The Bone in Beijing's Throat

During the early Cold War, Nikita Khrushchev referred to West Berlin, the free city of 2 million surrounded by the Red Army and East Germany, as "a bone in our throat." That bone helped kill the Soviet Empire. Now, the bone in Beijing's throat is Taiwan.

Though the island was ruled by the mainland for only four years of the 20th century, Beijing claims Taiwan as a lost province.

Before 1945, Taiwan was a colony of Japan, which had seized it in the Sino-Japanese war of 1894-1895. In 1945, the Americans turned Taiwan over to the Chinese Nationalists of Chiang Kai-shek, 2 million of whom fled there when defeated by Mao's hordes in 1949.

Since 1949, under American protection, Taiwan has developed into a democratic, prosperous land of more than 20 million, most of whom are ethnic Taiwanese. But to Beijing, Taiwan belongs to China. Its rulers have been clear: Any declaration of independence means war.

What is the position of the United States? It is ambiguous, and it is often due to a lack of clarity that wars come.

In 1972, Richard Nixon made his historic journey to Beijing. In the Shanghai Communique negotiated by Henry Kissinger, the United States said it did not dispute the claim by Chinese on both sides of the strait that Taiwan was part of China. Yet, Nixon maintained an embassy in Taipei and the U.S. mutual security treaty with Chiang's Republic on Taiwan.

In 1978, Jimmy Carter ordered both diplomatic relations and the security treaty terminated. He recognized the People's Republic of China as the legitimate government of China. A firestorm ensued. Congress then passed a Taiwan Relations Act, declaring a U.S. interest that there be no forcible seizure of the island by the successors of Mao.

In 1996, when Beijing fired test rockets toward Taiwan, Bill Clinton sent two carrier battle groups to show American resolve. In 2001, George W. Bush declared he would do whatever necessary to defend Taiwan from forcible seizure by Beijing.

Now the Taiwan Strait is heating up, and the aggressor in this confrontation is Beijing. For years, it has steadily built up a force now numbering 496 missiles opposite the island. For their part, Taiwanese leaders have begun to talk of independence.

Up for re-election in March and trailing, President Chen Shui-bian has cleverly scheduled a referendum the same day, in which the people of Taiwan can vote to demand that Beijing remove the missile threat.

While this non-binding referendum is hardly a mortal threat to Beijing, President Bush, during the visit of Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao, excoriated Taiwan's elected president for a provocation in even holding the referendum. Bush made no mention of the near 500 rockets targeted against Taiwan.

The title of a Washington Post editorial, "Mr. Bush's Kowtow," got it exactly right.

A gloating Wen thanked Bush for dissing America's old friend and went home. China has since conducted a campaign of propaganda and intimidation, threatening war on Taiwan if it dares declare independence.

With his axis-of-evil speech threatening Iran, Iraq and North Korea with war if they did not abandon all efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction, Bush jolted Kim Jong-Il. Pyongyang quickly broke out of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty and began to ratchet up its program to build nuclear weapons.

Then Bush, true to his Bush Doctrine, invaded Iraq and effected the regime change some of his advisers have said is in store for North Korea.

Pyongyang's response has been to throw off all constraints on its nuclear programs and demand a unilateral U.S. guarantee that we will not do to North Korea what we just did to Iraq. Else, Pyongyang threatens, it will go nuclear.

If Bush wishes to avoid having his Bush Doctrine challenged by North Korean testing and deployment of nuclear weapons, he needs some political, diplomatic and economic cards to play against Kim Jong Il. He has almost none.

But China does have leverage with North Korea. Thus, Bush needs Beijing's help, and thus Bush provides political support for Beijing by trashing our friends on Taiwan for their outrage in holding a non-binding referendum telling China to take down the missiles aimed at their island. Still, China has yet to use that leverage on North Korea.

America needs to review its China policy. We buy 10 percent of her GDP every year. We annually transfer factories, technology, jobs. We give her unrestricted access to our $11 trillion market. What are we getting in return, besides cheap consumer goods?

Pat Buchanan is jumping on the bandwagon here. What Bush actually said is that both sides should cool it. What the liberal press said he said is that Taiwan should cool it.

Considering that Pat Buchanan has always been an isolationist who has preached against American involvement in foreign entanglements, why is he now saying that we should act tough in Taiwan? Could it be that he is so eager to bash Bush that he is willing to bend his principles? It wouldn't be the first time.

China ruled Taiwan since the Ming Dynasty. In fact the Ming Dynasty fell to the Manchurians in the early 1600's. Taiwan was the last Ming stronghold to surrender to the Manchus. The Manchurians lost Taiwan to Japan after the Sino-Japanese War in 1895. After World War 2, defeated Japan returned Taiwan back to China in 1945. To begin a statement that mainland China ruled Taiwan for only 4 years in the 20th Century is creating the wrong perception that Taiwan is only a brief territory of mainland China and her historical claims to the island is tenuous at best is wrong. Such a statement does a disservice to the reader because it gives the impression that the Chinese desire to reclaim the island is not steep in its national history. The danger of such mistatement is it will give the US reader the wrong calculation on how long a conflict between the US and PRC would be if we supported Taiwanese independence. I think the issue the US should present to mainland China, is how can you rule an island that the population do not desire to lose their political freedoms, and have their wealth taxed to the max to finance projects in the mainland? It should be pointed out to the mainland that taking the island by force will only create additional financial burdens, because they must rebuild the infrastructure they would destroy in an invasion and allocate resources to control an embittered population, plus risk a possible war with the US that will destroy all the economic progress of the last 25 years. The mainland should be asked if all this is worth placating historical nationalistic desires of the past or face the reality that after 58 years of "independence" from the mainland, Taiwanese people may no longer feel that they are politically Chinese. If China has mature 21st Century thinking leaders, they will find a face saving way to let Taiwan go, but dominate her thru economical means (half of Taiwan's hi tech production base is in mainland China). Time will tell.

The 20 million people of Taiwan live on an island 80 miles away from a country of 1+ billion people. Taiwan will have to reach an accommodation with its huge neighbor.

U.S. policy is that the accommodation be peaceful. If Red China had rational leaders, it too would want a peaceful settlement. Taiwan has a strong economy that could be a good addition to the growing Chinese economy.

If Red China tries to enforce its will with missiles and war, it will squander the benefit of a working Taiwan economy and lose the hard work potential of the Taiwanese people. The U.S. would have to intervene and China would lose the present economic benefit of trade and friendship with the U.S.

The question is, will the leaders of Red China act in a rational way?

Unfortunately, the military balance is tilting in favor of the PRC. Every year the PRC adds more and more short range missiles opposite Taiwan. It continues to upgrade its navy, not to anything approaching parity with the US, but to a point where it would be sure to inflict a Falklands-style bloody nose on a few US ships should we decide to intervene. Meanwhile, Taiwan can't get modern destroyers from the US (it had to settle for 4 Kidd class) and is having trouble acquiring modern deisel boats because we don't build them anymore and our allies who do are reluctant to annoy Beijing. While China still can't launch a D-Day style invasion, I don't believe it aspires to. Like Rummy, the PRC military thinkers take network-centric warfare seriously. A lightning attack from the air combined with SF and sleeper agent-induced chaos from within followed by a "deal" offered to Taiwan: reunite now and you'll get the same deal as Hong Kong just might work since it looks like Washington might dither just long enough for it to be a fait accompli.

Washington might dither just long enough for it to be a fait accompli.

I worry about that too. It takes a lot of savvy to use our economic clout with China to prevent it, but the better off their citizens become, the softer they become and the less they want to lose the good life. Best to appeal to their greed while holding a sword over their head. Their economic links to Taiwan grow stronger every day.

With his axis-of-evil speech threatening Iran, Iraq and North Korea with war if they did not abandon all efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction, Bush jolted Kim Jong-Il. Pyongyang quickly broke out of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty and began to ratchet up its program to build nuclear weapons.

Bunch of BS right there. North Korea had been cheating and developing WMD even before the ink was dry on Clinton's 94 treaty. Bush's speech had little to do with it. Schmuck.

The game is to hold the status quo as long as possible. Time is working against China on this issue, and with Taiwan.

Exactly. Time is not on the PRC's side. The longer that Taiwan remains free, prosperous and strong, the better role model it will seem to the average Chinese person. They'll start to think 'If other Chinese people can have all the good things a great nation should have, why not us?'

They'll also see Taiwan as proof that the central government can be disobeyed. That's another good lesson for them to learn.

Unfortunately, the military balance is tilting in favor of the PRC. Every year the PRC adds more and more short range missiles opposite Taiwan.

Unless they wish to sterilize the entire island, the effect of those weapons would be nil.

It continues to upgrade its navy, not to anything approaching parity with the US, but to a point where it would be sure to inflict a Falklands-style bloody nose on a few US ships should we decide to intervene.

Followed by losing their entire navy.

We wouldn't send "a few ships." We'd send the 7th Fleet, which is a much more powerful navy than China's.

While China still can't launch a D-Day style invasion, I don't believe it aspires to.

Without ChiCom boots on the ground, Taiwan remains independent.

Like Rummy, the PRC military thinkers take network-centric warfare seriously.

Unfortunately, NCW doesn't get them across the strait.

A lightning attack from the air combined with SF and sleeper agent-induced chaos from within followed by a "deal" offered to Taiwan: reunite now and you'll get the same deal as Hong Kong just might work since it looks like Washington might dither just long enough for it to be a fait accompli.

Problem with your scenario: Taiwan panics, and Shanghai and the Three Gorges Dam disappear in blinding white flashes. Taiwan then makes a counteroffer: "Leave us alone, dismantle all of your offensive forces under international supervision, and we won't destroy other selected targets in China. Your call, bubbas."

I agree. The best way for Taiwan to stay out of the PRC's grasp would be via a back channel nuclear threat to Beijing. I'm not sure if they have the will. And what if all their F-16s get caught on the ground? Do they have any other delivery platforms? And, while I think they probably do have nuclear capability, neither of us know for sure. Perhaps they made a political decision not to build in order to avoid becoming even more of an international pariah.

As for the effect of the PRC's missiles, it would be far from nil. They'd have excellent intelligence on what to target in Taiwan because of the open nature of the latter's society as well as the fact that the PRC has had 50 years to infiltrate agents into sensitive positions throughout the island. A bolt from the blue salvo of several 100 missiles would disrupt Taiwan's initial response. Part of its Air Force surely would get caught on the ground and its ability to mobilize would be hindered. Couple that with the PRC seizing an airhead or two and flying in reinforcements and the panic that would ensure would be far out of proportion to the actual combat ability of the ChiCom troops on the ground.

Speed would be of the essence if US intervention were to have any practical effect. That's why I don't think the PRC would go for the blockade option -- too slow, gives us too much time to respond. Yes, we'd sink their navy rather easily, but that requires a political decision in favor of intervention. Would one be made immediately? Under a Democratic administration in '09? While a simultaneous crisis is going on in Iran?

The best way for Taiwan to stay out of the PRC's grasp would be via a back channel nuclear threat to Beijing.

While the big stick is important, I think there is far too much economic activity between them for it to come to this. The amount of economic activity in China BY TAIWANESE BUSINESSMEN is very large. That's where much of the capitalist know how for China is coming from.

These peoples don't just stand on their shores making nasty faces and obscene gestures at each other. They are way too busy MAKING MONEY, and they DO love money. Given (1) Make war, or (2) Make love, or (3) Make money, money will win there every time.

The CEP on those missiles is about 600 meters. That means that 50% of the missiles will land within 600 meters of the target; the rest will land further out. That means that your average miss distance will be at least half a mile.

If you're not using nukes, those missiles are only usable as terror weapons.

A bolt from the blue salvo of several 100 missiles would disrupt Taiwan's initial response.

How so? They aren't hitting critical targets--they are hitting NEAR critical targets. They're called "missiles" for a reason.

Part of its Air Force surely would get caught on the ground and its ability to mobilize would be hindered.

Fine. The airplanes are on the ground while missiles land 600 meters or more away from them. Unless you're talking about nukes, those planes are going to be fine.

Couple that with the PRC seizing an airhead or two and flying in reinforcements and the panic that would ensure would be far out of proportion to the actual combat ability of the ChiCom troops on the ground.

Actually, what would be likely to happen is that a few paratroopers would be stuck on the ground, and the PRC's combat airlift capability would be destroyed.

Where are you getting this information? It's obvious that your knowledge of the Chinese military is at least 5 years out of date - you've shown that with your comments on their ICBMs, submarines, fighter jets, & now their theater ballistic missiles. The DF-15 has a CEP ~50 meters using GPS or Glonass. Many of them are terminally guided. Same with the medium-range DF-21s.

Fine. The airplanes are on the ground while missiles land 600 meters or more away from them. Unless you're talking about nukes, those planes are going to be fine.

Problem is, China now has long-range artillery that can reach Taiwan as well. And while a CEP of 50m is still too high to target individual aircraft it can probably cause big problems for large stationary facilities like hangars or fuel dumps. You don't have to destroy warplanes to render them unfit for combat.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.