Most Dangerous Clash?

[Annie]

http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion...0,5279634.column?coll=ny-viewpoints-headlines

China and Taiwan are drifting toward a clash
Mar 25, 2005

Sometimes it's not obvious what the most consequential story in the news is.

Certainly the tragic case of Terri Schiavo is not only gripping but also raises difficult moral and medical questions. And what is happening in the Middle East is always of interest and importance, whether we're talking about Iraq, Lebanon or Israel and the Palestinians.

But I've been keeping a wary eye on the most recent round of saber rattling between China and Taiwan. When foreign policy experts say this is potentially the most dangerous spot in the world, they are not exaggerating. Miscalculations by the new Chinese leadership and the pro-independence government in Taiwan could lead to a full-scale war between China and the United States.

None of the parties wants a war. But they are drifting toward confrontation despite what would seem to be in neither's self-interest, economic or otherwise.

For the past 25 years a formula of creative ambiguity has allowed each to remain true to its historical claims without forcing a confrontation. The 1979 agreement between Beijing and Washington recognizes there is only one China, but it stipulates that the dispute between the island of Taiwan and the mainland should be settled peacefully, implicitly recognizing this could take a very long time.

But during the past two decades, as Taiwan has developed into a real, functioning democracy, there has been a much stronger movement for independence. The party that favors a declaration of independence is now in power. And China, which continues to grow in economic and military power, takes greater and greater umbrage at its claim. Taiwan is part of China, period, it says...

 

[Annie]

short and to their point:

http://www.voanews.com/english/2005-03-27-voa3.cfm

China Reacts Angrily to Taiwan Protest March
By VOA News
27 March 2005

Pro-Taiwan supporters march in protest to Beijing's anti-secession law
China is warning that Taiwan is stirring new tension with its massive protest march against Beijing's new anti-secession law.

Mainland newspapers ran a dispatch from the official Xinhua news agency Sunday, saying Taiwan's independence forces are the biggest threat to peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait.

The commentary says the non-peaceful means mentioned in Beijing's anti-secession law is targeted at secessionist forces, and not at Taiwan compatriots.

Taiwan President Chen Shui-bian and hundreds of thousands of protesters took to the streets of Taipei Saturday to oppose the law.

The United States, among other countries, is concerned Beijing may use the law to declare war on Taiwan, which China considers part of its territory.

Some information for this report provided by AP and AFP.

 

[Annie]

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,12675394%5E2703,00.html

China warns 'malevolent' Taiwan
Catherine Armitage, China correspondent
28mar05

THE Chinese Government issued a sharp warning yesterday that a march by hundreds of thousands of people in Taipei to protest at China's new anti-secession law on Taiwan had created "new tension across the Taiwan Strait".

China vowed, again, never to back down over Taiwan. In an official commentary carried in all major newspapers and broadcast on state television, it accused the "extreme Taiwan independence secessionists" of "malevolently distorting the principles of the law to misguide the Taiwan people and instigate antagonism and create new tension across the Taiwan Strait".
But the big problem for Beijing is that most of the rest of the world thinks it is Beijing, not Taiwan, that has increased the risk of hostilities over the island, by introducing the new law authorising the use of force against Taiwan just when relations looked ripe for repair.

The law, which gives China legal backing to use "non-peaceful means" if Taiwan moves to formally split from the mainland, has unravelled a European Union consensus to lift a 16-year-old ban on trading arms with China, a move which had been expected by mid-year but may now be delayed.

By underlining China's willingness to go to war over Taiwan, the law has also set back China's multi-faceted diplomatic campaign to persuade the world, and the East Asian region especially, that its rise as a world power is peaceful and does not constitute a threat to other nations.

Taiwanese President Chen Shui-bian joined hundreds of thousands of protesters who converged on central Taipei on Saturday, marching from 10 different rallying points to represent the 10 clauses of the anti-secession law passed by the Chinese legislature on March 14.

Rally organisers invited participants to bring their children and pets for what they described as a "democratic carnival". Children were reported to have bared their bottoms to reveal anti-missile messages, a reference to the several hundred missiles China has poised in Taiwan's direction.

Although Mr Chen kept to his promise not to address the rally for fear of enraging Beijing unnecessarily, he did mount a stage and led the crowd in chanting slogans, including "What do we want from China? Peace!"

But in state-controlled Chinese media, special criticism was reserved for Mr Chen. "We noticed some political figures of Taiwan authorities openly instigated and directly participated in the so-called 'March 26 march'. Are these only empty words again?" the Xinhua news agency said.

The best explanation for the law, which is now looking like a rare political blunder on the part of the Beijing leadership, is that it seemed like a good idea in the middle of last year when it was first mooted.

Back then Mr Chen was making provocative noises and Chinese President Hu Jintao needed to consolidate his leadership to prove his hawkish credentials were a match for those of his lingering predecessor Jiang Zemin.

By the time the law, widely telegraphed in state media, had worked its way through the central Government's ponderous and byzantine bureaucracy, things had changed.

Mr Chen had done poorly at legislative elections and therefore lost any mandate to push further on independence. He had been forced to make a political pact with his pro-Beijing adversaries in the People's First Party and China and Taiwan had managed to agree on the first direct charter flights between them since 1949.

In Beijing, Jiang Zemin had announced his complete retirement. But by then the loss of face in abandoning the hardline law on Taiwan was too great.

Political common sense alone would dictate that it could have been dusted off the next time Mr Chen started getting up Washington's nose by pushing his pro-independence line too far.

 

[dilloduck]

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,12675394%5E2703,00.html

Lots of news on China here Kat---how do you think the US should handle it?

 

[freeandfun1]

You know, since China considers Taiwan as part of their country (while totally ignoring the true native Taiwanese not of Chinese descent) I wonder if they would try sending in troops to "quell" the protests. They could use this as an opportunity and since Taipei is not recognized by the UN, I bet the UN would sit on the side and do nothing. It would end up on the shoulders of the US and frankly, our shoulders are carrying enough burden right now. I don't think we could help much.

 

[Annie]

You know, since China considers Taiwan as part of their country (while totally ignoring the true native Taiwanese not of Chinese descent) I wonder if they would try sending in troops to "quell" the protests. They could use this as an opportunity and since Taipei is not recognized by the UN, I bet the UN would sit on the side and do nothing. It would end up on the shoulders of the US and frankly, our shoulders are carrying enough burden right now. I don't think we could help much.

I agree Free, will be interesting to see how the 'international community' addresses this. Seems to be heating up, again. It was enough to give EU pause for lifting the ban.

 

[NATO AIR]

China vs. Taiwan is a conflict that would be primarily naval in nature, at least in the beginning. China would have no way to hold onto the island without enforcing a complete, devastating blockade of the area, which the US Navy will not allow. We have enough naval forces at this time (2-3 aircraft carrier battle groups in the Pacific at all times, including the largest in the Navy, mine!) to respond and have a fighting chance.

The Navy, unlike the Marines (to an extent for them) and definitely unlike the Army, has not been strained at all by Iraq and Afghanistan. The sheer number of assets available in Japan would be an adequate fighting force to take back Taiwan, while also considering the likely deployment of Japan's military alongside America's, as well as South Korea, Australia and possibly India.

It will be bloody, messy and fatal, more than likely for myself and others here on the Kitty Hawk, who would be the first responders and probably the first and only victims of whatever nasty surprises the Chinese have been developing for the past few decades.

America and her many allies in Asia can and will win though.

 

[Annie]

China vs. Taiwan is a conflict that would be primarily naval in nature, at least in the beginning. China would have no way to hold onto the island without enforcing a complete, devastating blockade of the area, which the US Navy will not allow. We have enough naval forces at this time (2-3 aircraft carrier battle groups in the Pacific at all times, including the largest in the Navy, mine!) to respond and have a fighting chance.

The Navy, unlike the Marines (to an extent for them) and definitely unlike the Army, has not been strained at all by Iraq and Afghanistan. The sheer number of assets available in Japan would be an adequate fighting force to take back Taiwan, while also considering the likely deployment of Japan's military alongside America's, as well as South Korea, Australia and possibly India.

It will be bloody, messy and fatal, more than likely for myself and others here on the Kitty Hawk, who would be the first responders and probably the first and only victims of whatever nasty surprises the Chinese have been developing for the past few decades.

America and her many allies in Asia can and will win though.

Well it seems like China has been building up to something for quite awhile now. Submarines in Japan/South Korean waters I believe? I wonder if they think the country just would not actually respond to this, because of the other wars? Would be a serious misjudgement, but it's happened before.

 

[NATO AIR]

Well it seems like China has been building up to something for quite awhile now. Submarines in Japan/South Korean waters I believe? I wonder if they think the country just would not actually respond to this, because of the other wars? Would be a serious misjudgement, but it's happened before.

They've succeeded in pissing the Japanese off, rather than scaring them (like North Korea does). They've made a disasterous misjudgement with their anti-secession law that will ensure the EU will not sell them arms for at least another three to five years. They proved to the rest of Asia they are a power/resource hungry aggressor. I hate to consider it, but it would be not be a surprise if they made a similiar misjudgement with going to war over taiwan.

 

[Annie]

They've succeeded in pissing the Japanese off, rather than scaring them (like North Korea does). They've made a disasterous misjudgement with their anti-secession law that will ensure the EU will not sell them arms for at least another three to five years. They proved to the rest of Asia they are a power/resource hungry aggressor. I hate to consider it, but it would be not be a surprise if they made a similiar misjudgement with going to war over taiwan.

I hope we're both wrong, but fear we aren't.