South China Sea and China (2011-2017)

[carl]

JMA:

Point taken on never saying never.

Bob's World:

Here is a hypothetical for you. You probably know what is coming. Imagine a situation where Red China is going to, no threatening to, but going to violently invade and conquer Taiwan. The Taiwanese, after a vote 90% to 10%, have decided to meet violence with violence in order to preserve their independence. The Taiwanese then ask us to comply with treaty obligations and help them fight the Red Chinese invasion. That is it. That is the situation, nothing more or less.

What are you going to tell them?

[Dayuhan]

There are a couple of fascinating assumptions recurring here.

First, even assuming (though it's very questionable) that China is bent on storming out of its borders and acquiring new territories, either through conquest (less likely) or by absorbing them into a sphere of influence (more likely), why do we assume that this ambition would be directed into the Pacific and in the direction of the US? I'd think it far more likely that such an ambition would be directed toward prying Central Asia out of the Russian sphere of influence and into a Chinese sphere. I'd think over the next few decades China/Russia conflict, with Central Asia as a flashpoint, would be more likely than conflict with the US. If you were China and intent on gobbling somebody up, why would you gobble SE Asia when you could go for Kazakhstan (30 billion barrels of oil, 85 trillion cubic feet of gas) and Turkmenistan (265 trillion cubic feet of gas)? Not that I think China is likely to invade these countries (or SE Asia), but they could definitely try to move in offering resource deals, trying to build political influence, and generally trying to supplant Russia as the dominant power and the dominant resource outlet. Russia is likely to object. Where that goes is anyone's guess, but there's certainly potential for conflict, especially since there's something tangibly worth fighting over.

China's next external military venture may not be a neighborhood conquest. There's a real possibility that China could end up in a FID/COIN situation if a compliant government protecting major Chinese investments is threatened by insurgency, especially if that insurgency takes an anti-Chinese position. Most likely scene would be Africa. Hard to say how China would respond to such a situation, but it could emerge.

Again, all of these are speculative (as is the assumption that Chinese aggression in the Pacific is inevitable), but the assumption that west into the Pacific is the sole or most likely target of Chinese military development is certainly questionable.

The second questionable assumption is that conquest or expansion are primary agendas for the current Chinese leadership. This site by its nature focuses on the military side of things, and it's easy to forget that the primary business of China is still business and that China's economy is heavily dependent on trade. While China's leaders will undoubtedly push and shove as far as they can without provoking actual conflict, I think it most unlikely that they have any desire to push to any point that might rock their economic boat. It's also worth noting that the economic boat is not nearly as stable or secure as it's sometimes claimed to be. The Chinese government's management of its primary security threat - its own populace - has been heavily dependent on the ability to generate continuous economic expansion, and that's getting harder and harder to do.

The current dispensation is not ideal, but it is manageable. The single biggest thing to fear, for me, is that a serious internal upheaval (a very real possibility if economic problems emerge) could result in the emergence of a hardline communist/militarist government that aims to purge all those effete capitalist businessmen and get back to ideological purity.

Again, all very speculative, but the assumption that the current Chinese regime is necessarily bent on conquest and expansion definitely needs to be questioned.

[Bob's World]

JMA:

Point taken on never saying never.

Bob's World:

Here is a hypothetical for you. You probably know what is coming. Imagine a situation where Red China is going to, no threatening to, but going to violently invade and conquer Taiwan. The Taiwanese, after a vote 90% to 10%, have decided to meet violence with violence in order to preserve their independence. The Taiwanese then ask us to comply with treaty obligations and help them fight the Red Chinese invasion. That is it. That is the situation, nothing more or less.

What are you going to tell them?

Carl,

First, and most importantly, there are no "treaty obligations" for the US to defend Taiwan. Period. I think you are referring to the old treaty that ended in 1980. (This is a biased, but I believe fairly factually accurate laydown: http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/20...nse_huang.aspx)

Second, this is an internal Chinese matter. That is our official position.

Third, the US is probably the most important economic partner for both parties and controls the seas that both receive and ship all manner of goods through. We have all kinds of leverage beyond simply racing into the middle of someone else's internal dispute. How would you have felt if Great Britain had sent in a massive force to prevent the US from reconsolidating the nation during the civil war? Do think there would not have been a century of conflict following, as half a dozen weak nations came to be where the US exists today? Not our fight, and we have no legal obligation to make it our fight.

[JMA]

First, and most importantly, there are no "treaty obligations" for the US to defend Taiwan. Period. I think you are referring to the old treaty that ended in 1980.

Well Bob if the following is in any way accurate here is the reason why the US (government that is) can not be taken seriously and certainly not trusted:

The Taiwan Relations Act does not require the U.S. to intervene militarily if the PRC attacks or invades Taiwan, and the U.S. has adopted a policy of "strategic ambiguity" in which the U.S. neither confirms nor denies that it would intervene in such a scenario. - wikipedia article

The one Carl is no doubt thinking about is this one:

One agreement that was unilaterally terminated by President Jimmy Carter upon the establishment of relations was the Sino-American Mutual Defense Treaty; that termination was the subject of the Supreme Court case Goldwater v. Carter.

Thanks to 'people' like your Jimmy Carter the world (outside the US) can be forgiven for believing: With friends like the US who needs enemies!

Bob, it is impossible for honest Americans (which I assume you to be) to sell the virtues of the US as you see them when quite frankly your political administrations have the honour and ethics of a crack whore.

[JMA]

Carl,

Second, this is an internal Chinese matter. That is our official position.

Yes and after that little 'face to face' with the Chinese army in Korea back then there lies the reason for dumping Taiwan to its fate.

One bitten, twice shy. The world is not blind.

[carl]

Carl,

First, and most importantly, there are no "treaty obligations" for the US to defend Taiwan. Period. I think you are referring to the old treaty that ended in 1980. (This is a biased, but I believe fairly factually accurate laydown: http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/20...nse_huang.aspx)

Second, this is an internal Chinese matter. That is our official position.

Third, the US is probably the most important economic partner for both parties and controls the seas that both receive and ship all manner of goods through. We have all kinds of leverage beyond simply racing into the middle of someone else's internal dispute. How would you have felt if Great Britain had sent in a massive force to prevent the US from reconsolidating the nation during the civil war? Do think there would not have been a century of conflict following, as half a dozen weak nations came to be where the US exists today? Not our fight, and we have no legal obligation to make it our fight.

Ok fair enough. My ignorance on the treaty part is fairly and properly exposed. Let me rephrase the question. I want to see exactly what you position is without the frills.

Here is a hypothetical for you. You probably know what is coming. Imagine a situation where Red China is going to, not threatening to, but going to violently invade and conquer Taiwan. The Taiwanese, after a vote 90% to 10%, have decided to meet violence with violence in order to preserve their independence. The Taiwanese then ask us to help them fight the Red Chinese invasion. That is it. That is the situation, nothing more or less.

What are you going to tell them?

[JMA]

The Taiwanese then ask us to help them fight the Red Chinese invasion. ...

What are you going to tell them?

That's an easy one Carl, let me help Bob here, those brave souls in the White House and at State are not going to answer the call.

The Taiwanese will "just hear that phone keep on ringin' off the wall" (apologies to Glenn Campbell)