 |
| |
|
|
Zulu Elephant
|
|
I know this is taking the thread back to first principles but...
1) China may or may not become the largest economy (or close) in the world over the next 30 years
2) There is nothing the rest of the world can do about this except through war (undesirable if not unwinnable) or economic sanctions (undesirable and again 'unwinnable' as a lot of the world would not go along with it for various reasons)
3) The only thing the US and Europe can reasonable hope to do is slow China's rise by holding back technology (the Europeans may not even want to do this for various reasons)
Therefore:
Holding back China's rise
Advantages
Maintaining US military dominance of the region for the time being will hopefully mean that the Taiwan question is resolved peacefully.
Disavantages
Set back Western-Chinese relations
Aiding China
Advantages
Signal the China that the west (or Europeans at least) wish to deal with the Chinese as equals, promoting harmony
Possibly set up the Europeans (in the case of the EU selling arms to China) as honest brokers in Chinese-US relations - someone reasonably powerful on the western side of the divide that the Chinese can feel are genuinely unbiased
Disadvantages
China becomes more powerful and decides it can invade Tiawan and win
China uses technology to challenge US/Western military/economic dominance of the world (though some might say a balance like this is a positive
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by lord of the mark
[QUOTE] Originally posted by GePap
A technical point of international law, and some ironies of history. Taiwan has been de facto out of Beijings control for 55 years, and has been in Beijings control for only about 5 if the last 110 years. If they HAD declared de jure independence in 1951 there was nothing Beijing could have done, and theyd be independent under international law. They didnt, first cause the KMT thought they could retake the mainland, and later caus the KMT legitimized its dictatorship by the fiction of being the govt of all China, which obviously shouldnt be chose by the people of one province. In 1979, while the KMT still maintained its dictatorship, the US recognized Beijing for the first time, as a power balance move against the USSR. When Taiwan became a democracy the question of Taiwan independence came up. Now IF Taiwan were to declare independence, and China were to do nothing, Taiwans independence would become dejure under int law, so China would have no choice but to attack. As a result of which we all tell Taiwan NOT to declare, to avoid war. Which we certainly dont want. But the reality is that Taiwan as a distinct society - the destruction of which by force would be a matter of INTERNATIONAL concern, not soley a Chinese internal matter. |
Why would the de facto control fo Taiwan by force as opposed to the current de jure control matter to anyone but the US and Japan?
quote:
Good thing its explicitly not Bushs policy than. |
NO, not the explicit policy, the actual policy they carry out with boots on the ground.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Last Conformist
If you think the EU does not care whether Taiwan remains de facto independent or not, you're in serious need of a reality check. |
Does it really affect Europe, or South Asia, or many others? They might care, but in the end, I do NOT see Europe, for example, getitng involved if taiwan declared independence, which I think is the only reason that war WOULD break out, since China is fine with continuing the de jure control only, trying to woo Taiwan financially.
Japan and the US would have plenty of reasons to get directly involved, but I do not see Europe getting involved, and if China were to succeed and take de facto powers, the main cocern would be to make sure Chinese behavior in taiwan was not specially repressive (ie, any more repressive than at home).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zulu Elephant
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Last Conformist
The advantage the EU actually cares about is economic gains to be made in China. |
yes, but this thread is about the consequences of policies and actions, not motives which are pretty irrelevant to the bigger picture of global and regional security
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
 |
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
Good article: what the author misses thought is just why the Chinese approach to lets get rich, who cares about HR wins out: because all in all, people crave fiscal stability more than freedom.
Just look at Latin America: democracy spread in the early 90's, but it failed to bring greater prosperity to most states, so support for democracy remains weak. |
Did you read it?
"Many members of the Chinese elite recognise that this advocacy of "multipolarity" and "non-interference," masks an aspiration to convert "comprehensive national power" into dominance, even military dominance of Asia. Beijing has not dropped its claims over the entire South China sea, and still refers to many parts of Asia as virtual Chinese possessions. In private, Chinese leaders admit that their goal is to build an empire in the region. And when it suits it China often acts unilaterally, as it has done by damming its part of the Mekong river despite protests that it has destroyed the livelihoods of thousands of Thais, Cambodians and Laotians who depend on its water."
and
"America must continue to call China what it is and do whatever small things it can to help ordinary Chinese to change their government. As China expert Ross Terrill notes: "There is no way the US can please Beijing." As long as the Chinese Communist party remains in power, the two states' political systems will be mutually incompatible. But unless Washington wakes up soon, many more countries will be doing their best to please Beijing"
The author berates Washington for neglecting Asia, and for focusing our relationships there soley on counterterrorism - we are weakened among the peoples not by supporting human rights, but by NEGLECTING them.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
|
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
Does it really affect Europe, or South Asia, or many others? They might care, but in the end, I do NOT see Europe, for example, getitng involved if taiwan declared independence, which I think is the only reason that war WOULD break out, since China is fine with continuing the de jure control only, trying to woo Taiwan financially.
Japan and the US would have plenty of reasons to get directly involved, but I do not see Europe getting involved, and if China were to succeed and take de facto powers, the main cocern would be to make sure Chinese behavior in taiwan was not specially repressive (ie, any more repressive than at home). |
mimssing the point again. The issue is not does Europe care enough to go to war, but if they care enough that they should contniue the arms embargo, in an attempt to PREVENT a war.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Last Conformist
|
 |
of Calakmul
Jul 2003
time: 06:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
Does it really affect Europe, or South Asia, or many others?
|
Yes, thanks to a little innovation called "globalization".
quote:
They might care, but in the end, I do NOT see Europe, for example, getitng involved if taiwan declared independence, which I think is the only reason that war WOULD break out, since China is fine with continuing the de jure control only, trying to woo Taiwan financially.
Japan and the US would have plenty of reasons to get directly involved, but I do not see Europe getting involved, and if China were to succeed and take de facto powers, the main cocern would be to make sure Chinese behavior in taiwan was not specially repressive (ie, any more repressive than at home). |
It's not likely that the EU would get directly involved in actual fighting, but a such war would have enough negative consequences for us - including the inevitable American demand we sever ties with the PRC - that we would not want to do anything that might provoke it. If Chirac & Co thought lifting the arms embargo would significantly increase the risk of a conflagration in the Strait of Formosa, they wouldn't be doing it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zulu Elephant
|
|
quote:
you think China is not attacking Taiwan because it doesn't have enough weapons?! |
you think that China's decision about whether to go to war with Taiwan has nothing to do with whether it has the weapons to win a convincing victory?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Last Conformist
Yes, thanks to a little innovation called "globalization".
|
You previously mentioned electroinics sales? Ceratinly there would be disruptions for the months of fighting, but you think China would stop running the factories once they were under their de facto control?
quote:
It's not likely that the EU would get directly involved in actual fighting, but a such war would have enough negative consequences for us - including the inevitable American demand we sever ties with the PRC - that we would not want to do anything that might provoke it. If Chirac & Co thought lifting the arms embargo would significantly increase the risk of a conflagration in the Strait of Formosa, they wouldn't be doing it. |
Correcdt, the sales of arms of China do not determine the likelyhood of war over Taiwan, which is decided by political rather than technological issues.
As for the US demanding ties be severed, I actually don;t think that would be the case- after all, again, this would be China taking on seperatists essentially, so no nation in the world save the US due to internal laws, would be obligated to take any action vs China. It would be hard then to see under what rationale the US could demand anyone else break of relations with China.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Last Conformist
|
|
of Calakmul
Jul 2003
time: 06:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
You previously mentioned electroinics sales? Ceratinly there would be disruptions for the months of fighting, but you think China would stop running the factories once they were under their de facto control? |
I don't believe the factories will exist when the fighting is over.
What's worse, mainland China's overseas trade will be massively disrupted by fighting across their sealanes.
quote:
Correcdt, the sales of arms of China do not determine the likelyhood of war over Taiwan, which is decided by political rather than technological issues. |
In the short term yes. In the longer term, there's no particular reason to believe that the PRC's willingness to accept Taiwan's de facto independence should endure if the costs for taking it by force should become much lower than today.
quote:
As for the US demanding ties be severed, I actually don;t think that would be the case- after all, again, this would be China taking on seperatists essentially, so no nation in the world save the US due to internal laws, would be obligated to take any action vs China. It would be hard then to see under what rationale the US could demand anyone else break of relations with China. |
It's known as "do as we say or you'll suffer".
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Last Conformist
Originally posted by GePap
I don't believe the factories will exist when the fighting is over.
What's worse, mainland China's overseas trade will be massively disrupted by fighting across their sealanes. |
Factories can be rebuilt- as for the disruption in trade, that is a function of China trying, whether succesfully or not, take de facto control of Taiwan. It is not a fucntion of whether China succeeds or not.
quote:
In the short term yes. In the longer term, there's no particular reason to believe that the PRC's willingness to accept Taiwan's de facto independence should endure if the costs for taking it by force should become much lower than today. |
China's economic growth mean that the overall cost of said conclift will alwasy be downward for China- at most, better European eletronic would make the decline in cost slightly faster, but lets not kid ourselves.
quote:
It's known as "do as we say or you'll suffer". |
If the US were in a serious war with China, telling other to do so or shove it would not be the wisest move.
Again, you need an excuse to demand the break in diplomatic relations- Taiwan is not recognized as an indpendent Nation by anyone outside of Latin America, so the rules would be different than if China attacked a place recognized as sovereign.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Last Conformist
|
|
of Calakmul
Jul 2003
time: 06:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
Factories can be rebuilt- as for the disruption in trade, that is a function of China trying, whether succesfully or not, take de facto control of Taiwan. It is not a fucntion of whether China succeeds or not. |
So what? The goal isn't to prevent the PRC from annexing Taiwan, but preventing a war from taking place.
quote:
quote:
In the short term yes. In the longer term, there's no particular reason to believe that the PRC's willingness to accept Taiwan's de facto independence should endure if the costs for taking it by force should become much lower than today. |
China's economic growth mean that the overall cost of said conclift will alwasy be downward for China- at most, better European eletronic would make the decline in cost slightly faster, but lets not kid ourselves. |
I must confess I don't get what youre getting at here.
quote:
If the US were in a serious war with China, telling other to do so or shove it would not be the wisest move.
Again, you need an excuse to demand the break in diplomatic relations- Taiwan is not recognized as an indpendent Nation by anyone outside of Latin America, so the rules would be different than if China attacked a place recognized as sovereign. |
If their Nato allies continued business as usual with Beijing as America fought a war with it, I think the Americans would have every right in the world to consider that hostile behaviour.
That's not the point, tho. If Washington feels a need for an excuse to pressure anyone, I'm sure they've got very competent people to come up with one.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Last Conformist
Originally posted by GePap
So what? The goal isn't to prevent the PRC from annexing Taiwan, but preventing a war from taking place. |
Well, keeping the embargo will do nothing to stop the war from happening.
quote:
I must confess I don't get what youre getting at here. |
China's direction is only upwards- the balance of power will be increasingly in its favor, period, as it is able to spend more on modernizing its forces- its not a simple straigth line of growth, but more exponential- so, China is more capable today vs Taiwan than it was in 1996, and it will be even more ready in 2008 than it was today, vis a vi Taiwan, and this difference will continue to diminsh, whether Europe sells them weapons or not.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zulu Elephant
|
|
quote:
the balance of power will be increasingly in its favor |
I hate to be a **** but a balance of power cannot be in anyones favour...it is a balance
This is a distribution of power
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Last Conformist
|
|
of Calakmul
Jul 2003
time: 06:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
Just as European refusal to sell would not affect the willingness of China to go to war with taiwan if it declared independence, sales to China are probably not going to make it much easier:
China's big problems are getting control of the air, and control of the sea. European sales might make it easier to do A, but control of the seas, and the ability to actually take taiwan qucikly are dependent on sealift abilities and warships that China would most likely not be buying from Europe, and that would take many decades to bring into use, period. |
I seem to recall they're intending to buy German submarines.
Now, as you may have noticed, I'm not arguing that the systems that might be sold if the embargo is lifted are going to radically change the balance. Indeed, it's not even very unlikely they'll be obsolete before the current basic parameters (Taiwan refraining from formal independence, the US willing and able to defend Taiwan from mainland attack) change.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Last Conformist
|
|
of Calakmul
Jul 2003
time: 06:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
Well, keeping the embargo will do nothing to stop the war from happening.
|
That's probably true, and why the EU wants to lift the embargo.
quote:
quote:
I must confess I don't get what youre getting at here. |
China's direction is only upwards- the balance of power will be increasingly in its favor, period, as it is able to spend more on modernizing its forces- its not a simple straigth line of growth, but more exponential- so, China is more capable today vs Taiwan than it was in 1996, and it will be even more ready in 2008 than it was today, vis a vi Taiwan, and this difference will continue to diminsh, whether Europe sells them weapons or not. |
There is no such thing as upwards-only mobility. But it's overwhelmingly likely that China continues to rise, yes. That's why I don't share your faith that the PRC will indefinitely refrain from force if Taiwan does not declare independence.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:22.
Apolyton Time is 00:22. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
26-02-2005 04:13
you think China is not attacking Taiwan because it doesn't have enough weapons?!
.
|