter.

(Mirage 2000 image from Airforceworld.com)

UPDATE (Mar 3/09):  Former Soviet republics also selling hardware to China.

i-2

Sure-Fire Vote-Getters

Opposition to Taiwan’s attempt to join the U.N. from the local China Post:

The KMT has been…mimicking the DPP [Taiwan’s main independence party] in every major political initiative, including such crucial issues as the U.N. bid and what the United States has branded an "ill-conceived" plan to hold a national referendum on U.N. membership under the name Taiwan.  Apparently out of electoral considerations, the opposition KMT has chosen to follow, rather than oppose, the DPP’s move for fear of losing votes.

Taiwan’s 23 million people do not deserve U.N. membership.  They should gain membership to have their voice heard and to contribute to the world organization.  [emphasis added]

Picture the electoral chances of some poor boob from the KMT who takes the Post‘s advice and proclaims, "My fellow Taiwanese:  You SHOULD gain U.N. membership…but you don’t DESERVE it!"

(Pity we aren’t given the reasons WHY Taiwan’s people don’t deserve it.  Are they too stupid?  Too fat?  Too ugly?  Killed puppies in their previous lives?  What, exactly?)

To the China Post, the issue is an unwelcome distraction from badmouthing the economy as a means of persuading people to hitch Taiwan’s economy even further to China’s:

But there are issues more important than the U.N. bid, which is a non-starter in the first place.  The KMT should have the courage to initiate campaign issues of its own, issues that concern the public interest.

One of the more comical aspects of the KMT’s recent rally in support of its U.N. referendum question was its half-heartedness.  Taiwan should try to join the U.N. under the Republic of China name, or some other practical name.  That was supposed to be the event’s major theme, anyways.  But the march’s organizers couldn’t resist throwing all manner of economic complaints into the stew, even going so far as to request that supporters wear blue flip-flops as symbols of their destitution under President Chen’s administration.

The result was a diluted message.  Hey everybody, we’re FIRMLY committed to Taiwan joining the U.N..  (But please notice we’d rather talk about all this OTHER stuff instead!)

In a similar way, the paper sought to dismiss the value of U.N. membership by trotting out the example of one country that’s doing very well on its own outside of the U.N., thank you very much:

The U.N. membership is important to be sure, but it is not everything.  Switzerland is not a U.N. member for instance.  It is rich and prosperous.

Of course, the effect of this argument is somewhat blunted by the fact that Switzerland DID become a U.N. member.  Back in 2002. 

(And regardless of its recent date of entry, the Swiss had long played host to a number of U.N. organizations in a little town known as Geneva.)

From Beijing’s lips to the China Post‘s presses, the next one’s wrong as well:

Taiwan’s U.N. bid, initiated in 1993 when Lee Teng-hui was in power, was a political move to deceive the people.  The hidden purpose was to promote the cause of Taiwan independence…

By that reasoning, East Germany and North Korea’s entry into the U.N. were also crafty moves designed to promote those respective countries’ independence.  Funny, but it didn’t exactly work out that way for East Germany.  And I dare say it won’t for North Korea, either.

The piece concludes on an optimistic note, best paraphrased from Homer J. Simpson: "Taiwan, you tried your best and you failed miserably.  The lesson is, never try."

Now, 15 years has elapsed [since Taiwan first attempt to rejoin the U.N.] and the bid has become more hopeless than ever.  Yes, Taiwan can keep trying next year and every year "to let the world know the absurdity" of the issue.  But is it wise to do so when there are more pressing issues at home?

What I would dispute here is the notion that Taiwan can’t walk and chew gum at the same time.  Is it really so difficult, so costly, for Taiwan to apply to the U.N. that resources can’t simultaneously be channeled towards other domestic problems? *  Just how much time does it take for President Chen to draft a few letters to the Secretary-General?  How hard is it for Taiwan’s overseas diplomats to petition its allies for help?  I mean, that’s their JOB, isn’t it?  It’s what they’re PAID to do.  The government isn’t going to wake up tomorrow and say, "Hey!  We’ve got more pressing issues at home!  Let’s recall all those good-for-nothing diplomats of ours and put them to work in Allen-wrench factories instead!"

There are plenty of countries that are worse off than Taiwan.  Far worse off.  But relative poverty has not been an excuse for them to put off joining the U.N..

* Sunday’s Taipei Times put a price tag on Taiwan’s recent U.N. bid:

Which brings us to the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) threat last week to sue the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) for spending an estimated NT$100 million (US$3 million) on its UN campaign. Though the exercise failed in its primary objective, it was immensely successful in promoting Taiwan and engendering debate all over the world. Rarely has Taiwan been discussed so extensively in newspapers, from the US to Denmark, or had rallies — from San Francisco to Vancouver — held in support of the nation.

To put things in perspective, the DPP’s campaign only came at one-fifteenth of the cost of an F-16 aircraft. From a PR point of view, that NT$100 million was a wise investment.

Quite an apropos comparison to make, between the cost of the U.N. bid and part of Taiwan’s defense expenditure.  For three million dollars, Taiwan energized some of its international supporters, and those supporters made their backing public.  Such visible support, in some SMALL way, makes an attack on Taiwan less likely, because it makes the point clear to Beijing that any attack would not be yawned at by members of the international community.  It lets the Chinese know there may be unpleasant international consequences for them if they ever take aggressive action against the Beautiful Isle.

I’d be the first to say that the significance of this deterrent value should not be overestimated.  Given that though, I’d also ask whether an additional one-fifteenth of an F-16 would have provided Taiwan with much more deterrence at the margins.

David Frum On Taiwan & Other Links

Apparently David Frum of the American Enterprise Institute was in Taiwan recently, and he wrote a few pieces about La Isla Formosa.  Haven’t had much time to follow the ‘net over the past few weeks (belated congratulations on blog post #2000, Michael!), so apologies to anyone who has already posted these links.

Frum gives a good summary of China’s behavior towards Taiwan here.

Even better is his second piece (though it’s a bit deceptively-titled).  He certainly grasps that left-right labels aren’t really applicable to Taiwanese politics:

The "left-wing" DPP has proposed to purchase American warships, surveillance craft and interceptor missiles. It presses the U.S. to engage in joint training exercises with Taiwanese forces, to allow U.S. naval vessels to call at Taiwan ports and to change current policy so as to allow serving generals and admirals to visit Taiwan.

The "right-wing" KMT prefers detente. It has used its majority in Taiwan’s parliament to stall the DPP’s arms purchases. It advocates closer contacts with China even if China refuses to recognize Taiwan. Some of its members voice rising doubts about the relevance of the U.S.-Taiwan alliance. Leading KMT members have travelled to Beijing to hold party-to-part talks with leading
Chinese Communists.

(My favorite moment a few years back was when "left-wing" Vice-President Annette Lu channeled Ronald Reagan, calling China "an empire of evil".  A statement which the "right-wing" KMT hastened to denounce as "China-bashing".)

He closes this one with a concern many of us here have had for a long time:

One hears persistent rumors in Taiwan that the Chinese Communists pressure Taiwan businessmen with interests on the mainland to make campaign donations to their ancient enemies in the KMT. China ranks among the most corrupt countries on Earth. Young democracies are vulnerable to external corruption.

I travelled to Taiwan worried that the Chinese might try to invade the island. I returned worrying that China will try to buy it.

Over at his blog with the National Review, he gives a book review of Minxin Pei’s China’s Trapped Transition:  The Limits of Developmental Autocracy.  One highlight:

* The Chinese Communist party’s grip on power is tightening, not loosening. While 60% of entrepreneurs who launched businesses in the 1980s were workers, peasants, or other ordinary people, by 2002, two-thirds of China’s business owners were former government officials, party cadres, or executives of state-owned enterprises. This is not a case of successful businessmen opportunistically joining the ruling party. Rather, it seems that the ruling party is opportunistically seizing successful businesses.

[…]

Pei argues that these disturbing trends represent something more than growing pains. He argues that they inhere in the path the Chinese Communist Party chose for the country it rules.

The great problem facing any state is how to control the actions of its agents. In a democracy, we rely on a free press to alert us to abuses by the government and competitive elections to correct them. Mao Tse-Tung’s version of communism relied on capricious and all-enveloping terror. But when the Chinese reformers semi-opened their economy, while sedulously denying political freedom, they loosened their control of their agents – while creating lucrative new incentives for their agents to siphon wealth away for themselves.

A vicious cycle has been unleashed. The richer China grows, the more reluctant the ruling elite becomes to surrender power, because power has become so much more valuable. But the refusal to loosen the grip on power undermines China’s wealth, by creating unchecked incentives to the state’s agents to prey upon wealth creation.  [emphasis added]

Elsewhere, George Will points out that James Mann has something similar to say in The China Fantasy:  How Our Leaders Explain Away Chinese Repression:

[Mann’s] most disturbing thesis is that "the newly enriched, Starbucks-sipping, apartment-buying, car-driving denizens" of the large cities that American visitors to China see will be not the vanguard of democracy but the opposition to it. There may be 300 million such denizens, but there are 1 billion mostly rural and very poor Chinese. Will the minority prospering economically under a Leninist regime think majority rule is in their interest?

Maybe this is piling on, but Guy Sorman says much the same:

Still, hasn’t [economic] growth [in China] created an independent middle class that will push for, and eventually obtain, greater political freedom? Many in the West think so, looking to the South Korean example, but [dissident economist] Mao Yushi isn’t convinced. What exists in China, he argues, is a class of “parvenus,” newcomers whose purchasing power depends on their proximity to the Party rather than their education or entrepreneurial achievements. Except for a handful of genuine businessmen, the parvenus work in the military, public administration, or state enterprises, or for firms ostensibly private but, in fact, owned by the Party. The Party picks up the tab for almost all their imported luxury cars, two-thirds of their mobile phones, and three-quarters of their restaurant bills, as well as their call girls, their “study” trips abroad, and their lavish spending at Las Vegas casinos. And it can withdraw these advantages at any time.

In March, the Chinese government announced, to much fanfare in the Western press, that it would begin to introduce individual property rights. We should understand that this “reform” will benefit only the parvenus, not the peasants, whose tilled land will still belong to the state. But the parvenus will now be able to transmit to their children what they have acquired thanks to their Party connections—one more reason that they will be unlikely to push for the democratization of the regime that secures their status.

Speaking of democratization, Sorman gives us an idea of just how much democracy Taiwan can expect to retain should the KMT’s dream of reunification ever be implemented:

…like everybody else, the Chinese love to watch TV, despite pervasive censorship and the propaganda broadcast on it in China. One of their favorite shows is a local version of the U.S. hit American Idol called Super Girl, broadcast by a Hunan satellite channel and produced by a private firm. In 2005, the winner of this amateur singing contest was Miss Li, a lanky 20-year-old with a punk hairdo, sporting jeans and a black T-shirt—a fashion inspired by South Korean pop bands. Miss Li won democratically with nearly 4 million votes, text-messaged by viewers using their cell phones from home. Over 400 million Chinese viewers—more than the combined populations of the United States and England—watched the finale.

An unexceptional story—except that it happened in China, and the Communist Party, taken by surprise, condemned Miss Li for not singing in Chinese but in English and Spanish and for wearing clothes that didn’t conform to the anodyne official dress code laid down by the national television station. A columnist in China Daily, the Party’s mouthpiece, interpreted her victory as a popular uprising against the established order, concluding that “Miss Li has been elected but the people have made a bad choice. This is what happens when people are unprepared for democracy.”  [emphasis added]

Taiwan Drills For Attack On PRC Aircraft Carrier

From Tuesday’s Taiwan News:

Taiwan is performing a computerized military exercise which for the first time focuses on attacking a Chinese aircraft carrier, it was reported yesterday.

The scenario of a five-day drill – part of a military maneuver codenamed "Han Kuang 23" is that in 2012 the People’s Liberation Army launch a blitz on the island after they acquire their first aircraft carrier…

In the drill beginning yesterday, the Taiwanese navy armed with home-made "Hsiungfeng II" ship-to-ship missiles and the improved version of supersonic "Hsiungfeng III" missiles is to simulate launching its arsenal against a Chinese aircraft carrier…

The Taiwan air force’s F-16 fighters would also simulate attacks on the carrier using U.S.-made Harpoon missiles…

UPDATE (May 17/07):  This is an update which really should have been done about a month ago.  The April 22nd edition of the China Post reveals that this report was false:

The simulated war games didn’t cover the use of nuclear weapons or Taiwan military attacks on China’s aircraft carrier battle groups as some media outlets had speculated, the sources said.

The Taipei Times emphasized the positive, final outcome of the computer simulation:

The complex simulation involved a scenario of China invading Taiwan in 2012.

[…]

In the simulation, Chinese ships ferry forces to the island, backed by heavy missile barrages and pinpoint air strikes on Taiwanese military bases and other strategic facilities.

The "invaders" then establish beachheads along Taiwan’s west coast, though their arrival is delayed for days by Taiwanese missile strikes on Chinese military bases and by Taiwanese navy counterattacks.

The simulation saw western Taiwan radar stations, missile bases and airports suffer heavy damage, but ground forces held down casualty numbers by taking cover in specially prepared areas.

After two weeks of fierce fighting, Taiwan’s army corners and destroys the Chinese invaders.

[…]

The computer simulation envisioned no role for the US in the fighting, [Marine Lieutenant General Hsu Tai-sheng] said, despite expectations that Washington would assist Taiwan if China attacked.

Meanwhile, Taiwan’s China Post played up the devastation angle:

In the mock counterattacks, Taiwan’s troops struck coastal Chinese military targets and cities with such weapons as cruise missiles and short-range ballistic missiles.

[…]

In the first three days of the simulated Chinese invasion, Taiwan incurred severe human and material losses from China’s saturated ballistic missile assault, as well as its naval and aerial bombardment.

However, Taiwan’s armed forces managed to get up to steam to stage counterattacks on China’s coastal military targets and its major cities, causing heavy human casualties and major destruction.

In the warfare scenario, the military strikes not only take a heavy toll on the economic well-being of both sides of the Taiwan Strait, but also adversely impact the global economy and cause a worldwide panic.

In the end, the United States and other Western countries jointly mediated a ceasefire.

Of course, the U.S. probably wouldn’t be in a position to mediate a ceasefire if it were to come to Taiwan’s aid.  At any rate, U.S. officials were present, and presumably spoke to a few of Taiwan’s armed forces to try to get a handle on troop loyalty:

Meanwhile, the sources said, the U.S. observation group focused in particular on assessing the Taiwan military personnel’s "combat spirit" to see whether their morale has been affected by the prolonged political infighting that has cast a long shadow over society since the transition of power between different political parties back in 2000.

In weighing the military’s "combat spirit," the sources said, the U.S. delegation wanted to determine whether Taiwan would likely lean toward China and whether any advanced U.S.-built weaponry systems or sophisticated defense strategies would end up in the hands of the Chinese communists.

Guests Of The Ayatollahs

None of us knows with 100% certainty whether the 15 Brits were captured in Iraqi or Iranian waters, though the cartoonist at the Taiwan News was pretty sure on March 26th that he knew the score:

The Taiwan News editorial cartoon portraying the Iranian navy as being justifiably angry with a British boat which has crossed into Iranian waters. (With two signs in the water reading: Countries you have invaded, Countries you have not invaded).

It may be particularly unwise for people in Taiwan to defend those with a well-known predilection for hostage taking. Because one of these days, the Chinese may pull a stunt like that, too.  Rather than lob off a missile, just snatch a few Taiwanese servicemen.  Demonstrate there are no Taiwanese waters – only CHINESE waters.

Fortunately for Taipei, a diplomatic solution will be graciously offered.  Anything is negotiable, under the "One China" principle…

i-1

On The Sunny Side Of The Street

I’m not going to heap scorn upon this China Post editorial.  Because there are days when I, too, think things might work out for the best in the Middle Kingdom:

Today’s communist leaders in China are pragmatists, who believes in Deng Xiaoping’s "cat theory" of getting results rather than Mao Zedong’s egalitarianism of glorifying poverty on an equal footing. The merit of the law should be judged by the answer to a single question: Do the people want it?

But the mainland people may want more-free elections, free press and independent courts, for example. Clearly, the National People’s Congress is in no hurry to work on these political reforms, which are lagging far behind. These are the reforms that can best safeguard against the abuse of power by corrupt officials. So, after property reform, political reform must be on the agenda.

Already, grassroots pressure for such reform is mounting. The rising middle class and increasingly well-educated people will demand political reforms that are now put on the back burner. If the past is an indication, we have reasons to be optimistic that such reforms will be carried out in another decade or two, if not sooner.

China’s communists may be more pragmatic than they once were, but is that pragmatism directed at doing what’s good for their country, or merely doing whatever allows them to hold their positions of power and privilege?  A selfless utilitarian might, out of a sense of pragmatism, be willing to allow himself to be voted out of office in order to better serve the needs of society.  But communist oligarchs obsessed with clinging to power may be much less inclined to do so.

Furthermore, while I agree that the well-educated will demand political reforms, it is not at all inevitable that they will succeed in getting these demands met.  Tienanmen Square happened once, and it can happen again.  And again and again.  Heinlein once depicted a society whose subjects were completely co-opted by a fascist state; they were perfectly free to make all the money they wanted, and as long they tended to their own gardens, the State was content to leave them alone.  The Federation was unapologetically brutal to those who dared meddle in politics, however.

"Starship Troopers" may have been fiction, but a few societies HAVE paralleled it in real-life.  Could China take that path as well?  I wonder…

There ARE indeed hopeful developments in China, but there are others the sober observer cannot ignore.  The creation of the "Great Firewall", continuing persecution against certain religious minorities, a blithely amoral foreign policy – these are all things that suggest China might be moving in a darker direction.

To this list, I might add China’s treatment of the free and democratic state of Taiwan.  A few years ago, a Taiwanese industrialist doing business there was threatened, with tax audits and overzealous safety inspections, into signing a document declaring his "opposition" to Taiwanese independence.  It was only last year that Chinese arm-twisting caused an airplane carrying Taiwan’s president to be forbidden from flying over Mexican airspace.  And let it not be forgotten that China currently aims a thousand missiles at Taiwan, in an effort to terrorize the population into submission. 

Taiwan is the canary in the coal mine, and how China treats it should be of interest to everyone.  Today, it’s Taiwanese industrialists who are being bullied into taking political stances; tomorrow, it may be businessmen from YOUR country.  Today, China prevents Taiwan’s president from freely traveling; tomorrow, it may prevent the president of some other democratic country it’s displeased with from doing so.

And the missiles?  Well, TODAY they, and other weapons, are targeted upon Taiwan.  And tomorrow?  Well, by now I hope you’ve gotten the picture.

KMT To CPC: Kidnap And Murder Taiwan’s President; We Don’t Mind

Taiwan’s Chinese Nationalist Party bellyaches about military evacuation drills for the President in case the Communist Party of China orders a decapitation strike:

"The military wasted money just to create a war nightmare to impress upon the people the possibility of the enemy at the door before the two important elections," [KMT legislator Lin Yu-fang] charged.

If I recall correctly, the military undertakes these drills about once a year, so the charge that this is something new to influence elections is a bit hollow.  The Taiwanese can sleep well knowing the KMT takes their country’s security so seriously.

UPDATE (Apr 15/07):  There was an air-raid drill in northern Taiwan on Apr 10th at about 2 pm, which lasted about a half hour.  In my place of employment, we were told to turn out the lights and close the curtains.  Naturally, the KMT complained that that, too, was an election gimmick.

The Umran Javed Defense

British Islamofascist Umran Javed was convicted of soliciting murder after he tried to convince a jury that his cries of, "Bomb, bomb Denmark!  Bomb, bomb U.S.A.!" during the Danish Mo-toon crisis were merely harmless slogans, and that he didn’t LITERALLY mean what he said.

Greg Gutfield has a bit of helpful advice:

In the future, radical fundamentalists (or Radfuns, for short) could avoid confusion by shouting, instead: "Bomb, bomb Denmark, Bomb, Bomb USA, in a purely figurative sense, of course!"  [Emphasis added]

Doesn’t exactly roll off the tongue, but sometimes ya gotta CYA.

(I believe video of Javed and his fellow Gandhi-wannabees can be found here.)

All this reminded me of a Dec 7/06 China Post editorial, which defended the right of members of the Taiwanese military to threaten the president of their country with death:

A drillmaster was recently arrested for participating in an anti-President Chen Shui-bian rally in September wearing his full dress uniform and for distributing a letter in which he stated the "army will turn their guns inwards" [on the president in the event of a war]…

A member of the MILITARY participated in a political rally?  I’d say that’s Strike #1.  Strike 2 would be doing it in full dress uniform.  And handing out literature saying that in wartime, the Taiwanese army would SIDE WITH COMMUNIST CHINA and kill the Taiwanese president?

Strike 3, you’re outta there.

But that’s just the way I see it.  The China Post however, invoked the Umran Javed Defense:

In our opinion, the remark "the army will turn their guns inwards" was meant mainly to remind the public of a danger and can hardly be interpretted as the incitement of a rebellion.

No wonder the capitulationist People First Party threatened to freeze the entire budget of the Ministry of National Defense for putting Tung in the brig.  Why, the way the paper put it, the man’s a HERO.

And if you disagree, you’re obviously some kind of fascist, or something:

What happened to Tung became a focus of attention because his arrest smacks of a return to martial law rule.

[…]

[It] reflects an attempt by the government to suppress the display of discontent by members of the Armed Forces.  The attempt is a violation of human rights and represents a slip back on the road to democracy.

Expect the China Post to do a major rethink on this issue if a KMT president is elected in ’08.  At that point, it’ll suddenly become VERY UNCOOL for the army to "turn its guns inward".

UPDATE (Jan 11/06):  Thanks go to Tim Maddog, for finding the link to the China Post editorial in question.  Truth be told, my biggest concern in writing this post was that readers unfamiliar with Taiwan might think I was distorting the Post‘s position, or even making the whole thing up.

The link has been added, so readers can decide for themselves.

If China Attacks Taiwan: Chapter Two

(This is the third in a series of posts reviewing If China Attacks Taiwan.  A brief review of Chapter 1 can be found here, while a review of the entire book can be found here.)

Political and military factors determining China’s use of force

Maochun Yu is responsible for the second chapter, and he begins by discussing historical precedent:

"Alastair Iain Johnston has documented a ‘Chinese Realism’ which emphasizes offensive action as the preferred way to end geopolitical disputes.  By examining official documents from several dynasties in imperial China, Johnston shows a clear pattern of inherent militarism within the Chinese historical consciousness.  This pattern of ‘Cultural Realism’ tends to regard war as the primary means to conduct inter-state and inter-regional relationships.

Also called ‘active defense,’ ‘coercive diplomacy,’ or ‘coercive strategy,’ the PRC’s attitude toward Taiwan has been consistently within this domain of historical ‘Cultural Realism,’ where war and the use of blunt force remains the ultimate option for ending the decades-long standoff between the communist state and the de facto independent government of Taiwan."

Just a bit of an antidote there to all the "peaceful rising" stuff that Taiwan’s China Post reprints so uncritically for its readers.

The author then describes the machinery of the communist state leadership, and notes that leaders within the hierarchy tend "to compete fiercely to be seen as the most hawkish on Taiwan."  He tells an amusing anecdote of Premier Wen Jinbao, who used to tell audiences that the economy was China’s top priority, so peace needed to be kept "at any cost".  When he was derided as being soft on Taiwan, Wen changed his speeches, simultaneously proclaiming that "peace had to be maintained AND war waged against an independent Taiwan, both at ‘any cost’." (Emphasis added)

Regarding economic interdependence between the two countries, Maochun notes that contrary to classical liberal theory, political distrust has increased even as economic links between Taiwan and China have grown.  But he also points out that China has begun to capitalize on Taiwan’s excessive foreign investment there*, bullying Taiwanese businessmen into becoming a "pro-unification political lobby".

The news isn’t all bad, however.  Maochun gives a few examples suggesting that the Chinese people may not be behind their leaders on this whole war thing.  He tells of one incident where PLA experts tried to sell the use of force against Taiwan to a national audience; in the following Q&A they were bombarded with sceptical questions regarding cost, price and potential [Chinese] civilian casualties.  As the author says:

"One could almost sense from the audience…subtle disapproval…"

Finally, there were a couple of points of trivia that were interesting:

1.  According to the Washington Post, "Some [PLA] units spend 30 percent of their training time studying politics."

2.  Apparently, many of Taiwan’s capitulationists have told Beijing not to invade.  I suppose that’s one small comfort, at least.  He tells of an odd duck named Huang Shunxin who was "father of Taiwan’s early 1980’s grassroots democracy  movement,…a daring member of Taiwan’s Legislative Yuan, [and] a fanatic advocate of reunification.  After his defection to Beijing in 1985, and after he became a member of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress and a heavyweight figure in the PRC’s United Front against Taiwan, he told [the] CCP Secretary General…that if the PRC were to invade Taiwan…he would go back to Taiwan to organize the resistance movement against the PLA." (Emphasis added)

Never heard of Huang Shunxin before.  A Taiwanese democracy activist who defected to Communist China!  That’s way more bizarre than the recent spectacle of Shih Ming-teh teaming up with his former KMT jailers!**

* 66% of Taiwan’s yearly foreign investment was directed towards China as of 2002.  I believe the figure has since increased to 75%.

** Shih Ming-teh is a former democracy activist who is currently organizing protests calling upon the president of Taiwan to resign.  A recent story can be found here.