Some Damn Fool Thing in the Strait of Taiwan

I was reading the always-incisive (though sometimes mad) Niall Ferguson's analogy of Taiwan today to Belgium in 1914:

t r u t h o u t - Niall Ferguson | Sinking Globalization: It is true that the Chinese have no obvious incentive to pick a fight with the United States. But China's ambitions with respect to Taiwan are not about to disappear just because Beijing owns a stack of U.S. Treasury bonds. On the contrary, in the event of an economic crisis, China might be sorely tempted to play the nationalist card by threatening to take over its errant province. Would the United States really be willing to fight China over Taiwan, as it has pledged in the past to do? And what would happen if the Chinese authorities flexed their new financial muscles by dumping U.S. bonds on the world market? To the historian, Taiwan looks somewhat like the Belgium of old: a seemingly inconsequential country over which empires end up fighting to the death...

Scary. Deservedly scary. But let me transport Niall's paragraph back in time 150 years, replacing "Taiwan" with "Canada":

It is true that the Americans have no obvious incentive to pick a fight with the British Empire. But America's ambitions with respect to Canada are not about to disappear just because Washington knows that Lancashire needs to buy its cotton. On the contrary, in the event of an economic crisis, America might be sorely tempted to play the nationalist card by threatening to take over its errant province. Would the British Empire really be willing to fight America over Canada, as it has pledged in the past to do? And what would happen if the American authorities flexed their new economic muscles by embargoing cotton exports?...

A hundred and fifty years ago it was our "manifest destiny" to own the entire North American continent. Today the desire to annex Canada is limited to us left-of-center Democrats desperate to turn the marginal voter from a guy outside of Nashville with a hound dog to a guy in suburban Toronto with a Greenpeace card. May an analogous process take place between China and Taiwan.

Comments

[tante aime]

The analogy breaks down, however, in historical context. Taiwan is to America as China is to England, with the odd inversion that "America" is a modern power-house but only the size of "England", and "England" is a voracious frontier of communalism. The economic leadership of Taiwan are as mobilized as the American Patriots, while the political leadership of China is as motivated as English King George, with a gazillion dollars in foreign trade in the balance. It will be a counter-revolution, ala Tibet, although with a lot more shock and awe at the inevitable outset, and America will remain isolationist and benign.

[P O'Neill]

Amongst the problems with Fergie's analogy is that Taiwan is not on the way to anywhere, like Belgium was. The Great Powers didn't end up in Belgium because they liked chocolate and waffles. It was because it sits there right at France's most difficult to defend border, and very close to England. But there's no geopolitical tectonic plate intersecting at Taipei.

[Barry P.]

As mentioned above, this analogy stinks. Belgium was used by the Gremans as a routte into France because the French-German border was heavily fortified, but the French-Belgian one wasn't, since everybody thought the Kaiser would "respect" Belgian neutrality.

In 1914, Serbia was the inconsequential minor state over which the Empires fought to the death.

On another point: the US did not hesitate to use force against a dissident province that unilaterally declared its independence in 1861. Why would we expect China to behave differently in 2005?

[chris]

That's right. Taiwan's government has claimed for decades that it has the legitimate government for allof china and Taiwan was a province of china. Ghe chinese government has argued that it was the legitimate government for allof China and Taiwan was a province ruled by rebels.

China wants it. They claim it as part of their nation.

It's a perfect bargaining chip for the U. S. as we don't own it so we can give it away for free. Just watch for the pressure to build.

[Andrew Boucher]

Barry P.: I think this kind of moral reasoning is fraught with difficulties. There are plenty of differences between the two cases. One of the most obvious is that Taiwan has gone its own way now almost 60 years.

[Bad Santa]

The US political class would never risk financial catastrophe over Taiwan. And, in a decade or two when these things may come to a head, the US will be in such a bad state we won't be doing much of anything other than watching the feds raze the new hovervilles outside of DC on hdtv and eating ranch-flavored soylent green with olestra. If things ever got really hairy, Taiwan would declare its handfull of nukes, and then we'll see what's what. (also, thank you, Taiwan, for jen ju nai cha and, oh yeah, Ferguson's a nut.)

[ecoast]

China will unilaterally unify Taiwan someday somehow, no matter what. But when and how? My prediction is it will happen in 2006. why '06? If not next year, China will have to wait another 3 or 4 years and I don't think it will wait that long. In '08, there are elections in Taiwan, presidential election in the US and olympics in Beijing. So 08 is bad year and for the same reasons, 07 is bad too.

How? It will not be done by force, but probably through internal subversion, because use of force will ruin Chinese and Taiwanese economies and destabilize that part of Asia. China will massively bribe pro-chinese Taiwanese leaders, have some internal peaceful rebellion, have its agents installed as leaders.
There will be demonstrations and strikes and so on, but
those will be contained in a few months. Taiwan will be ruled on the Hong Kong model. Since it will be taken over through internal strife and subversions, there is not much that US can do.

If it doesn't happen in '06, China will have to wait until 09-10. Too many uncertainties. So I am speculating - pure speculation on my part, with no other info than normally available through our press - that China will act next year and be done with it. I think that annexation law that was passed in Beijing last week is an early indicator too.

Any comments?

[Elaine Supkis]

My family has been involved in the China/Taiwan diplomatic to a fro for over thirty years.

My father was the first diplomat to ever fly directly from Taiwan to China. He was in Taiwan when Carter recognized China suddenly (talk about JUGGLING that day! He wasn't even warned!).

Taiwan is the KNIFE IN CHINA'S CHEST. It is poised there, right off shore, bisecting China. It is more dangerous than Cuba is vis a vis the USA. It also is an anchor point in the seas connecting China, Japan, Philippines, Malysia and Vietnam's coasts. The Chinese leadership is 100% determined to reincorperate Taiwan into China. There is not the slightest doubt about this.

They WILL go to war over it when push comes to shove. This war will, if we contest them, be WWIII. No ifs ands or buts!

We think, since we got Japan to sign up with us to fight this war, we trumped China. Except...China is now closely aligned with Russia because we are pinching Russia in Europe and the "stan" states. Our victories there shoved Russia right into Wu's open arms! This means, two very powerful nuclear states with great land mass and huge natural resources will oppose us in WWIII. Maybe even Europe will oppose us. This is a diplomatic disaster for us.

[david]

Why is Ferguson always incisive? Seems more like a tool. The one I know, Cash Nexus, was weak stuff -- here's a compellingly nasty review of the empire that Max Sawicky linked to a while back:
http://www.bostonreview.net/BR30.1/chibber.html

[Graydon]

The other thing is that Taiwan's chip fabs are not disposable; the _two_ that shut down due to earthquake had global repercussions. Shut them *all* down for a month because the ports are closed and the Taiwanese internal transportation systems aren't working and the entire high-tech sector, from server to phones, will tank, and take a lot of other stuff with it.

[Bob H]

Nuclear proliferation might not always be a bad thing. Taiwan is an example of a country that should have a bomb, possession of which would bring these threats from mainland China to a halt.

[William Palmer]

A war between the US and China:

Its such a weird thing to even imagine but it may happen.

China has orbited the earth in a manned space vehicle, so they can get a bomb to New York if they really want to - I guess the threat is enough that the US will not nuke Chinese population centers, and maybe would not use nuclear weapons in the conflict at all.

As far as I know, China cannot get troops across the strait under fire.

So I think, and I don't know what I'm talking about, that if Taiwan was to declare independence today, China would bomb some defenses and declare Taiwan's ports a war zone where trade is not allowed.

Then they would get at least one commercial vessel, enough to make it more expensive to get goods to or from Taiwan, but not enough to choke Taiwan off, since they don't have the navy they would need to choke Taiwan off with the US in the area.

Then we would see a pretty cold war - not much shooting, just more expensive shipping - and a lot of pressure would be exerted on the Taiwanese people and the world to recant and accept that Taiwan is part of China. I guess sooner or later Taiwan would hold elections and a pro-China government would come to power.

China may destroy one or more US Naval vessels that is helping to prevent the blockade. The US would retaliate with attacks on military installations near in the area along with an all-channel diplomatic effort to come up with a formula that prevents a wider war.

I can't really imagine getting from there to WWIII. If there is going to be WWIII China would rather it be in 2015 than 2005.

[Tim Worstall]

"Today the desire to annex Canada is limited to us left-of-center Democrats desperate to turn the marginal voter from a guy outside of Nashville with a hound dog to a guy in suburban Toronto with a Greenpeace card."
That’s a wonderful line but I don’t think it would actually quite work that way. Add Canada’s 30 odd million, or 10% to the mix? I have a feeling that the difference between your two desired marginal voters is larger than that 10% would cover.

[Matt]

I dunno. Everyone here is assuming that Chinese nationalism is just like European nationalism. Maybe.. but...

[enfant terrible]

We share the blame for the absurd situation because we did not condition our aid to Taiwan back in the 50s on their proclaiming independence and giving up claims to mainland China. Had we been honest then, Taiwan would be a sovereign country today and Chinese claims to it would be equally valid as Iraqi claims to Kuwait. Unfortunately, we allowed the absurd continuation of Taiwan as part of China (or vice versa), which implies that an invasion of one by the other would, in itself, probably be legal. Any foreigh intervention could only be justified on humanitarian grounds, e.g., if China intentionally targets civilians. But we don't do such things. We didn't intervene in Sudan, Zaire, or Rwanda, and our intervention in Kosovo was motivated by other, more practical concerns, like spilling the conflict into a NATO member, Greece.

[Matt]

The Belgium analogy is wrong in the sense that Wilhemite Germany was itching for a fight. China is not. That said, as someone who has been following Chinese politics for a long time, I am dead certain that eventual absorption of Taiwan is a core principle of Chinese policy, and would be a core principle under ANY Chinese government. An independent Taiwan is a visible symbol of the country's humilation by Japan and the Western Colonial powers in the 19th and first half of 20th century. No government that accepted Taiwanese independence would survive. The Chinese government would rather fight and lose (and it knows it would lose were it to engage the U.S. during the next decade or two)--rather than concede sovereignty over Taiwan.

A Rand Corporation analysis of the military balance in the Taiwan strait can be found at the link below.

http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1217/

But victory would be Phyrric: the U.S. and China would then be bitter enemies, making for an unstable and unhappy 21st century, and another attempt to absorb Taiwan would come later. Taiwan is a democracy, giving its independece a moral claim on us. But all our options are bad. The best policy is the one we're following: try to deter China, pressure Taiwan no to cross China's red line, and hope really hard that, given enough time, the problem goes away.

[Lee A. Arnold]

Scroll further down on the Truthout page for Chalmers Johnson's good article on the situation, with Japan in the mix.

[hey]

subversion is the only way, but unlikely given the tenor of the times (if people are rioting in kyrgyztan (sp?) they will definitely riot in taiwan, given that it has a 20 year history of democratic government)

as for military: china can't win. if it tries to interdict, the US would reflag everything, making any further actions by china cassus belli. hostile states sinking US ships is a BAD move. china can only invade if a democrat wins the 08 election, as you all are anxious to abandon democracy and buy "peace" at any price.

Leftist/Liberal anxiousness to give taiwan to china and abandon US security guarantees further reinforces the idea that you are not serious about national security. Jimmah gave the panama canal back (now in Chinese control), undermined Israel, and subverted Taiwan (removing US forces, etc). No democrat seen to be as weak as the recent crop can win election if geopolitics seems to be important. With your active encouragement of hostile foreign activity, it is unlikely that security will be taken off the table. Thank god for that.

[dilbert dogbert]

Wonder why China would want to invade Taiwan? There is a lot of comment on the interconnectedness of the US and China but little on the same vis a vis China and Taiwan.
China gets Taiwans business knowledge and entrapenurial(sp?) spirit for free. An occupation would destroy that at great cost to China.
I assume China would invade only to quiet great domestic problems.
If the Chinese uses caution and patience and waits for their great internal domestic market to develop, then, Taiwan will come begging to integrate with China.
I don't know Jack but I know that I don't.

[liberal]

hey wrote, "Leftist/Liberal anxiousness to give taiwan to china and abandon US security guarantees further reinforces the idea that you are not serious about national security."

Huh? Since when is an independent Taiwan vital for the US's national security?

I think, morally speaking, Taiwan should be free, but (a) I don't think it's worth WWIII, (b) Chinese desire hegemony over Taiwan seems pretty consistent with the behavior of other great powers, including (especially) the US.

"Jimmah gave the panama canal back (now in Chinese control), undermined Israel, and subverted Taiwan (removing US forces, etc)."

How did Carter undermine Israel? How is the removal of our armed forces from any country equivalent to "subversion"?

[liberal]

dilbert dogbert wrote, "Wonder why China would want to invade Taiwan?"

For the same stupid reasons peoples and nations do lots of idiotic things.

I'm sure the classical liberals had lots of things to say about these kinds of "passions."

[Nicholas Mycroft]

Elaine-

An old friend of mine is a Sinologist and he agrees 100%. China is deadly serious about Taiwan. He thinks the U.S. holds a number of major and very possibly dangerous misconceptions: that China will not take risks in re Taiwan, is merely prone to bluff and bluster, will back down if push comes to shove, and will eventually "get over" wanting to reintegrate Taiwan.

[Billmon]

Hmmm . . . I never thought of Anschluss as an electoral stratagem before, but I like it!

On the British/Canada, China/Tawain parallel, though, I'm not sure history provides all that much reassurance. The USA and Britain came whisker close to going to war over Canada several times. And if you count the War of 1812 as being motiviated at least in part by territorial disputes in the "Old Northwest" (Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, etc.) they DID go to war over it.

Then there was the dispute over the Oregon territories, which produced the famous War Hawk slogan "54 40 or Fight!" although in the end it wasn't and we didn't. The two sides again almost mixed it up in the 1850s, after a Canadian pig invaded an American cornfield on the jointly held island of San Juan.

And there was the 1862 confrontation over the U.S. Navy's seizure of two Confederate diplomats off a British ship on the high seas. Granted, Canada wasn't the casus belli, but one of the first things HMG did during the crisis was to hustle a couple of boatloads of British troops to Canada, in expectation that war would lead to invasion.

I guess you can argue, ala Norman Angell, that the growing economic and financial ties between the empire and the republic were what kept those squabbles from escalating into wars. But that's leaning pretty heavily on economic determinism, which didn't work out so well with one of Angell's more famous predictions.

It could be that only sheer good fortune -- and the slowness of 19th century communication -- kept the peace. Certainly, 19th century policymakers on both sides of the Atlantic never took it for granted: Britain and the United States both maintained contigency plans for going to war with each other as late as 1905.

Of course, the more important question is whether the historical analogy has any validity in the first place. From the viewpoint of a status quo imperial power, is China the 21st century equivalent of 19th century America, or the modern version of Bismark's Germany?

[William Palmer]

{
as for military: china can't win. if it tries to interdict, the US would reflag everything, making any further actions by china cassus belli. hostile states sinking US ships is a BAD move.
}

How BAD exactly?

US ships travelling without permission into China's territory may be a bad move.

If they sink reflagged US ships, there will not be a nuclear exchange. What would the US do?

I really don't know, but there aren't any good options that I know of.

If there is real confrontation between the US and China, the winners will be India, Russia, Europe, Iran and the Arab states and maybe Japan.

China as glass - the US without Houston, New York, Washington DC, Seattle and L.A. - really not that much of a victory.

I don't see a real war happening. I see a few strikes to demonstrate to trade-dependent Taiwan that trade is a lot cheaper and easier as part of China than separate from China, and Taiwan joining at that point.

[anonymous]

I'd be curious to hear others' opinions on the recent Anti-Separatism Law passed by Beijing.

I find it interesting that the document formally cedes decision-making to the Military Commission of the Central Committee... but saving some sort of internal power struggle to which everyone is oblivious, it seems difficult to imagine that this would be in doubt.

Article IX is also strange. If the document is intended as a shot across anyone's bow, it is certainly a bizarre one.

An English translation of the bill is available here, incidentally:

http://www.pressinterpreter.org/node/79

[Maynard Handley]

(1) There seems to be a common presumption that China would not invade Taiwan because that would not make economic sense. Surely if the last 4 yrs in the US have taught us anything, it is that politicians do not do things based on economic sense --- what economic sense is there in any of the Iraq war, pissing off every US ally, the Medicaid drug nonsense, a ballooning federal debt, or the current SS proposals. The common thread in all of these is not economic rationality but ideology harnessed to self interest. Why exactly would the Chinese political system be more rational than this. Yes, as individuals to a man they seem a damn sight more intelligent than Bush and his cronies, but do we really know enough about what they believe in their heart of hearts to make predictions?

(2) If there is anything that anyone has learned from Bush's Talk Loudly and Carry a Nerf Bat policy, it is that the US is all bark and no bite. Yeah, the US is going to come to the aid of Taiwan, sure. The US is not willing to make a decent commitment to dealing with Iraq. It's not willing to make an effort to deal with domestic problems. There is no way in hell they will make any effort whasotever to help Taiwan beyond the obligatory strong condemnations. Don't expect even Lend-Lease from this lot. You know it, I know it, the Chinese and EU and Taiwanese know it; the only people who don't know it are the deluded twits ranting about Democrat treachery and Jimmy Carter's handing over control of the Panama canal to the Chinese (don't ask me --- I'm just quoting what the guy wrote).

[Winston V]

Taiwan is a divided state, evidenced by recent election contentious results. Half the state (the native Taiwanese) wants independence, while other half (the Shek's Koumingtang) wants to allign Taiwan with mainland China. The pro-China faction's vision is for China to dominate and become a regional power. On the other hand, the pro-independence movement wants to leverage the US's desire to limit China's rise to prominence to claim Taiwan sovereignty. Sentiments are strong on both sides. Moreover, both antagonists are supported strongly by external powers. The invisible hands from China and US probably will lead to a civil war before anything else will happen to Taiwan.

[wml]

Why think back 150 years? Why not think back 190 years and consider the war of 1812 as an analogy...

[Scott McArthur]

German controlled Alsace Lorraine is a better analogy than Belgium, with a bitter revenge oriented France as China waiting for the opportunity of War. Mind you the Chinese are probably more patient, but don't kid your self, a simple phone call from the central committee telling the Peoples Liberation Army to execute plan 17, would set the whole thing in motion, which is a little
spooky from where I sit.

As for Canada why rely on the militarists? If you don't like Berkley anymore you can always come teach at McGill. Canada would be delighted to have you.

[bryan]

if china just approached the current administration with the honest statement we want taiwan, what do you want in return and how do we need to play this so you can come out looking good there wouldn't be a problem.

[dilbert dogbert]

My retired pilot friend regales me with tales of flying F86s in the Formosa Straghts during the Quemoy/Matsu dust up. A bit of flying over mainland china and flying with atomic weapons aboard. Very interesting.

[ce]

Incisive Ferguson? Vivek Chibber demolishes Ferguson's nonsense on the british empire in the article link: http://www.bostonreview.net/BR30.1/chibber.html.

[Maynard Handley]

"if china just approached the current administration with the honest statement we want taiwan, what do you want in return and how do we need to play this so you can come out looking good there wouldn't be a problem."

Of course that presumes that the Chinese govt trusts the US govt.
Didn't Saddam Hussein try a stunt like that with April Gillespie, the US ambassador to Iraq back in the days of the first Bush administration (you know, the one that, compared to the current one, was actually reasonably sane, honest and competent)? And we all know how well that turned out for Hussein.

[s9]

tante aime writes: Amongst the problems with Fergie's analogy is that Taiwan is not on the way to anywhere, like Belgium was.

I clearly remember learning in my Naval Science classes at the California Maritime Academy that the United States has long regarded Taiwan as being right in the middle of "the way" that China needs for free access to the Pacific Ocean. It is not very hard to look at a map and see how the Chinese navy could be effectively blocked without first establishing control of Taiwan.

You're welcome to keep shooting at Ferguson's analogy, but this shot missed. There are very clear and obvious reasons why China should consider Taiwan to be located in a strategic geographical position.

[sm]

There was an Aroostook War between Maine and New Brunswick (not then part of Canada) in the 1830s. It could have been ugly but ended up obscure.

http://members.tripod.com/~Scott_Michaud/Aroostook-War.html

Some of Niall Ferguson's promotion of the Iraq war was so imperialist, so pie in the sky, that I trust nothing he says, however incisive.

[Not likely]

China has been running an empire for 5000 years. They lost territory, gains, consolidates, lost again... consolidates again (macau, HongKong, ..and now Taiwan)

US manifest destiny on the other hand was only a beginner enthusiasm. There is a difference between running an empire for 5000 yrs and having few revolutionary fervor cycle in a modern nation state.

[Barry P.]

A few random thoughts concerning Brad's "Canada" comments: it's not just the relatively lefty "marginal voter" that some Americans want. Many thirsty Californians would love to import currently unused bulk water from rivers in the Canadian Rockies, and a few of the more unhinged ones have talked about taking it by force, since Canadians seem reluctant about such exports.

Now, if Canada were to unite with the US, it would not be an additional single state, but 10 (or 12) new states, and about 17 of those 20 new Senators would be Democrats for quite some time. There would also be about another 50 Congressman, and I'm guessing 40 or so would be Dems. In Presidential elections, the Dems would make a net gain of about 3 million votes, and over 40 electoral votes.

That's the real reason why Canada will not join the US in the near future - it would result in political oblivion for the Republicans.

[arlee]

A late comment. I like "Not Likely's" comment. It seems like the two situations are so different, historically, geographically, and politically, that the economic argument (determinism, as someone put it) loses oomph upon full consideration in light of these perspectives. My understanding is that Canada wanted to disassociate itself from the US and it's version of government after the Civil war. At the same time economic ties to the US became increasingly important with British moving from a mercantilist system. Britain thought that it had no hope of defending the huge border, and didn't want another fight with the US. The federation formed largely with British blessing to dissuade the US from annexing the Western Territories (as well as some economic incentives)(?) The annexation movement was not too strong w/in the US.(?)

By contrast, the history of Taiwan, US and Taiwan is so different...US helped return Taiwan to China from Japan, insisted on the "One China" policy through it's Cold War strategy, and still won't accept "two Chinas". China and Taiwan have a far longer far more intermingled history then US/Canada. Now the whole situation is in uncomfortable limbo, with the major US agreements with China re: Taiwan saying opposing things. People who know the region acknowledge that the economic links are important but that the economic integration is not inconsistent with the Chinese military/political aim of reuniting Taiwan with the motherland for ideological/sentimental reasons. At the same time they underline that economic integration IS NOT political integration; which is the ultimate aim. This seems different then US/Canada. At issue is Chinese nationalism, but as well democracy. Taiwan is a threat to Chinese government, that is already ruling a mainland that largely does not necessarily want communism. The outcome of mainland Chinese democracy is the ultimate US interest...Taiwan is a link in pushing this.

There are many expert opinions that differ, but quite a few agree that the military threat is necessary for China to coerce (the operative term) the Taiwanese to accept reunification (Taiwan is an inevitable loser in a military confrontation). While some say Taiwanese nationalism is on the rise, I have met quite a few Taiwanese who considered themselves Chinese growing up in Taiwan. Even if nationalism is on the rise, recent violence is probably not forgotten. The US is compelled to take the threat seriously--not be a pushover, since the area and moderating Chinese power is important.

[Alex]

Taiwan probably does have nukes.. And China now has the Three Gorges Dam. The two don't mix.

My guess is that China will realize that equals a big card in Taiwan's hand that they do not want them to play.

I'm also guessing that China's leadership doesnt care much about Taiwan, except as a propaganda tool to stir up nationalism, which is the only thing that they can use to confer 'legitimacy' on theimselves, not being elected.

Its a fragile balance. I don't think they want to introduce a wild card like war with the (still) most powerful nation in the world on top of that.

The US is not Muslim, and neither is China. Culturally, more and more, I realize that its only a matter of time before China finds democracy. The longer they hold that pressure in, the more it will explode. China is a nation that is still living in the distant past in some ways while it jumps into the future in others. They dont share the tradition of the last 500 years of European social development that all Westerners share..

So there is a lot of incongruity there that will force changes..big changes.. A lot sooner than most Americans think.

I hope, and I do think that the changes will be good.. (democracy...)

[P.M.Lawrence]

To get some insight on Chinese attitudes to Taiwan, look at the 17th century. It was separate then, and was then also a great risk as a potential launchpad for the previous regime if the current regime ever suffered from internal dissension - which would have been very likely in the face of not trying to retake the place.

Also there is the minor matter that most of China (geographically) was added as a result of being conquered by outsiders at the same time as they conquered China, then assimilated as the conquerors were assimilated.

Historically, in China, regime/dynasty change has followed some combination of internal and external threat. They always try to resist both, which requires asserting their own essential unity.

[emptywheel]

Kind of to piggyback on what Alex says, I suspect the Taiwan warmongering may be a set up to give China a good nationalist casus belli if it needs to go to war for a much less popular reason, such as oil supplies.

It is not inconceivable that China will be at war with the US in the near future--at least a proxy war in Iran or Venezuela. But if this happens, the Party is going to need to come up with a more plausible reason to go to war than oil supplies, kind of like Bush had to come up with WMD. Preventing succession in Taiwan would offer that reason.

Also, wrt the discussions of Chinese war against the US, don't forget that in the same week China announced its no succession policy, it had lengthy discussions about some upcoming war games with Russia. China or Russia would not want to take on the US alone--but together it becomes more feasible.

[s9]

Alex writes: I'm also guessing that China's leadership doesnt care much about Taiwan, except as a propaganda tool to stir up nationalism, which is the only thing that they can use to confer 'legitimacy' on theimselves, not being elected.

As I wrote above, I don't think this is a good guess.

China's leadership can only afford not to care about Taiwan if it doesn't care about ever having a world-class navy. Since China seems determined to possess a powerful navy, its interest in Taiwan must be strategic— and not just a propaganda tool for stirring up nationalism.

[NeoDude]

Maybe China will go after Taiwan, when the US goes after Syria?

[dedalus]

James Bruce, 8th Lord Elgin (son of the Elgin Marbles chap) was governor-general of Canada from 1847-54. He managed to prevent the annexation of Canada by the United States by establishing the groundwork for constitutional rule in Canada and signing a Reciprocity Treaty with the USA (1854) which allowed for free trade, largely benefitting Canadian farmers. Rumour has it he spent thousands of pounds wining and dining US (Southern) senators and congressmen from the slave states whose enthusiasm for annexation rapidly diminished when they realised the absorption of Canada would only add to the abolitionist pressures ranged against them.

[dedalus]

James Bruce, 8th Lord Elgin (son of the Elgin Marbles chap) was governor-general of Canada from 1847-54. He managed to prevent the annexation of Canada by the United States by establishing the groundwork for constitutional rule in Canada and signing a Reciprocity Treaty with the USA (1854) which allowed for free trade, largely benefitting Canadian farmers. Rumour has it he spent thousands of pounds wining and dining US (Southern) senators and congressmen from the slave states whose enthusiasm for annexation rapidly diminished when they realised the absorption of Canada would only add to the abolitionist pressures ranged against them.