China/Taiwan fight. (1 Viewer)

[HoustonSaint68]

Well, my Taiwanese in law would vehemently disagree with your take. She doesn't think China has any claim to Taiwan, historically or otherwise.

Well, which part?

I didn't say that the PRC was legally or morally justified in its view -- only that it was a natural expectation. A human one, I might add, not one limited to the Chinese people, or to communists, or to Chinese communists.

And of course your in law would disagree with my questioning of whether it is worth the significant cost America would pay to actively defend Taiwan from a PRC invasion. It would be weird if she didn't. But, and I say this with sincere due respect to her, just because she's Taiwanese doesn't make her opinion correct about what is in the best interests of the United States. What if she were Tibetan? Or Georgian? Or Ukranian?

Again, I understand an argument that the long term interests of the United States would be best served by an active defense of Taiwan, regardless of cost. I simply disagree and neither of us have a crystal ball to see who's right. I do totally support an approach of US strategic ambiguity regarding Taiwan for now and, accordingly, I had no problem with Biden's agreement that he was willing to get involved militarily to defend Taiwan. Whether it was a flub or intentional is of no matter to me.

But, if I were president when the invasion began, my priority would be on providing as much assistance to the Taiwanese without exposing US forces to significant harm...knowing full well that such decision would likely mean that Taiwan would fall to the PRC (and that my political career would be over and my legacy forever tarnished).

Ask me about Japan or any other sovereign nation in the area other than Taiwan, and I'll give you a different answer. Imo, China and Taiwan are a special case.

 

[DaveXA]

Well, which part?

I didn't say that the PRC was legally or morally justified in its view -- only that it was a natural expectation. A human one, I might add, not one limited to the Chinese people, or to communists, or to Chinese communists.

And of course your in law would disagree with my questioning of whether it is worth the significant cost America would pay to actively defend Taiwan from a PRC invasion. It would be weird if she didn't. But, and I say this with sincere due respect to her, just because she's Taiwanese doesn't make her opinion correct about what is in the best interests of the United States. What if she were Tibetan? Or Georgian? Or Ukranian?

Again, I understand an argument that the long term interests of the United States would be best served by an active defense of Taiwan, regardless of cost. I simply disagree and neither of us have a crystal ball to see who's right. I do totally support an approach of US strategic ambiguity regarding Taiwan for now and, accordingly, I had no problem with Biden's agreement that he was willing to get involved militarily to defend Taiwan. Whether it was a flub or intentional is of no matter to me.

But, if I were president when the invasion began, my priority would be on providing as much assistance to the Taiwanese without exposing US forces to significant harm...knowing full well that such decision would likely mean that Taiwan would fall to the PRC (and that my political career would be over and my legacy forever tarnished).

Ask me about Japan or any other sovereign nation in the area other than Taiwan, and I'll give you a different answer. Imo, China and Taiwan are a special case.

I guess I'm failing to see what makes Taiwan a special case. How is Taiwan different from the Baltic states, or other former territories of England and/or the US who declared independence from them?

 

[HoustonSaint68]

I guess I'm failing to see what makes Taiwan a special case. How is Taiwan different from the Baltic states, or other former territories of England and/or the US who declared independence from them?

I think the disconnect between us is that you think that I am arguing an objective legal case and I am merely arguing a realpolitik one with the selfish interests of America as my north star.

I agree that China is intent on replacing America's (relatively benign) global hegemony with a more hostile Chinese global hegemony. But, beyond Taiwan, I don't think that includes implementation of that hegemony by military force over other sovereign nations assuming a continued strong US military presence in Asia. I believe that Taiwan is different for mainland China (not just Xi or the CCP, but a very large portion of the mainland Chinese people) due to common ethnic heritage, the non-indigenous history of Taiwan, and the lineage of the current Taiwanese government from the "losing" side of a civil war.

I am not blind or unsympathetic to the real world endgame of my view. But that doesn't change my view of what I think is best for the United States and, frankly, the rest of the world. And with absolute certainty there will be red lines that have to be clearly drawn and defended with the PRC in the coming decades. But Taiwan is very personal to them, and that raises the stakes immensely for serious miscalculation between the two heaviest hitters on the planet. That's not a sitiuation where I would choose to die in a ditch on right or wrong.

I heartily acknowledge that I could be wrong.

 

[faceman]

Well, this is what it comes down to, doesn't it? I just prefer to be clear-eyed about what we choose to do.

From the Mainland China perspective, it is completely natural to expect reunification at some point, and by force if necessary. And we can pretend that it's about a people's self-determination for us, but if Taiwan had no US national security implication then, at best (or worst), it would be a Ukranian situation, with support from afar (meaning we wouldn't risk losing 3 carriers, many hundreds of warplanes and who knows how many US deaths).

In my mind, there's not a right or wrong about what the US should do. For myself, I want the US to retreat a bit from being the world police absent a clear and present danger to core US interests, or a clear mandate from a goodly portion of the rest of the world. I understand other Americans having a different view, but I'd expect that view to be applied consistently to other parts of the world.

Once again I can speak from experience. The U.S has vital interests in Taiwans independence

 

[DCSaints_Fan]

I think the disconnect between us is that you think that I am arguing an objective legal case and I am merely arguing a realpolitik one with the selfish interests of America as my north star.

I agree that China is intent on replacing America's (relatively benign) global hegemony with a more hostile Chinese global hegemony. But, beyond Taiwan, I don't think that includes implementation of that hegemony by military force over other sovereign nations assuming a continued strong US military presence in Asia. I believe that Taiwan is different for mainland China (not just Xi or the CCP, but a very large portion of the mainland Chinese people) due to common ethnic heritage, the non-indigenous history of Taiwan, and the lineage of the current Taiwanese government from the "losing" side of a civil war.

I am not blind or unsympathetic to the real world endgame of my view. But that doesn't change my view of what I think is best for the United States and, frankly, the rest of the world. And with absolute certainty there will be red lines that have to be clearly drawn and defended with the PRC in the coming decades. But Taiwan is very personal to them, and that raises the stakes immensely for serious miscalculation between the two heaviest hitters on the planet. That's not a sitiuation where I would choose to die in a ditch on right or wrong.

I heartily acknowledge that I could be wrong.

I understand, and actually am somewhat sensitive to China's geopolitical position. The problem with them is that they are dependent on oil exports from the Middle East. They are also not food secure and also import quite a bit of food and agricultural inputs (i.e. fertilzier). All of this maritime traffic passes through the straight of Molucca, and out towards the Indian ocean which they can't currently patrol to any degree because their don't have muc hof of a blue water navy (yet)

There are certain geopolitical analysts like Peter Zeihan who paradoxically think that the US has in some ways is propping up China by guaranteeing freedom of navigation on the high seas, that China would be f***ed if the US simply pulls up shop and goes home, and various actors lay claim to large swaths of the ocean. (In fact, Zeihan predicts a total collapse of China no matter what the US does as we know if for various reasons - demographics being a big one) Personally I think its a bit overboard, I doubt anyone would really try it and piss off China that much - maybe some pirates out of East Africa but they would be little more than annoyance.

I would really like some sort of peaceful settlement thats not a capitulation, most likely involving demilitarization. The sticking point would be that there is no way Taiwan would ever permit PRC troops on its shores nor give up its self defense forces, and would also maintain quasi-independence. In that case can China really claim that they "retook" Taiwan. And similar to Hong Kong, if Taiwan gets this "special deal" why wouldn't other provinces want it as well? So I doubt the PRC ever accepts it.

 

[DaveXA]

I think the disconnect between us is that you think that I am arguing an objective legal case and I am merely arguing a realpolitik one with the selfish interests of America as my north star.

I agree that China is intent on replacing America's (relatively benign) global hegemony with a more hostile Chinese global hegemony. But, beyond Taiwan, I don't think that includes implementation of that hegemony by military force over other sovereign nations assuming a continued strong US military presence in Asia. I believe that Taiwan is different for mainland China (not just Xi or the CCP, but a very large portion of the mainland Chinese people) due to common ethnic heritage, the non-indigenous history of Taiwan, and the lineage of the current Taiwanese government from the "losing" side of a civil war.

I am not blind or unsympathetic to the real world endgame of my view. But that doesn't change my view of what I think is best for the United States and, frankly, the rest of the world. And with absolute certainty there will be red lines that have to be clearly drawn and defended with the PRC in the coming decades. But Taiwan is very personal to them, and that raises the stakes immensely for serious miscalculation between the two heaviest hitters on the planet. That's not a sitiuation where I would choose to die in a ditch on right or wrong.

I heartily acknowledge that I could be wrong.

Understood. I would argue that from a purely political, strategic American standpoint, a free, independent Taiwan is far more advantageous to us than a Taiwan run by China. The stakes in an economic sense couldn't be much higher because so much of their trade involves electronics and semiconductors. That would have a real impact on the global supply chain, which has already seen tons of disruptions over the last couple of years due to covid and the Russia-Ukraine conflict.

To what degree we can or should influence China-Taiwan relationship, I don't know, but it seems to me there have to be some significant pressure points because of the importance of Taiwan to global trade.

 

[HoustonSaint68]

Once again I can speak from experience. The U.S has vital interests in Taiwans independence

Totally agree. To me, the issue is, at what cost if and when the PRC crosses the rubicon of military assault and invasion. Hence, my support for a strategic ambiguity approach.

 

[DaveXA]

Totally agree. To me, the issue is, at what cost if and when the PRC crosses the rubicon of military assault and invasion. Hence, my support for a strategic ambiguity approach.

Yeah, fwiw, I don't disagree with a strategic ambiguity approach. That said, I guess the question becomes different if China actually attempts to invade. You can't keep that approach then, I would think.

 

[HoustonSaint68]

I understand, and actually am somewhat sensitive to China's geopolitical position. The problem with them is that they are dependent on oil exports from the Middle East. They are also not food secure and also import quite a bit of food and agricultural inputs (i.e. fertilzier). All of this maritime traffic passes through the straight of Molucca, and out towards the Indian ocean which they can't currently patrol to any degree because their don't have muc hof of a blue water navy (yet)

There are certain geopolitical analysts like Peter Zeihan who paradoxically think that the US has in some ways is propping up China by guaranteeing freedom of navigation on the high seas, that China would be f***ed if the US simply pulls up shop and goes home, and various actors lay claim to large swaths of the ocean. (In fact, Zeihan predicts a total collapse of China no matter what the US does as we know if for various reasons - demographics being a big one) Personally I think its a bit overboard, I doubt anyone would really try it and piss off China that much - maybe some pirates out of East Africa but they would be little more than annoyance.

I would really like some sort of peaceful settlement thats not a capitulation, most likely involving demilitarization. The sticking point would be that there is no way Taiwan would ever permit PRC troops on its shores nor give up its self defense forces, and would also maintain quasi-independence. In that case can China really claim that they "retook" Taiwan. And similar to Hong Kong, if Taiwan gets this "special deal" why wouldn't other provinces want it as well? So I doubt the PRC ever accepts it.

Good stuff. And, don't forget water resources as well.

This is where I think we need to learn the lessons of WWII relative to the predicament of the Japanese and what led to their decision to expand militarily to secure resources and strike the US first.

And, I think what we've learned from Ukraine vis-a-vis Taiwan is to stop with sending the shiny new military toys to them and insist that they recast their military in a grittier, attrition-heavy way that prods the PRC to reconsider the cost of taking Taiwan by force. Also, I'm far from educated on the specific subject but my gut tells me that if Taiwan doesn't reconsider its all-volunteer approach to military service, I'm tripling down on my view that we shouldn't put major elements of our own military (necessary for keeping other bad guys at bay) in harm's way in the event of a conflict.

With my humongous broad brush out now, I think the PRC is MUCH different than, say, the Russians in their preferred approach if not in their eventual endgame. They'll happily go the peaceful route to secure those needed resources and, to a MUCH greater degree than for Russia, war is not in their strategic best interests. But, as I said before, Taiwan is personal to them and a very large portion of their populace and I don't trust them to make completely logical decisions when it comes to a tussle over Taiwan as opposed to, say, fishing rights in the South China Sea.

 

[HoustonSaint68]

Understood. I would argue that from a purely political, strategic American standpoint, a free, independent Taiwan is far more advantageous to us than a Taiwan run by China. The stakes in an economic sense couldn't be much higher because so much of their trade involves electronics and semiconductors. That would have a real impact on the global supply chain, which has already seen tons of disruptions over the last couple of years due to covid and the Russia-Ukraine conflict.

To what degree we can or should influence China-Taiwan relationship, I don't know, but it seems to me there have to be some significant pressure points because of the importance of Taiwan to global trade.

Agreed but, again, at what cost.

As DCSaint suggests, the trick is to find a way to preserve a level of autonomy for Taiwan in a "non-Hong Kong" way that also allows the PRC to claim victory.

Remember my "cut, run and support from afar" view applies only after the PRC has irrevocably committed to invasion. And, of course, there would be a VERY steep cost to pay in terms of global prestige and creating uncertainty in our allies. But if compared to the costs of a full conventional war approach, I'll accept that prestige loss as something that time will cure, even assuming that the next following test of our non-Taiwan resolve by the PRC will be tricky and dangerous.

Btw, can you tell me how to correctly do a multi-quote?? When I click multiple quotes and then try to reply, I only see the last post quoted.

 

[DaveXA]

Agreed but, again, at what cost.

As DCSaint suggests, the trick is to find a way to preserve a level of autonomy for Taiwan in a "non-Hong Kong" way that also allows the PRC to claim victory.

Remember my "cut, run and support from afar" view applies only after the PRC has irrevocably committed to invasion. And, of course, there would be a VERY steep cost to pay in terms of global prestige and creating uncertainty in our allies. But if compared to the costs of a full conventional war approach, I'll accept that prestige loss as something that time will cure, even assuming that the next following test of our non-Taiwan resolve by the PRC will be tricky and dangerous.

Btw, can you tell me how to correctly do a multi-quote?? When I click multiple quotes and then try to reply, I only see the last post quoted.

After you hit reply, you need to add the selected quotes to the reply. You should see an Insert Quotes button below the window. See below.

 

[HoustonSaint68]

After you hit reply, you need to add the selected quotes to the reply. You should see an Insert Quotes button below the window. See below.

Duh.

Thanks!

 

[faceman]

Yeah, fwiw, I don't disagree with a strategic ambiguity approach. That said, I guess the question becomes different if China actually attempts to invade. You can't keep that approach then, I would think.

An ambiguity agreement will never happen. China wants Taiwan and Taiwan wants their independence. It's in thee
best interest of the USA to keep Taiwan independent. That's why we have a navy carrier parked of the coast.

 

[HoustonSaint68]

An ambiguity agreement will never happen.

I don't understand what you mean by an "ambiguity agreement". Can you clarify what you mean?

We are talking about the currently existing policy of the United States...which is employing strategic ambiguity about the extent to which the U.S. will support Taiwan in the event of an armed conflict.

 

[faceman]

I don't understand what you mean by an ". Can you clarify what you mean?

We are talking about the currently existing policy of the United States...which is employing strategic ambiguity about the extent to which the U.S. will support Taiwan in the event of an armed conflict.

The miraiam webster definition of ambiguity is using both hand equally. Taiwan and mainland China will never accept
this agreement. There are few threads that come on the EE board where I can give an expert opinion. This is one of them.