Posted on 07/30/2021 4:41:47 AM PDT by Kaslin
In his final state of the nation speech Monday, Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte defended his refusal to confront China over Beijing's seizure and fortification of his country's islets in the South China Sea.
"It will be a massacre if I go and fight a war now," said Duterte. "We are not yet a competent and able enemy of the other side."
Duterte is a realist. He will not challenge China to retrieve his lost territories, as his country would be crushed. But Duterte has a hole card: a U.S. guarantee to fight China, should he stumble into war with China.
Consider. Earlier this month, Secretary of State Antony Blinken assured Manila we would invoke the U.S.-Philippines mutual security pact in the event of Chinese military action against Philippine assets.
"We also reaffirm," said Blinken, "that an armed attack on Philippine armed forces, public vessels or aircraft in the South China Sea would invoke U.S. mutual defense commitments under Article IV of the 1951 U.S.-Philippines Mutual Defense Treaty."
Is this an American war guarantee to fight the People's Republic of China, if the Philippines engage a Chinese warship over one of a disputed half-dozen rocks and reefs in the South China Sea? So it would appear.
Why are we threatening this?
Is who controls Mischief Reef or Scarborough Shoal a matter of such vital U.S. interest as to justify war between us and China?
Tuesday, in Singapore, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin reaffirmed the American commitment to go to war on behalf of the Philippines, should Manila attempt, militarily, to retrieve its stolen property.
Said Austin: "Beijing's claim to the vast majority of the South China Sea has no basis in international law. ... We remain committed to the treaty obligations that we have to Japan in the Senkaku Islands and to the Philippines in the South China Sea."
Austin went on: "Beijing's unwillingness to ... respect the rule of law isn't just occurring on the water. We have also seen aggression against India ... destabilizing military activity and other forms of coercion against the people of Taiwan ... and genocide and crimes against humanity against Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang."
The Defense secretary is publicly accusing China of crimes against its Uyghur population in Xinjiang comparable to those for which the Nazis were hanged at Nuremberg.
Austin has also informed Beijing, yet again, that the U.S. is obligated by a 70-year-old treaty to go to war to defend Japan's claims to the Senkakus, half a dozen rocks Tokyo now occupies and Beijing claims historically belong to China.
The secretary also introduced the matter of Taiwan, with which President Jimmy Carter broke relations and let lapse our mutual security treaty in 1979.
There remains, however, ambiguity on what the U.S. is prepared to do if China moves on Taiwan. Would we fight China for Taiwan's independence, an island President Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger said in 1972 was "part of China"?
And if China ignores our protests of its "genocide" and "crimes against humanity" against the Uyghurs, and of its human rights violations in Tibet, and of its crushing of democracy in Hong Kong, what are we prepared to do?
Sanctions? A decoupling of our economies? Confrontation? War?
This is not an argument for threatening war, but for an avoidance of war by providing greater clarity and certitude as to what the U.S. response will be if China ignores our protests and remains on its present course.
Some of us can still recall how President Dwight Eisenhower refused to intervene when Nikita Khrushchev ordered Russian tanks into Budapest to drown the 1956 Hungarian revolution in blood. Instead, we welcomed Hungarian refugees.
When the Berlin Wall went up in 1961, President John F. Kennedy called up the reserves and went to Berlin to make a famous speech, but did nothing.
"Less profile, more courage!" was the response of Cold War hawks.
But Kennedy was saying, as Eisenhower had said by his inaction in Hungary, that America does not go to war with a great nuclear power such as the Soviet Union over the right of East Germans to flee to West Berlin.
Which brings us back to Taiwan.
In the Shanghai Communique signed by Nixon, Taiwan was conceded to be a "part of China." Are we now going to fight a war to prevent Beijing from bringing the island home to the "embrace of the motherland"?
And if we are prepared to fight, Beijing should not be left in the dark. China ought to know the risks it would be taking.
Cuba is an island, across the Florida Strait, with historic ties to the United States. Taiwan is an island 7,000 miles away, on the other side of the Pacific.
This month, Cubans rose up against the 62-year-old Communist regime fastened upon them by Fidel and Raul Castro.
By what yardstick would we threaten war for the independence of Taiwan but continue to tolerate 60 years of totalitarian repression in Cuba, 90 miles away?
Pat is spot on. Stop the China war talk.
Is this comedy? Seems like they won the “war” without firing a shot.
We should tactical nuke the Chinese wuhan bio weapons lab and tell China we don’t care if they like it or not. Then arrest and try Fauci for funding it.
Remember the domino theory.
That said, if we will not protect Taiwan, we need to start making our own microchips, like, yesterday.
Who is guilty of “China war talk?” I posted a map meme so folks can understand the population density aspect of China’s world view.
By what yardstick would we threaten war for the independence of Taiwan but continue to tolerate 60 years of totalitarian repression in Cuba, 90 miles away?
—
Yardstick, Pat? Oh so quaint.
If you are arguing on moral grounds, then it is a holier-than-thou game, which is a loser and not worth the energy to play. Plus, its not the US making the threats, its the CCP. Labeling the US response a ‘threat’ is to obfuscate the point and change the subject - something you are good at Pat.
However, if Cuba were sunk in its entirety over night, it would be no loss to the US. Taiwan is a different matter.
Taiwan is the primary sources for the world’s most advanced computer chips in quantity - in case you missed it, there is currently a shortage due to demand: can you imagine what that shortage would look like should the CCP be in charge?
Taiwan controls the shipping lanes in the South China Sea, through which the bulk of the world’s shipping passes. Do you want to hand that over to the CCP also? Do you like looking at empty store shelves? One would think you would have tired of that sight during the early part of the CCP virus, but I guess not.
What’s an island or two between friends, right? Let them have Taiwan and they’ll want Japan; let them have those and they’ll want Australia - unless they take it before Japan. So what island would be next on their list which would not be worth going to war over? Hawaii? Then there’s California, which is a long way from DC, so would that be worth fighting for or not?
Just where do you draw the line, Pat?
In repeated war games, we cannot defend Taiwan. All of Taiwan and surrounding areas are well within range of 100s if not thousands of ChiCom land-based hypersonic ship killing missiles.
OTOH, it will not be a cakewalk to invade Taiwan, since it is 20 times larger than Okinawa, with a much greater population, and 10K’ mountains.
My prediction: China will not overtly invade Taiwan, but will gradually put the screws to it with a sea blockade, daring the USN to defy it, putting our warships in ChiCom missile range.
Remember, in war games, the USN gets sunk by those missiles. Our CVNs can’t even get close enough to Taiwan to launch aircraft before they’d be hit with salvos of missiles.
Need a graphic that includes the US labeled EMPTY
Taiwan’s obituary was written on 11/4.....
We draw the line at military reality. The USN will be sunk before it gets close enough to defend Taiwan. This is what repeated wargames show.
This is not Okinawa 1945, where we could anchor vast fleets just offshore, while fending off kamikazes.
See above. I predict the CCP will gradually enforce a blockade. Invading Okinawa, 20X as big as Okinawa, would not be a cakewalk.
China is the war mongering idiot in this argument. If anyone thinks Taiwan and Japan don’t have nukes, they are kidding themselves.
China would cease to be a country if one of our subs decided to destroy a structure so massive that it moved the tilt of the earth.
Typo above, invading TAIWAN
WW3 next year.
That’s too easy: 10%. (for the big-guy)
What good is an undeclared nuclear deterrent?
It could only lead to a massive miscalculation.
If anybody nukes the ChiCom dams, China will nuke the USA in response.
Sorry, I didn’t mean you. I was making a general comment.
With what? They don’t have nuclear subs. Our missile defense can shoot down their ICBMs.
Don’t believe the hype. If the 3 gorges dam gets nuked, there will be no command and control in place to launch a counter strike.
Not having us publicize our nuclear capability worked well on Japan.
The truth is none of us, including Pat, know how things will play out. I’m just posturing my opinion. I may be horribly wrong or I may be horribly right.
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.