This is old news. Cheney is Mr Yesterday. CIA chief Gates is already striking a conciliatory tone towards China. The coalition of the willing is looking more like the coalition of the retired. Blair is counting down the days, Australia’s John Howard is dead in the water. Japan is not going to antagonise China. The only question is how conciliatory your new president will be towards China.

June 2, 2007 @ 11:17 pm | Comment

This post wants to discuss some common “myth” about China attacking Taiwan. Of course it does not mean that China will attack Taiwan for sure, in fact, it’s entirely possible that there could be a peaceful reunification within the next 15 years.

First Myth: “If China wants to attack Taiwan, it must be sure that it can win, otherwise it should not attack Taiwan”.

In fact, it’s totally possible that China may lose to Taiwan, and may lose very shamefully. But winning and losing are both common in warfare, even if you lose, you should continue to fight. When the North fought the South in America’s Civil War, the North kept losing in the beginning, but Lincoln did not care and continued the war, and eventually the North won. In China’s Qing Dynasty, they lost the Opium War largely because they chose to give up when they lost some battles, instead of keep fighting and keep fighting until the other side gets tired. Even if the Western powers sunk every single one of China’s ships, it still should not surrender and sign a treaty, it should keep fighting with. As long as you refuse to surrender, then even if you lose all your battles, the other side will eventually have no choice but to give up.

Therefore, China should not avoid fighting Taiwan simply because it may lose. In fact, fighting a war with Taiwan is simply a way to accumulate real battle experiences for the Chinese army, and only when you have real battle experiences can you improve yourself. So even if China’s fleets and airplanes were all destroyed by the Taiwanese military, it should keep sending more fleets and more airplanes and keep making more fleets and more airplanes. I remember that there’s a “100-year-war” between England and France in ancient times, well I very much like the concept of “100-year-war”, and perhaps China should make it a “200-year-war” with Taiwan. That is, for the next 200 years, China should stay in military mode, keep making new airplanes, new ships, new missiles, and ask the entire Chinese population to become an army and encourage people to have 5 or 6 babies, so that every single day there’ll be waves and waves of attacks on Taiwan for 200 years, until Taiwan cannot take it anymore.

Second Myth: A War Will Make China’s Economy Fall Behind 20 Years.

How do we check if a country is “advanced” or “behind”? Well, all you need to look at is what “things” can this country make? Can it only make radios? Or can it make TV’s as well? Can it only make regular TV’s, or can it make “HDTV”‘s. Can it only make car engines, or can it make airplane engines as well? Can it make mainframe computers, or can it make supercomputers as well? The more “advanced stuff” a country can make, the more “advanced” that country is.

Now you may say “Math, you are wrong!, we should look at GDP per capita!”. Well, I thinkn GDP is totally meaningless. Some country has high GDP per capita because it has natural resources, like the Oil-rich nations in Middle East, can you say that those nations are “advanced”? I certainly do not think so.

The only measure for a nation’s advancedness is the technological productive force of that nation. If a nation can extract 300 tons of wheat from a square kilmeter of land, and another nation can extract 1000 tons from the same land, then the second nation is more advanced. Even if the second nation is bombed into ruins, but as long as it has that technological productive capability, it can quickly recover, and still be considered a modern nation. When WW2 ended, Germany and Japan and China are all in ruins. But those ruins are different. Even though Germany and Japan were in ruins, they had the knowledge of building advanced ships and weaponry and industrial infrastructure, so they quickly rose from the ruins and are still first-class nations today. But China back then could not even build a nail properly, not to mention any advanced stuff. So China was unable to catch up as quickly, and is still considered a “developing nation” today. So can you say that WW2 made Germany and Japan fall behind 20 years? Of course you cannot.

Third Myth: “War will cause deaths, and deaths are bad”

We know that if you want to achieve things, you need to make sacrifices, and deaths are common occurrences. The reason we think that deaths are bad is a result of Western thoughts. Westerners have difficulties breeding massively, and their populations are almost “shrinking”, so of course one dead person means one less person for them. But Asians and Blacks and Muslims can breed as massively as pigs, and population shrinking is not a concern. If you have 100 children every day, do you care if you lose a few, of course you do not. And sometimes there’s even population explosion, so perhaps sometimes famine and wars are good ways to prevent population explosions.

Chinese, especially, have large breeding powers, so death is not too big a deal.

If you look at ancient Civilizations, most of them have died, or almost died off. And the Chinese civilization is also slowly declining in the last hundreds of years. Why is that? Well, I think that as any civilization develops to a certain degree, there’ll exist a phenomenon of “gentleness and kindness”, and excessive kindness and gentleness will only cause that civilization be devoured by another less advanced civilization. In fact, almost all ancient civilizations died at the hands of a more ferocious and less developed civilization. When Christopher Columbus was writing his diary about Native Indians, he wrote “They were the most kind and gentle people on earth, and that is the reason they were so easily defeated.”

So if China wants to rise, it must not emphasize gentleness and kindness too much, but should instead always calculate its own interests, and to advance its interests, massive deaths is not a big deal at all.

Now you may ask, “What if everyone in China dies”? That of course is impossible. In fact, it’s more likely that wars may make everyone in the West die, because Caucasians’ breeding powers are very limited compared to the Chinese. Even if USA drops a nuclear bomb on China, China will still have many survivors. Even if they don’t survive, there’ll be Chinese descent from neighboring countries like Korea, Vietnam, Laos, etc, and those people will continue the civilization. Now, you may ask again, “What about Nuclear Winters!”. Well, I do not believe in Nuclear Winters, I think it is a strategic scare tactic by Americans. Well even if the nuclear winter theory is true, then the worst that can happen is that 99% of the people on earth will die, and 1% will survive. Given the breeding powers and population of Chinese on this earth, that 1% will contain many Chinese people, so they can start the human civilization on earth once again. It is like when I’m playing chess and I feel that I’m losing, I would often violently flip the whole board onto the ground, and force the opponent to start over, and maybe in the new game, I’ll win. If I’m losing again in the new game, I’ll flip the board again and wipe every piece to the ground again, and force him to start over the game again…

June 3, 2007 @ 12:59 am | Comment

Pepperdine university president recent visited Taiwan. He was reported to suggest for Chen Shuibian to declare independence. This is public information.

Several commentators on this site, such as Raj and Michael Turton are also in the camp with Pepperdine president. Therefore these kind of nuts are not limited to Neo-con camp.

June 3, 2007 @ 1:09 am | Comment

Of course, Math is right about Chinese strategy — historically, the tyrants of China have never cared at all about the loss of lives of their people, no matter how large. Whether it’s the Korean War (what a great gain that has turned out to be for China), the Cultural Revolution, or Vietnam War (another fantastic episode in Chinese war-making), I have little doubt that they would do everything they could to save face in front of overwhelming defeat by Taiwan — should such a thing occur.

GDP is far from meaningless — it is just not always very meaningful. Not sure where Math’s logic is on this one. GDP says a lot about China, unfortunately. Still, things are getting better and I highly doubt such a war would set them back 20 years. Their technology is still by and large decades behind Taiwan’s anyway. If they weren’t Communist, they’d have been leading the world in everything already — America excepted — but that wasn’t the hand the poor people were dealt. Truman saw to that.

June 3, 2007 @ 1:16 am | Comment

So if I got Math right, China rather wreck the whole world than ceding Taiwan. Some civilization.

June 3, 2007 @ 1:42 am | Comment

If the neocon “experiment” in Iraq had appeared to succeed by now instead of failing disastrously, imagine how emboldened and flying high Cheney, Wolfie, Perle, Bush and co. would be today.

They’d probably be developing a “the skies the limit” approach to US power expansion via new
international interventions.

Taking on China would be a great temptation for these sociopathic egomaniacs if only Iraq had gone their way.

…I’m still hoping evidence will come to light
suggesting impeachable/criminal offenses may have been committed by Cheney, Rove, Bush and others. I’m hoping Scooter is just the start.

The neocons and their nihilistic agenda may be down not yet out.
Some prosecutions would be a help in nailing that coffin shut for a generation or two.

June 3, 2007 @ 3:34 am | Comment

They tried, but failed. Now they are on the exit already. Wolfowitz’s shameless departure was just the latest.

A Question for Richard, can you explain why the neocons are so closely associated with Israel? I assum that you are a supporter of Israel, I am wondering: how does Israel benefit from Taiwan Independence, or a war in East-Asia?

June 3, 2007 @ 3:56 am | Comment

Pepperdine university is a right-wing private University. Do you know who is the Dean of its law school? Ken Starr!!! Does this name sound familiar to you.

June 3, 2007 @ 4:24 am | Comment

Several commentators on this site, such as Raj and Michael Turton are also in the camp with Pepperdine president. Therefore these kind of nuts are not limited to Neo-con camp.

Steve — seriously — are you on crack? Neither Raj nor I has ever felt Chen (or any other Preznit) should declare independence. In fact I have emphasized the impossibility of this occurring and the necessity of avoiding such a declaration in numerous publications, both on the blog, and in newspaper commentaries and letters, since the end of the 1990s.

Perhaps you should have a doctor look into that reading impairment of yours, eh?

Michael

June 3, 2007 @ 7:51 pm | Comment

The only question is how conciliatory your new president will be towards China.

Very, since if the election is fair, a Dem will almost certainly win.

June 3, 2007 @ 7:57 pm | Comment

This article does show that the problems in the US-Taiwan relationship are not all caused by Taiwan. In fact, too often the root cause is the US inability to develop and sustain a credible policy, and carry it out in all of its agencies and departments. The State Department is pro-Beijing, the Defense Department is pushing the new Cold War with China, and the NeoCons want Taiwan to declare independence so they can crush China in a war.

Of course Chen sometimes can’t tell what the US wants! The US doesn’t know what it wants either!

Michael

June 3, 2007 @ 8:00 pm | Comment

Michael, yes, Steve is on crack. His comment illustrates how his brain functions, that is to say, not at all. Go up to the top post by Bill Stimson, where similar comparisons come up again in another brilliant comment from Steve.

June 3, 2007 @ 9:21 pm | Comment

“The only question is how conciliatory your new president will be towards China.

Very, since if the election is fair, a Dem will almost certainly win.”

Really? Only if Hillary wins, the Dems in Congress are out to get China and I fully support this. I don’t think Obama or Richardson will be so kind to China, they won’t have Bubba looking over their shoulders.

If China attacks Taiwan, it will need all of its best ships, subs and warplanes as well as its best troops, and it is already known that bombers, subs and ships out of Guam would shower the PLAN with anti-ship missiles and that 3-4 carrier groups in the deep waters east of Taiwan would effectively deny the PLAN any air superiority over Taiwan itself.

Besides the 900 actual missiles the PLA 2nd artillery has pointed at Taiwan, the PLAAF has also refitted 2000-3000 old J-7s to be cruise missiles.

China needs to pummel Taiwan into surrendering before the full brunt of US forces can arrive. Otherwise the best people and gear of China’s military will all be at the bottom of the Taiwan strait. Tens of billions of dollars all gone, decades of preparation all gone, and China will not be able to enforce its will on the korean peninsula, the Indian border or against Japan.

China will have been neudered and loose face.

June 4, 2007 @ 2:44 am | Comment

If you hate America, you want neocons to be in power as long as they can. Those jokers are putting the US in a perpetual warring state that is draining America quickly, manifested in lagging economic growth, depreciating currency value, & rapidly declining goodwill worldwide.

How can you call yourself a conservative when you have been increasing government spending much faster than the overall GDP growth?

June 4, 2007 @ 8:30 am | Comment

“The State Department is pro-Beijing” – Michael

Actually, that is too black and white! The State Department has got realistic specialists who have knowledge of all countries, with people who actually have been in China or studied there, so know the country and culture. Their attitude is therefore more influenced by deep understanding and diplomacy. Remember that the State Department was actually right on Iraq, but got silenced by the neo-cons? I do not say the State Department is right all time…remember when it was lead by the butcher Henry Kissinger…

June 4, 2007 @ 8:59 am | Comment

A Question for Richard, can you explain why the neocons are so closely associated with Israel? I assum that you are a supporter of Israel, I am wondering: how does Israel benefit from Taiwan Independence, or a war in East-Asia?

Zyzyx, some Neocons but not all favor Israel because they have the same believe as Pat Robertson has (he is anti-semi btw but pro-Israel). And he has clearly states that in order for Revelation to come true, Israel must be restablished and destoried at the judgement day.

Very, since if the election is fair, a Dem will almost certainly win.

Do you mean US election? I think Dem is at very bad start already. I don’t think Hilary and Obama can win South. I actually want John Edward to win because I think he at least got a shot at winning South. Although the situation is not much better in the Republican side. However, Republicans are more constrained than democrates. Following Regan’s lead “A Republican should not speak ill of another Republican.”

If China attacks Taiwan, it will need all of its best ships, subs and warplanes as well as its best troops, and it is already known that bombers, subs and ships out of Guam would shower the PLAN with anti-ship missiles and that 3-4 carrier groups in the deep waters east of Taiwan would effectively deny the PLAN any air superiority over Taiwan itself.

First US troops can’t do anything until US congress allows the US president to declear war. So let’s say we can pass the congressional part easily. China can easily use its nuclear weapon to disable our fleets (neutron warhead in particular), because China will lose a conventional war with us but not a nuclear one (we both lose). Then you are looking at WWIII. However, trust me, it will never pass the house especially if Taiwan declears independence first. Also, you need money to fight wars, where will be find the money. Do you know the current Iraq war is pretty much funded by Chinese buying our government T-bonds?

June 4, 2007 @ 2:12 pm | Comment

“The State Department has got realistic specialists who have knowledge of all countries, with people who actually have been in China or studied there,”

The state department also works on behalf of corporations in China. The relationship between Amcham china and the US dept of state is far too cozy.

“First US troops can’t do anything until US congress allows the US president to declear war.”

The US has a legally binding defense pact with Taiwan, as soon as the first missile is launched at Taiwan the President is required to act. Clinton sent two CBGs to Taiwan.

“China can easily use its nuclear weapon to disable our fleets (neutron warhead in particular)”

The rest of your post is mute because of the Taiwan defense treaty, and CHina must buy our gov’t debt to maintain the currency peg/basket.
Then we can use nukes to sink the invasion armada, nukes launched from subs or bombers that China can’t reach.

Nuke war? Risky, and China is willing to use that risk, but China feels sketchy about the quality of its missiles. And since the PLA 2nd artillery keeps the warheads off of the missiles, an officer who is anti-CCP (and they do exist) may not put them on for launch.

June 4, 2007 @ 3:46 pm | Comment

Actually, that is too black and white! The State Department has got realistic specialists who have knowledge of all countries, with people who actually have been in China or studied there, so know the country and culture. Their attitude is therefore more influenced by deep understanding and diplomacy.

Ironically, that is why they are pro-Beijing. The State Department’s Taiwan desk officer has a background in Soviet affairs and his “Taiwan experience” consists of being assigned to Beijing. He has no Taiwan background or experience. State does have good Taiwan people but they are not in key positions. State’s position on Taiwan is widely recognized as a serious problem by people from different political views.

The reason State is pro-Beijing is because it has begun to interpret the “One China” policy as meaning that whatever makes Beijing angry is bad, therefore Taiwan is basically bad. The result is that State pretty much toes the Beijing line — to its constant embarrassment. State’s pro-Beijing stance is more a structural feature of its behavior, although attitudes in the State Department clearly suck, as the recent mishap over Chen Shui-bian’s teleconference with the National Press Club shows (blogged on here)

Michael

June 4, 2007 @ 6:14 pm | Comment

First US troops can’t do anything until US congress allows the US president to declear war.

That is wrong. The War Powers Act, while mandating Presidential consultation with Congress, nevertheless permits him to engage US troops and then get Congressional permission later. Hence, as soon as CHina moves, the US can respond.

June 4, 2007 @ 6:17 pm | Comment

The US has a legally binding defense pact with Taiwan,

The US has no legally binding defense pact with Taiwan. The TRA binds the US to precisely nothing. Go and read Sec 3 carefully sometime. It’s a common myth that the US is obligated to defend Taiwan, but that is not true.

Unless, of course, you see Taiwan as an unincorporated trust territory of the US, in which case our obligation is ironclad, since it is US territory. But not many people hold to that interpretation of the postwar agreements.

Michael

June 4, 2007 @ 6:22 pm | Comment

I ran this article past several insiders who despite disparate viewpoints all agreed that it was bullshit from top to bottom. So ignore it.

Michael

June 4, 2007 @ 11:31 pm | Comment

Michael, who are you to decide this should be ignored? It should be taken very seriously. In the US, a small group in key positions can cause a lot of havoc in the world. This is what we have learned. It also clarifies Chen Shui-bian’s behavior perfectly.

June 5, 2007 @ 12:09 am | Comment

“Unless, of course, you see Taiwan as an unincorporated trust territory of the US, in which case our obligation is ironclad, since it is US territory. But not many people hold to that interpretation of the postwar agreements.”

And there is lawsuit in the works in US federal court regarding such.

June 5, 2007 @ 2:07 am | Comment

That is wrong. The War Powers Act, while mandating Presidential consultation with Congress, nevertheless permits him to engage US troops and then get Congressional permission later. Hence, as soon as CHina moves, the US can respond.

Okay

June 5, 2007 @ 2:21 am | Comment

Chen Shui-Bian is a moron and so are his evil neo(nazi) backers.

I fundamentally disagree with the Bush administration in everything from going into Iraq to stem cell funding to gay-hating to amnesty for illegals.

It’s like he’s actively trying to destroy America.

June 5, 2007 @ 5:29 am | Comment

The U.S. needs to be more careful.

Our foreign policy must be seen as less of a threat.

June 5, 2007 @ 6:00 am | Comment

Michael, who are you to decide this should be ignored?

I’m someone who took the time to email people I know inside the Pentagon and elsewhere and ask them what was going on, including people who know all the players personally. And no matter who I asked, I got the same message: Wilkerson has no clue. Since a number of people of different political stripes sent me the same message, I assume that such a message is valid.

Did you contact anyone you know inside the Pentagon or the State Department?

You can take this story seriously if you like, but it is simply a group of bureaucrats taking a potshot at a group of people they don’t like.

Michael

June 5, 2007 @ 6:59 am | Comment

Michael, this story makes fully sense. The assessment of Shaheen is just an example. I think Wilkerson is a highly credible person, and it was confirmed by Douglas Paal. I have read the reports about Chen’s rhetoric then, and he was escalating it, paving the way for a kind of declaration of independence. Things only calmed down when George W Bush publicly rebuked Chen at the Oval Office together with Wen Jiabao. It was probably at the same time Bush told Rumpsfeld to stop what his clique was doing and establish military ties with mainland China.

Anyway, Cross Straits ties can only approve with Chen Shui-bian on the way out. Personally I think Hsieh is a good guy. He may be like Nixon was to the anti-communists: effectively neutralizing the independence forces in Taiwan.

June 5, 2007 @ 7:19 am | Comment

The only problem with waging a “100 year war” in the 21st century is that the next serious war between major powers is going to have no winners, and will be over in 45 minutes.

Third Myth: “War will cause deaths, and deaths are bad”

War no longer causes deaths. It causes Gigadeaths. I should not need to tell you that Gigadeaths are bad.

June 5, 2007 @ 11:23 am | Comment

Anyway, Cross Straits ties can only approve with Chen Shui-bian on the way out. Personally I think Hsieh is a good guy. He may be like Nixon was to the anti-communists: effectively neutralizing the independence forces in Taiwan.

Are cross-strait ties bad? A million Taiwanese living in China. Billions in investment. Cross strait ties look pretty good to me.

Hsieh will be not much different than Chen. The question is whether Beijing will grow up or whether they will continue to behave like six years olds. It’s not A-bian’s fault that China won’t negotiate and continues to threaten to murder Taiwanese for exercising democracy.

The fact that Douglas Paal backs up this story is a strike against it. Of the recent run of AIT chiefs, Paal was the least supportive of Taiwan. Unsupportive, he was, in fact. I was happy to see him go. His support for the story was in fact the only red flag I saw originally. Now that I have confirmed the report’s essential error with the sources I have talked to, it’s obvious to me what is going on.

….as one of them said, the real story is not the NeoCons, but just the opposite — hardly anyone in the US government cared about Taiwan, except for Wolfowitz. Wilkerson knows little about it. The real question you should be asking is why this faux story appeared now…

Michael

June 5, 2007 @ 12:11 pm | Comment

Michael, of course you want to play down this story, because it legitimizes you Taiwan stance more. Of course having the same position as the neo-cons is hard to defend, so what you do? You simply ignore this story and say it is not true, without backing any facts. By the way, Wolfowitz caring about something is basically a bad thing. You actually confirm indirectly that the neo-cons tried to restore Taiwan ties and go to war with the PR China. So Michael, I think you are a neo-con, and TI supporter, yourself.

June 5, 2007 @ 5:09 pm | Comment

Hsieh will be not much different than Chen. The question is whether Beijing will grow up or whether they will continue to behave like six years olds.

All the major power behave this way. Because if you back down on anything, you just look weak. Did we, US, back down on anything that’s in our interest?

June 6, 2007 @ 2:16 am | Comment

So Michael, I think you are a neo-con, and TI supporter, yourself.

We, you’re half-right. I you went astray with the third and fourth words, there.

Michael

June 7, 2007 @ 2:06 pm | Comment

Anyway, you are on the losing end of history. And deep inside, you know it!

June 8, 2007 @ 5:30 am | Comment