Tag: China

A Dangerous and Ineffective Strategy

A British East Asian specialist appears to be less than confident in Taiwan island’s strategic approach to remaining de facto independent of the mainland.

Taiwan is pursuing a strategy against China that I term “provocation diplomacy.” That is, seeking to deliberately provoke China by driving wedges in Beijing’s relationships with other countries with the aim of procuring support for itself. It’s a strategy that is premised on a public relations blitz. Taipei is seeking to get as many anti-China politicians to visit it, which have included various legislators, most prominently former Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott; encouraging direct violations of the One-China policy to forcibly downgrade China’s ties with countries, as has happened with Lithuania; giving direct access to mass media, such as CNN this week, and aggressive social media strategies, all with the goal of gaining more support in provoking Beijing into a response.

That subsequent response from China then often appears threatening or, how the US likes to describe it, “coercive,” which then subsequently rallies more support in Taipei’s favour. The ultimate goal is to undermine China’s red line, or “salami slice” it and make it more politically difficult for Xi Jinping to make the island capitulate on his terms.

However, it also rests on two fundamental assumptions, both of which are dangerous gambles. Firstly, the belief that China will not seriously contemplate military action against Taiwan due to the potential devastating consequences that would flow from it. And secondly, that in such a scenario, the United States would come militarily to Taiwan’s support, meaning the first is less likely to happen. This latter assumption appears to have been encouraged by what appeared to be an ambiguous statement, or gaffe, from Joe Biden last week when he said the US has a “commitment” to defending Taiwan. Media commentary, however, was split on how exactly to interpret this.

As of now, Beijing’s reactions have consisted of blustering a lot and making angry responses towards the countries associated with Taipei’s stunts. China talks a lot about its “red lines” and about enforcing its One-China policy. It also carries out military exercises in the Strait between it and Taiwan but, so far, it has not made any decisive move which will discourage Taipei from its current course.

But that doesn’t mean China will do nothing. Xi Jinping’s confidence in the idea of reunification, as expressed in his keynote speech two weeks ago, comes across as firm, unwavering and unfazed, a different depiction altogether to the fiery state media rhetoric. He did not threaten military action, nor did he give the impression Taiwan was “slipping away” from Beijing, so it might have to resort to desperate measures. Instead, he expressed hope in an inevitable, peaceful, reunification. Yet this all poses more questions than what it answers: how exactly will this happen? How can China achieve this? When?

One thing that should be noted about China is that it invariably chooses the right time to “strike” and has a potency for taking swift and often calculated risks in accordance with its national interests. As one example, Beijing used the West’s distraction over the Covid-19 pandemic, and the social distancing measures that were in place, to impose the national security law in Hong Kong. Previously, the scale of the protests and violence would have made that impossible.

A year on, the protest movement was effectively over, with the leading figures in jail or exiled, and most of the opposition disbanded.

Many of the strategies used by protest leaders in Hong Kong are similar to what Taiwan is doing now. They sought to gain publicity through provoking Beijing, and appealing to the world and the mainstream media to help. Their calculus? That China would institute a violent crackdown to stop them, which would be costly and result in Beijing’s isolation and more US intervention, similar to what Taipei assumes now.

This gives us some clues, if not concrete evidence, of where things will go next.

The contrast between the strategy of the Taiwanese leadership and the strategy of Lee Kwan Yew in guiding Singapore to independence could hardly be more stark. Granted, Yew wanted Singapore to be a part of Malaysia while the ruling DPP does not want Taiwan to be a part of China, but that significant difference notwithstanding, Yew’s wise strategy was guided by a fundamental understanding of the military and demographic weakness of his own position.

The DPP’s strategy appears to be guided, instead, by a delusional pair of false assumptions. This is a preposterous mistake, especially given that Xi Jinping is almost certainly the most friendly Chinese leader with whom the Taiwanese will ever have the chance to negotiate reunification. The empire, divided in 1945, will unite, the only serious questions concern the timing and the terms.

DISCUSS ON SG

The Flight From Taiwan

And so it begins. They can explain it away all they like, but it’s apparent that multinational corporations are beginning to prepare for the island’s reunification with the mainland:

Taiwan chip giant TSMC announced on Thursday plans to build a new factory in Japan to meet long-term appetite for chips and said, near-term, tight supplies will likely continue into 2022 amid booming demand during the COVID-19 pandemic.

TSMC, the world’s largest contract chipmaker and a key supplier to Apple Inc (AAPL.O), said it would set up a chip plant in Japan that will use older chipmaking technology, a segment currently under a severe supply shortage due to robust demand from automakers and tech companies. But production from the plant is only likely to begin by late 2024.

The company and Taiwan in general have become central in efforts to resolve a pandemic-induced global chip shortage, which has forced automakers to cut production and hurt manufacturers of smartphones, laptops and consumer appliances.

This doesn’t mean war in the Straits. In fact, I doubt there will be any need for a war; it’s more likely that Russia will be forced to invade and occupy Ukraine due to the insane neoclown puppet government there. But it does suggest Chinese domination of the semiconductor market.

DISCUSS ON SG

China Bets on Surrender

Now that the USA’s “strategic ambiguity” is no more, China is openly putting pressure on the Taiwanese leadership to prepare for a quick surrender:

The Tsai Ing-wen authority has said that the island will defend itself “to the very last day” if the Chinese mainland attacks. Most people know they are bluffing. A recent Wall Street Journal report quoted several experts as assessing that Taiwan’s military has “poor preparation and low morale”. Also, “adult men in Taiwan don’t actually want to fight”. The article doubted the island would stand much chance against China’s People’s Liberation Army. The report also advised that the Taiwan military could become far more effective by training with the US.

How could it be possible to boost the low morale of the Taiwan military by training with the US army? In 2003, I asked a former soldier in Taiwan “whether the island is able to defend itself if a war breaks out?” He made it very clear that the answer is “no”. I then asked him how long he thinks the island could hold, he answered that, “Maybe dozens of hours.” That was a long time ago. Today, the military capability comparison between the Chinese mainland and the island of Taiwan is completely different from that of 18 years ago.

From my point of view, first of all, the mainland doesn’t want to fight a war. It has the will to safeguard peace and take war as the last resort. Second, the Democratic Progressive Party authorities dare not fight. They are making bluffs, but they know very well that the island’s military forces are weak. They cannot withstand even a single blow. If there is a war, Taiwan will be surely defeated and collapse….

My prediction is that a war in the Taiwan Straits may eventually be avoided. That is when the strong military pressure of the mainland bows down the will of pro-independence forces in Taiwan island. The situation is changing. The goodwill and patience of the mainland is not to be consumed by DPP authorities endlessly. If the Taiwan question escalates so that it can only be solved through military means, the sudden surrender of Taiwan authorities who dare not fight is within everyone’s expectation.

That’s my expectation as well. As the rule of lies has made it ever more clear that nothing that comes out of the mouths of the rulers of the West should be trusted, more and more people around the world are grasping that what we perceived to be reality in the past was never anything more than an illusion meant to cause us to defeat ourselves through fear.

At this point, the only thing protecting Taiwan island is the mainland’s desire to avoid harming the population and the techno-industrial infrastructure.

DISCUSS ON SG

China Refuses to Flex

The Global Times won’t even admit the existence of the hypersonic orbital glider that has been widely reported across the West:

The Financial Times (FT) quoted on Saturday several sources saying that “the Chinese military launched a rocket that carried a hypersonic glide vehicle” in August and judged it to be a “nuclear-capable hypersonic missile.” According to the FT article, the missile “flew through low-orbit space” and could help China “negate” US missile defense systems which are designed to target the fixed parabolic trajectory of a ballistic missile. The progress of the Chinese military has “caught US intelligence by surprise,” the report said.

The US generally has the ability to monitor global missile launches. If the FT report is to be believed, it means that there is a key new member in China’s nuclear deterrence system, which is a new blow to the US’ mentality of strategic superiority over China. According to the FT, the China Academy of Launch Vehicle Technology announced the 77th and 79th launches of the Long March 2C rocket, but there was no announcement of a 78th launch. The report believes the 78th “secret launch” may be to test the above-mentioned hypersonic missile.

The FT also reported that China has tested a new space capability with a hypersonic missile, citing sources. It said the missile missed its target by about more than 30 kilometers, yet the test showed that “China had made astounding progress on hypersonic weapons.” But if Chinese authorities do not voluntarily release such top defense secrets, others can only speculate based on technical monitoring methods.

It is meaningless to discuss the credibility of the FT report. But it is important to note the unstoppable trend that China is narrowing the gap with the US in some key military technologies as China is continuously developing its economic and technological strength. China doesn’t need to engage in an “arms race” with the US – it is capable of weakening the US’ overall advantages over China by developing military power at its own pace.

China appears to be attempting to reassure the world that despite its weapons development program, its ambitions are toward regional, rather than global, dominance. I tend to believe them, simply because for over two thousand years, they have been considerably more sinned against than sinning with regards to foreign intervention. According to Lee Kuan Yew, even their invasion of Vietnam was limited to containing “the Prussians of Southeast Asia” and dissuading the Vietnamese from expanding their field of operations beyond their occupation of Cambodia.

Of course, that’s the problem with imperialism. In order to be left alone, a nation has to develop sufficient strength to impose its will upon its neighbors. The question, then, is if that nation can simultaneously develop sufficient moral strength to resist the imperialist temptation.

One has to admire the dry restraint of the Chinese foreign ministry. It’s all about space tourism, you see.

Speaking during a regular press briefing on Monday, Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian was asked to comment on a report from the Financial Times that Beijing had conducted a hypersonic missile test in August, which had shocked US intelligence. The spokesman stated that China had undertaken “routine spacecraft test” to evaluate the rocket’s reusable technology. “This is of great significance for reducing the cost of the spacecraft. The peaceful use of space provides a convenient and inexpensive way to travel,” Zhao added.

DISCUSS ON SG

The Éminence Grise

If you ever wondered why my views have tended to sound so harmonious with Chinese policy in recent years, it’s because the leading Chinese intellectual has been looking at the same things I’ve been looking at, reading the same books I’ve been reading, observing the same things I’ve been observing, and reaching strikingly similar conclusions… only he did it 13 years before I did. Of course, it’s extremely informative to observe the difference between the way Wang Huning was embraced by the Chinese elite and the way I was systematically banished and minimized by the Western elite.

At this point, like many during those heady years of reform and opening, Wang remained hopeful that liberalism could play a positive role in China, writing that his recommendations could allow “the components of the modern structure that embody the spirit of modern democracy and humanism [to] find the support they need to take root and grow.”

That would soon change.

Also in 1988, Wang—having risen with unprecedented speed to become Fudan’s youngest full professor at age 30—won a coveted scholarship (facilitated by the American Political Science Association) to spend six months in the United States as a visiting scholar. Profoundly curious about America, Wang took full advantage, wandering about the country like a sort of latter-day Chinese Alexis de Tocqueville, visiting more than 30 cities and nearly 20 universities.

What he found deeply disturbed him, permanently shifting his view of the West and the consequences of its ideas.

Wang recorded his observations in a memoir that would become his most famous work: the 1991 book America Against America. In it, he marvels at homeless encampments in the streets of Washington DC, out-of-control drug crime in poor black neighborhoods in New York and San Francisco, and corporations that seemed to have fused themselves to and taken over responsibilities of government. Eventually, he concludes that America faces an “unstoppable undercurrent of crisis” produced by its societal contradictions, including between rich and poor, white and black, democratic and oligarchic power, egalitarianism and class privilege, individual rights and collective responsibilities, cultural traditions and the solvent of liquid modernity.

But while Americans can, he says, perceive that they are faced with “intricate social and cultural problems,” they “tend to think of them as scientific and technological problems” to be solved separately. This gets them nowhere, he argues, because their problems are in fact all inextricably interlinked and have the same root cause: a radical, nihilistic individualism at the heart of modern American liberalism.

“The real cell of society in the United States is the individual,” he finds. This is so because the cell most foundational (per Aristotle) to society, “the family, has disintegrated.” Meanwhile, in the American system, “everything has a dual nature, and the glamour of high commodification abounds. Human flesh, sex, knowledge, politics, power, and law can all become the target of commodification.” This “commodification, in many ways, corrupts society and leads to a number of serious social problems.” In the end, “the American economic system has created human loneliness” as its foremost product, along with spectacular inequality. As a result, “nihilism has become the American way, which is a fatal shock to cultural development and the American spirit.”

Moreover, he says that the “American spirit is facing serious challenges” from new ideational competitors. Reflecting on the universities he visited and quoting approvingly from Allan Bloom’s The Closing of the American Mind, he notes a growing tension between Enlightenment liberal rationalism and a “younger generation [that] is ignorant of traditional Western values” and actively rejects its cultural inheritance. “If the value system collapses,” he wonders, “how can the social system be sustained?”

Ultimately, he argues, when faced with critical social issues like drug addiction, America’s atomized, deracinated, and dispirited society has found itself with “an insurmountable problem” because it no longer has any coherent conceptual grounds from which to mount any resistance.

Once idealistic about America, at the start of 1989 the young Wang returned to China and, promoted to Dean of Fudan’s International Politics Department, became a leading opponent of liberalization.

He began to argue that China had to resist global liberal influence and become a culturally unified and self-confident nation governed by a strong, centralized party-state. He would develop these ideas into what has become known as China’s “Neo-Authoritarian” movement—though Wang never used the term, identifying himself with China’s “Neo-Conservatives.” This reflected his desire to blend Marxist socialism with traditional Chinese Confucian values and Legalist political thought, maximalist Western ideas of state sovereignty and power, and nationalism in order to synthesize a new basis for long-term stability and growth immune to Western liberalism.

Of course, what works for China will not work for the West. Among other things, a Western nation cannot turn to Confucian values it never had. As Lee Kuan Yew reminds us in his memoirs, different peoples must construct their own forms of government that are suited to their customs and culture. But even though Wang’s precise prescription is not an option for us, that does not mean that his diagnosis of the West’s problem being the neo-liberal world order and its rejection of traditional Christian values should be ignored.

Nor does that mean that a Western form of Neo-Authoritarianism designed to restore Western values and Western nationalisms should not be pursued with the same vigor that China has constructed its post-Maoist system, and with a similar confidence of success. The more important question for Americans is: precisely what should American Neo-Authoritarianism look like?

DISCUSS ON SG

Why the US Will Not Defend Taiwan

The question of a US military reaction in the event the Chinese government decides to make use of its military strength to reunify the island with the mainland has been the subject of intense policy debate for years. The US government has encouraged this debate, as its policy of “strategic ambivalence” was specifically formulated in order to prevent the need to make any promises that might need to be broken as well as to add an element of uncertainty to the Chinese leadership’s analysis of the situation.

However, it is abundantly clear that for all its posturing and strong words and saber-rattling, there is no chance that the US military will make any serious attempt to defend the independence of Taiwan island or to intervene in Chinese domestic affairs. There are seven reasons for this.

1. The USA will not risk the conclusive loss of its global status in a single throw.

Since 1989, the US has enjoyed its status as the singular global superpower. But in the aftermath of the astonishingly rapid defeat of Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi military, potential US opponents such as Iran, Russia, and China have intelligently pursued asymmetrical weapons development programs that now permit them to neutralize important aspects of the US military’s advantage. For example, the development of long-range, high-speed anti-ship missiles have eliminated the ability of US carrier groups to enter littoral zones or narrow sea lanes such as the Persian Gulf or the Taiwan Straits without risk.

Since the aircraft carrier replaced the battleship as the chief military symbol of a nation’s power in 1942, the US Navy carrier groups have been the material demonstration of US military dominance to the world. And while refusing to put her carriers at risk to defend Taiwan island would have a negative effect on the global perception of US power, the damage that restraint would do to perceived US status is infinitely less than permitting the world to see one or more USN carriers sent to the bottom of the South China Sea.

2. The American people will not support a war against China.

The American people are tired of the endless wars waged by their government over the last three decades. Despite the best efforts of the warmongering neocons, Americans flatly refused to support calls for invasions of Iran and Syria, and they have welcomed the long-overdue end of the war in Afghanistan. They now eagerly anticipate a final end to the war in Iraq. Unless the People’s Liberation Army were to invade the USA itself, the American people will not support a war against China.

3. The US military is not in any shape to fight a major regional power.

After the ignominious retreat from Afghanistan, the vaccine mandates that threaten to expel 30 percent of its best and most experienced soldiers, the politicization of the ranks above O-6, and the push to include more women, homosexuals, and transvestites, the US military is observably unready for war. At present, it is no more able to dispute the Taiwan Straits with China than it is to contest the Crimea with Russia or even defend its own border with Mexico.

4. Joe Biden is not a credible wartime leader.

Over one-third of Americans believe that the 2020 presidential election was fraudulently stolen from President Donald Trump. This also happens to be the segment of the American population that most strongly supports the U.S. military. And these Americans will not support any military action taken by a man they believe to be an illegitimate and unelected Commander-in-Chief.

5. The USA has nothing to gain and much to potentially lose from a conflict over Taiwan.

What would the American people gain from a successful defense of Taiwan by the U.S. military. Absolutely nothing. At most, the status quo would be maintained, which would provide no actual benefit to any American. But an unsuccessful defense would be severely damaging to world respect for the USA, and a complete military catastrophe would be the first step toward the collapse of the United States as a political entity. To put it in historical terms, any attempt to interfere in the unification of China would run a real risk of becoming the American equivalent of the Athenian Sicilian Expedition.

6. The US government cannot afford a war against its second-largest creditor.

Between the massive public and private debt, the economic lockdowns, the growing number of workers killed and incapacitated by the vaccines, and the huge number of workers being disemployed by the vaccine mandates, the US economy is a shambles. The US government already owes China more than $1 trillion. China obviously will not finance a US war against China, but neither will the US’s leading creditor, Japan.

7. Xi Jinping knows Taiwan.

President Xi knows both Taiwan and the Taiwan people very well. He served as provincial governor for Fujian and Zhejiang, and his success in attracting Taiwan investment into both coastal provinces is considered one of his significant accomplishments. Xi’s objective is unification, by any means necessary, but it is clear that he would prefer the unification to be a peaceful one. And as a leader who has successfully convinced Taiwan capital to join with the mainland in the past, he is very well-positioned to convince the Taiwan people it is in their long-term interest to unify with the mainland rather than resist it.

Ironically, it is the change in the balance of military power in China’s favor that makes a future war in the Taiwan Straits less likely. There are many factors that the Chinese leadership must take into account concerning the ultimate resolution of the unification of Taiwan with the mainland. But a military response by the United States to Chinese action is not one of them.

DISCUSS ON SG

They Aspire To Be Better

The Tree of Woe contemplates the ideological history of Chinese communism and considers the implications of Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era. Read the whole thing there.

I have summarized the tenets of Xi Jinping Thought. You can find the Thoughts in Xi’s own words here.

  1. The CCP leads the government, the military, the academia, and the people.
  2. The Party must serve the interests of the public and govern the country for the people.
  3. Only socialism can save China. Only reform can develop China.
  4. Scientific development is the key to solving all the problems of the country.
  5. China’s representative institutions must develop according to the principals of socialism with Chinese characteristics.
  6. The judicial system must be reformed to enforce rule of law and improve morality.
  7. China must foster the cultural values of socialism with Chinese characteristics.
  8. Improving people’s livelihood is the primary goal of economic development, in order to maintain social harmony, ensure stability, and provide the people with contentment.
  9. China must protect its energy supplies and natural environment as it develops.
  10. China must strengthen its national security and prepare for danger.
  11. The CCP must retain absolute control over the armed forces.
  12. Achieving complete national reunification of Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan into the mainland is the paramount requirement for the rejuvenation of China.
  13. China must be the builder of world peace and defender of the international order.
  14. China must have a zero-tolerance attitude for corruption and decadence within the Party.

Chinese thought is, almost inherently by virtue of its language, nuanced and delicate. Chinese writing is often susceptible to multiple interpretations, and is perhaps the diametric opposite of frank and blunt Americanism. With that caveat, here is how I believe we should understand the tenets of Xi Jinping Thought.

Points 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, and 11 are reiterations of the Marxist-Leninist belief in the necessity of totalitarian control by a vanguard party that maintains ideological purity, organizes the people in the pursuit of communism, and maintains leadership in all facets of society. They represent the diametric opposite of our hoped-for “liberalization” of China. These points need to be understand in the context of Xi’s views on the Soviet Union, which he presented at the Eighteenth Party Congress:

Why did the Soviet Union disintegrate? Why did the Soviet Communist Party fall from power? An important reason was that the struggle in the field of ideology was extremely intense, completely negating the history of the Soviet Union, negating the history of the Soviet Communist Party, negating Lenin, negating Stalin, creating historical nihilism and confused thinking. Party organs at all levels had lost their functions, the military was no longer under Party leadership. In the end, the Soviet Communist Party, a great party, was scattered, the Soviet Union, a great socialist country, disintegrated. This is a cautionary tale!

Xi Jinping, Eighteenth Party Congress

Xi Jinping Thought is making a clear statement that China will not become “liberalized” like the Soviet Union; it will not engage in glasnost and perestroika and develop into a multi-party parliamentary democracy in the Western style. Xi Jinping Thought is also making it clear that China in the New Era hasn’t progressed to that stage of communism when the state will wither away, either. It will maintain its ideological commitment to Communism and it will do so under one-party rule.

Point 8 re-emphasizes that the goal of socialism with Chinese characteristics is to eliminate poverty and create prosperity. The means by which this is to be accomplished are explained as scientific development (point 4) in conjunction with sustainable environmental and ecological practices (point 9). The latter point must be understood in a pragmatic context – the CCP are not deep ecologists or Gaia worshippers. When Europe was poor, it tolerated pollution (“London fog”) to achieve wealth; when it became rich, it could afford clean air and clean water. China, as it gets richer, will want clean air and clean water, too. If it can make the West pay for that because of our commitment to “climate justice”, so much the better!

Points 6 and 14 emphasize anti-corruption. Confucianism, with its emphasis on each person’s particular duty to their family, can lead to endemic nepotism, which in turn can lead to corruption and self-dealing. Like Deng Xiaoping before him, Xi is emphasizing anti-corruption as a means of ensuring domestic harmony and stability. Purging “corruption” is also a useful tool for consolidating one-party rule in the face of oligarchic wealth, as uppity billionaires and their crony politicians are inevitably corrupt…

Finally, Points 10, 12, and 13 explain China’s place in the world. Point 12 emphasizes that China is a civilization-state: All that is Chinese (culturally) must be part of China (politically). Particular emphasis is given to Taiwan. Left unsaid is Taiwan’s incredible strategic importance to point 4, scientific development, because of its world leadership in semiconductor manufacturing.

Point 13 positions China as the world’s new hegemon. Conventionally, we identify a hegemon at any point in time by speaking of its pax, the peace it imposes through its power — hence, the Pax Romana, Pax Britannica, and Pax Americana. For China to be builder of world peace and defender of the international order is for China to impose the Pax Sinica.

Point 10 acknowledges that achieving all these other points puts China at risk from those who would prevents its rise (the unstated foe is, of course, the United States). The implacable tendency towards war that occurs anytime a new hegemon arises against an old is called a Thucydides Trap (named for the Greek historian Thucydides and his account of the Peloponnesian War between mighty Sparta and rising Athens). Xi here is codifying the need to prepare for this war to come.

Taken as a whole, Xi Jinping Thought is an ambitious and confident doctrine meant to make the 21st century the Chinese Century.

Until recently, the West has been oblivious to this. Instead, it has taken comfort in pretty lies. “The Chinese don’t really believe in Communism!” They really do. “If China doesn’t become a capitalist democracy, it’ll collapse into poverty.” They won’t. “As the Chinese become more prosperous, they’ll become more like us!” They won’t.

This last delusion is utterly laughable — our Western intelligentsia hates Western culture, Western history, and Western civilization. The Chinese intelligentsia loves Chinese culture, Chinese history, and Chinese civilization. Can you imagine a Chinese scholar denouncing Mao or Confucius as irrelevant because they’re just dead Chinese males? No, they don’t aspire to be like us. They aspire to be better than us.

DISCUSS ON SG

US Provides Casus Belli

The US military has now provided China with a legitimate reason to take action in Taiwan. Whether it is intended as bait or whether it’s simply reprehensible stupidity, I cannot say.

Small units of Taiwan’s military ground forces have been trained by a U.S. special operations unit and a contingent of Marines, who have been secretly operating in that country, The Wall Street Journal is reporting.

Some two dozen members of U.S. special-operations and support troops have been conducting the training in an effort to strengthen Taiwan’s defenses in light of concerns about potential aggression by China.

Officials tell the paper that American forces have been conducting the training for at least a year.

To put it in perspective, imagine what the response from Washington would be if Russian Spetsnaz units were secretly operating in Idaho, training small units of “right wing extremists” and “Christian antivaxxers”. Remember, Taiwan is a Chinese province, and there is almost certainly a higher percentage of Taiwanese that wish to be governed by Beijing than Idahoans that want to be governed by Washington.

The Global Times, which is an English-speaking mouthpiece for the CPC, has made it very clear that this sort of foreign military intervention will not be tolerated:

It is impossible for any foreign force to deter or stop the process of China’s reunification as the mainland is determined to crack down on all kinds of foreign intervention and capable of doing so, and could reunify the island by force if necessary, Yuan Zheng, deputy director of the Institute of American Studies at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, told the Global Times on Thursday.

“The only thing that matters for the US and its allies is that how big a price they want to pay to test China’s strength and determination on this matter,” Yuan noted.

That the island of Taiwan’s attempts to resist reunification by force cannot succeed, and no matter what weapons the Taiwan secessionists make or buy, they cannot change the fact that the PLA has overwhelming advantages in the Taiwan Straits and surrounding areas, analysts said, stressing that once the mainland decides to solve the Taiwan question by force, no weapon can deter the unshakeable determination of 1.4 billion people to realize national reunification.

“PLA presence around Taiwan ‘targets secessionism, foreign forces’”, Global Times, 7 October 2021

The reason that they’re trying to train the Taiwanese forces is pretty obvious, though, as the island’s military has clearly become incapable of presenting the PLA with a hard target as its capabilities have declined relative to those of the mainland.

Two years back I wrote an article for Foreign Policy with the title “Taiwan Can Win a War With China.” In a recent interview with Jordan Schneider I stated that I can no longer endorse the declaration in that title. While I discuss my change of heart on the podcast, I think it is best if I fully write out why my assessment has changed.

I wrote that article in the early Spring of 2018. Around 70% of its contents reflected research presented in Ian Easton’s book, The Chinese Invasion Threat, another 15% or so was drawn from a journal article published by Michael Beckely in the International Security Review, and the last 15% or so drew from my own analysis. A lot of the writing and research behind Easton’s book comes from 2015-2016. Things have gotten worse, not better, since then, and if Easton’s more recent op-ed pieces are a fair judge of his opinions, he has also grown more pessimistic in the years since.

My pessimism is grounded in the nine months I spent in Taiwan in 2019….

You might divide the challenges Taiwan faces into two parts: problems of military strategy and problems of training, culture and morale. These problems can be laid at the feet of the ROC military (especially the ROC Army), but behind them lies another, more serious layer of dysfunction. This layer is more serious because it infects not the military but the civilian leadership tasked with reforming the defense system. Responsibility for military strategy and morale ultimately lies with Taiwanese politicians, and to a lesser extent, the voters who bring them to office. But Taiwan is marred by a dysfunctional civil-military relationship, destructive partisan infighting, and a spirit of defeatism. These political dynamics make it difficult for Taiwan to make the reforms that might guarantee its safety and autonomy.

The problems with Taiwanese military strategy are well known. The essential issues are these: for the last decade, Taiwanese force procurement has been weighted towards expensive, high-end platforms that are high on prestige but of limited utility in an actual conflict with the PLA. 20 years ago doubling down on the high-tech edge made sense, as it was seen as a force multiplier that might counteract the weight of numbers China could throw into the fight. But the situation has changed: the PLA has parity on just about every system the Taiwanese can field (or buy from us in the future), and for some systems they simply outclass the Taiwanese altogether. The Chinese thus not only have more equipment, but better equipment on top of it.

“Why I Fear For Taiwan”, Tanner Greer, 11 September 2020

DISCUSS ON SG

Calling For the Green Light

Apparently I’m not the only one who has concluded that there’s no time like the present. This was discussed in some detail on Darkstream 751: Drums, Drums, In The Deep. Courtesy of Jack Posobiec:

Taiwan stuff heating up more than people realize

This isn’t just posturing

There are top Chinese generals telling Xi they want the green light

The Chinese can’t reasonably assume that the USA will have such feeble leadership, both civilian and military, at any point in the near future. They respected Trump and worried about his unpredictability. Even if we assume they don’t actually own Biden – and there is more than a little evidence that at least have substantial leverage over him – literally no one respects or even regards him.

While the posturing isn’t just on China’s side, the posturing from Taiwan’s ruling Democratic Progressive Party isn’t exactly what one would call convincing. Australians haven’t lifted a finger to defend their own freedom, so they’re certainly not going to fight China for Taiwanese independence.

Taiwan’s regional leader Tsai Ing-wen on Tuesday published an article, entitled “Taiwan and the Fight for Democracy”, in Foreign Affairs Magazine, claiming that “If Taiwan were to fall, the consequences would be catastrophic for regional peace and the democratic alliance system.” It seems that the Tsai authorities are really scared, anticipating that their secessionist attempt has gone to a virtual dead end. They, as an anti-China outpost of US’ Indo-Pacific Strategy will sooner or later be wiped out by the Chinese mainland, but they have a severe lack of confidence that the US and its allies will fully defend the island. In this context, Tsai penned the article to underline the current peril, calling on the US and its allies to strengthen their commitment to the Taiwan island and to deter the Chinese mainland.

There is no force in the world whose will to “defend Taiwan” is stronger than China’s will to fight against secession and achieve reunification. To be precise, they are completely incomparable. China dares to have a life-and-death fight against any force that hinders our reunification, but no force dares or is willing to fight to the death against the world’s second largest economy, as well as a nuclear power, in order to prevent China’s reunification.

Tsai authorities understand this point.

“Taiwan’s Tsai turns to masters for help out of fear of catastrophic consequences”, Global Times, 5 October 2021

DISCUSS ON SG

China Beats the War Drums

A record number of warplanes took part in drills over the Taiwan Straits yesterday:

The combat group of 56 marked a new record-high in the number of PLA warplanes taking part in the drills near the island of Taiwan in a day, surpassing the previous record of 39 which was just set two days ago and 38 set three days ago.

At least 149 PLA warplanes have joined exercises near the island of Taiwan since the start of the National Day holiday on Friday, during both days and nights, according to releases by the island’s defense authorities.

Monday’s exercise came after the US Department of State released a press statement on Sunday, voicing “concern” over the Chinese mainland’s military activity near the island of Taiwan, claiming it was provocative.

In response to the statement, Hua Chunying, a spokesperson from China’s Foreign Ministry, said on Monday that Taiwan is part of China, and the US has no right to make irresponsible comments on the Taiwan question.

The US statement severely violates the one-China principle and three China-US joint communiqués, and sends very wrong and irresponsible signals, Hua said, noting that the US has been making aggressive moves including arms sales to Taiwan, landing military aircraft on the island and sending warships through the Taiwan Straits.

China will take all measures necessary to crush any “Taiwan independence” attempts, Hua said. “‘Taiwan independence’ is doomed to fail.”

And the Global Times made it clear that this action was a highly specific warning of an invasion made in response to the recent statement made by the US State Department:

The intensive actions of the PLA Air Force are not only a severe warning to the secessionist Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) authorities on the island, but also clearly portrayed the severity of the situation across the Taiwan Straits, and at the same time gave a clear warning to the supporters of the DPP authorities.

The peaceful atmosphere that existed in the area only a few years ago has all but disappeared, and the DPP authorities now openly refer to PLA fighters as “enemy aircraft”. They have constantly hyped up claims that they are at the forefront of the so-called democratic world to resist “authoritarian rule”. The strategic collusion between the US and Japan and the DPP authorities is becoming more audacious, and the situation across the Taiwan Straits has almost lost any room for maneuver teetering on the edge of a face-off, creating a sense of urgency that the war maybe triggered at any time.

The secessionist forces on the island will never be allowed to secede Taiwan from China under whatever names or by whatever means, and, the island will not be allowed to act as an outpost of the US’ strategic containment against China.

After Tsai Ing-wen came to office, the status quo of peaceful cooperation across the Taiwan Straits was disrupted. The US government and the DPP authorities are trying to deeply integrate the island into the US’ Indo-Pacific strategy targeting China. The Chinese mainland will not tolerate the integration of the island and the US.

The curtain of preparations for a comprehensive military struggle by the Chinese mainland has obviously been drawn open. The PLA’s military drills in the Taiwan Straits are no longer limited to declaring China’s sovereignty over the island, but to implement various forms of assembly, mobilization, assault and logistical preparations that are required to take back the island of Taiwan. Without giving up efforts for a peaceful reunification, it has increasingly become the new mainstream public opinion on the Chinese mainland that the mainland should make earnest preparations based on the possibility of combat.

Of course, given that Biden is almost certainly beholden to Beijing, if not an outright puppet,, it appears his fake administration is providing the CPC with precisely the casus belli it appears to be seeking.