Skip to comments.Okasaki warns of US, China clash
Posted on 08/23/2002 7:13:39 AM PDT by Enemy Of The State
|PHOTO: CHEN CHENG-CHANG, TAIPEI TIMES|
WARNING: Ex-Japanese ambassador Hisahiko Okazaki warned yesterday that if the two powers fail to address inconsistencies in their Taiwan policies, war could result
By Monique Chu
Policies designed to maintain the status quo in the Taiwan Strait, now exercised by both Washington and Beijing, are by nature "vulnerable," and should be altered to avoid a collision between the two powers, former Japanese ambassador Hisahiko Okazaki warned yesterday.
Okazaki, addressing the first US-Japan-Taiwan Trilateral Strategic Dialogue seminar, discussed the course of world history over the next fifty to one hundred years.
"Only China can be regarded as the next challenger to the Anglo-Saxons," said Okazaki, speaking at the Westin Hotel in downtown Taipei.
|"If China confronts the US, I am afraid that it will meet with the same fate as other nations who have challenged Anglo-Saxon hegemony."|
|Hisahiko Okazaki, former Japanese ambassador|
"If China confronts the US, I am afraid that it will meet with the same fate as other nations who have challenged Anglo-Saxon hegemony," Okazaki said, adding that the Taiwan factor is the most pivotal element in future Washington-Beijing ties.
Okazaki went on to argue that both Washington and Beijing "appear to agree on the maintenance of the status quo in the Taiwan Strait," a situation the diplomat perceived as "vulnerable" by its very nature.
"The US declares that it would not support Taiwan independence. But how long can the US persuade Taiwan to refrain from seeking formal independence?" said the 72-year-old veteran diplomat.
"It can't keep preventing the Taiwanese from freely expressing their own will through democratic procedures."
If a majority of Taiwanese do vote for independence, Okazaki argued that the US would "most likely defend a fellow democracy," given what he observed as the current climate in the pro-Taiwan US Congress.
The Cambridge-educated economist, who during the past 50 years has climbed the Japanese bureaucratic ladder with impressive defense as well as foreign ministry experience, then urged the US to revamp its longstanding policy toward Taiwan.
"The US should stop asking for artificial restraint and let Taiwan's democracy work. It should refrain from repeating the empty words `one China,' or `non-support of Taiwan independence,'" he said.
The US should not intervene in the future course of Taiwanese politics, he warned, adding: "The US should instead watch carefully the natural course of events, while committing itself to the defending the freedom of Taiwan."
Evaluating Beijing's policy toward Taipei, Okazaki, currently serving as director of the Tokyo-based think tank, The Okazaki Institute, said China's policy of maintaining the status quo is "short-term," as Beijing has claimed it would not wait indefinitely for unification.
But with some Chinese leaders proposing that Beijing could "negotiate" with Taipei after its military forces occupy the island, Beijing's concept of maintaining the status quo could put the US and China on a "collision course," Okazaki said.
"But the question is whether this would be perceived as a peaceful negotiation. In the context of the Taiwan Relations Act, it would be considered an act of intimidation, one that the US would most likely not accept," Okazaki said.
"China should never underestimate the fact that the Anglo-Saxons can sometimes be tremendous fighters, formidable adversaries ... Be careful about dealing with the Anglo-Saxons," Okazaki said, triggering a roomful of laughter from an audience from the US, Japan and Taiwan.
Osaki argued that such a conflict could eventuate if and when Beijing believed that the loss of Taiwan would result in the loss of Tibet and/or other territories.
Beijing, however, could quickly defuse the situation by seeking a peaceful settlement with Taipei by agreeing to a "separate Taiwan," said the former minister and ambassador to Saudi Arabia and Thailand.
They have a long range plan, the same aim/ultimate goal that Japan did during WW II (conquest of the Pacific Rim) and they are putting the pieces into place to make it happen. They are modernizing all branches of their armed services with special emphasis on destroying U.S. aircraft carriers and it's fleet. They realize that the ONLY entity that stands in the way of their eventual conquest and control of the entire Pacific Rim is the United States.
We will go to war with communist China, it is just a matter of time. They are patient, and they are doing everything within their power to make it happen. The Pacific Rim is their goal, it is gong to be up for grabs, the big question is this: do we as a nation have the national will and moral fiber to count the cost it will take to stop them? Only time will tell.
Our response to China's coming aggression is all going to depend upon WHO the commander and chief is at the time, along with which party controls the House and Senate. If it were Algore or Hillery or Gephardt or fill in the name of any Democrat or limp wristed Republican you choose, we will decide not to get involved or at best mount a weak response. Because our leaders and America will not have the stomach to take massive numbers of casualties in order to (in their eyes) "fight someone elses battles". This is exactly what communist China is and will be counting on and what they will wait for. Heck, on Sept. 11th we lost over 3000 CIVILIANS on US soil and look at the debate that is raging regarding attacking Iraq when Saddam is actively involved in breaking the agreements re: weapons inspectors and developing WMD's, which when used will make Sept 11 look like a birthday party in comparison.
I wouldn't hold my breath regarding "bouncing rubble" if the democrats are in power at the time. The response would be the same that is being foisted by the NEA regarding Sept. 11: "we are sorry, it is our fault, we deserved to get attacked, here you can have the Pacific Rim, just leave is out of it".
So can Chinese. Fact is, East and West have gotten along reasonably well for the most part for thousands of years.
Anglo-Saxons? Not many left here.
Let us also not forget that China presently has control of the Panama Canal and that they are presently building the largest port facility in the world in the Bahamas. They have also established closer relations with Cuba, Venuzuela and the many marxist guerilla groups throughout Latin America. I have even read that they have been establishing military ties with Mexico. There is a rhyme and reason for this.
I believe the largest shipping company in the world is the PRC owned Cosco Corp. They were given port facilities in California and they even have facilities within the waterways of our own country, one being on the Arkansas River in Ft. Smith, AR.
KGB defector Major Anatolyi (sp) Golitson has been warning us of this for many years, as did the late Czech General Jan Sejna. Both of these cold-war defectors were in positions to know, yet they have been ignored, even though the 94% of Golitsyn's 190+ "things to look for" (or predictions if you will) have come to pass, one of which was the fall of the Berlin wall.
IMO, what helped us defeat our enemies during both WWI and WWII was the fact that we came into the war at a later date. The enemy was already engaged with other European countries.
However, what if the Russians and PRC have learned this lesson and attack us first? Another one of Golitsyn's warnings was that when Russia and the PRC were ready, Russia would strike us first with NBC weaponry, while the PRC invades. I would submit that this is the reason why the PRC appears to be surrounding the U.S. with port facilities and is establishing ties with Latin American countries.
It's easy to think of Golitsyn and Sejna as nuts. Who wants to believe that anyone can execute such a complicated, long-term plan against us? I would suggest that this isn't as hard as it would appear to be if the Congress and intelligence agencies are filled with arrogant, "no one can defeat us because we are a superpower" mentalities. I believe this to be the case.
I for one, an preparing accordanly. I would highly suggest that others do so also.
Fought hard, died good.
I doubt it, considring the costs.
You mind explaining how they will do this?
Regarding China policy, the Bush Administration is well aware of the issues. After all, Bush-41 was China Ambassador for Nixon.
The issue is whether or not the US wants to fight a two front war. We need stronger economic policy in California and the West Coast. The PRC has tentacles all over Southern California, the Bay Area, and Seattle.
If they keep pointing their missiles at us, why shouldn't we seize assets by eminent domain.
But no... our lunk headed local politicians would rather seize protestant non-denominational churches in Cypress!
What he failed to address, is that one day China will come looking for Japan as they never forget. China will have her revenge and Japan will pay the bill.
When China decides to move, and they will, SE Asia will be theirs for the taking. Western China has a small border as far west as Afghanistan and a corridor to the Middle East oil. With nuclear weapons of their own, who would step forward to counter their westward march, with millions of human locusts????
Well, at least that explanation will work for the 'War is just like those Playstation games' crowd, and is probably the only way that would happen anyway.
Revelation 9:14 Saying to the sixth angel which had the trumpet, Loose the four angels which are bound in the great river Euphrates. 15 And the four angels were loosed, which were prepared for an hour, and a day, and a month, and a year, for to slay the third part of men. 16 And the number of the army of the horsemen were two hundred thousand thousand: and I heard the number of them.
As far as I know China has been the only nation on earth to make the brag that they could field an army of 200 million.
They could field an army of 200,000,000--for a very brief period.
It would be something to behold. The Chinese would have to conduct their campaigning between rice harvests--for the first time since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the concept of a "campaigning season" would reenter the military lexicon.
Would China be undone as Harald Godwinson was--and for the same reasons? (i.e., having to dismiss the troops so they could go home and harvest their crops)