RSS 2.0 FeedTaiwan’s Missile Test: Saber-Rattling or Ill-Conceived Bluff?
by Brad WarbianyAs many of you know, I keep a close eye on Taiwan/China relations. My livelihood currently depends on stability there, as my employer is based in Taiwan and manufactures in both nations. I personally would like to see a formally independent Taiwan (at least as long as the people there choose independence), as both an affirmation of the principle of self-determination and a repudiation of Chinese Communism. But as I’ve pointed out, I don’t have a very positive prediction of the outcome, should the status quo be breached.
Taiwan has tested a medium-range missile capable of hitting Shanghai or Hong Kong, reports from the island said today.
President Chen Shui-bian personally attended the launch of the Hsiungfeng (Brave Wind) 2E missiles last month, according to the United Daily News.
The missiles have a range of over 600 miles, bringing large areas of eastern and southern China within range.
Lest the knowledge of the test be ignored, President Chen decided to ratchet up the rhetoric as well:
Mr Chen on Sunday infuriated China’s Communist Party leadership a day before the annual session of parliament, the National People’s Congress, by setting out a personal wish list.
advertisementHis demands were for independence, a new constitution, development and to change the names of companies that still use the name “China†in their titles.
That’s serious stuff. Chen’s playing with fire here.
He’s betting either that China won’t make a move on Taiwan as a result of these actions, or that if China tries to make a move, that America will come to their rescue. Of course, he could be betting that he can fight off China without our help— but if he believes that, he knows something the rest of us don’t.
Taiwan is living in a state of de facto independence, with it’s internal processes completely free of China’s interference. Taiwan is profiting by using China as a manufacturing base, and China is profiting from Taiwanese investment. Neither Taiwan, China, or America will benefit from a fight, but it appears that President Chen is trying to force a confrontation.
These confident actions by Chen are either insane, stupid, or brilliant. For his own sake, I hope it is the latter.
China will back down. Now that Three Gorges is almost full, they have no other choice. Besides, a protracted war with Taiwan would lead to a collapse of the fragile Chinese economy and a revolt from the Chinese middle class. Shanghai, Wuhan, and Nanjing for Taipei is no trade Beijing would be willing to make. The flooding of the farm land alone would create famines in China not seen since the Great Leap Forward. It’s not a fight that Beijing can reasonably expect to win. Besides, if the DPP is to win again in 2008, then China must be made a threat.
Comment by Stargoat — March 7, 2007 @ 5:48 pmI disagree that Chona would back down. I also have been watching this area closely, and in case anyone has missed anything, they recently destroyed a satelite with a ballistic missile, posted another round of double digit spending increases – near 18% i think, not to mention that when it comes down to it, they are not affraid of fighting. We all know how the US fights – all of us having watched the Afghan and Iraq wars. Dont think China, just because its communist is stupid and weak, if anything the opposite, because really smart people know what the US did to the USSR, and china has learned from that too. No, for my last comment i will quote a Chinese General – “in the end, you care more about San Francisco than you do Taipei”
Comment by Reuben Vogt — March 7, 2007 @ 6:11 pmI doubt that China could afford to do anything other than submit rhetoric at this point at any move by Taiwan towards asserting their sovereignty. Economically and politically it would be an international disaster for China to actually try to engage in armed conflict with Taiwan over the independence issue.
Comment by Joe — March 7, 2007 @ 6:23 pmStargoat,
Are you assuming Taiwan would hit the Three Gorges with one of these cruise missiles? I’m not sure whether they’d go for such a non-military target. The rules of war have changed quite a bit since 1945, and I don’t think flooding huge portions of civilian population would be looked upon highly by the “international community”. But that does bring up an interesting point, I hadn’t considered whether the dam would be within reach of these missiles. It does give Taiwan a bit of a trump card.
Joe,
I don’t see why you think China would be reluctant to take Taiwan by force? I don’t think the Taiwanese would be able to stop them on their own. I think the only check on China’s ability to take Taiwan would be a threat of US involvement. Considering how thinly we’re stretched, and the lack of political capital for Bush, I don’t know if that threat has teeth.
Comment by Brad Warbiany — March 7, 2007 @ 6:33 pmThere was some discussion about the vulnerability of the Three Gorges Dam to military attack a few years back. Someone in the Taiwanese government made a comment that suggested they were taking a look at the dam as a possible target.
The military experts came out and rejected that possibility out of hand. The TGD is a *huge* dam, but that doesn’t mean it’s vulnerable to cruise missile attacks. It was designed to withstand even a kiloton tactical nuclear attack. It would take a megaton strategic nuclear weapon to bring it down.
Comment by John T — March 7, 2007 @ 7:54 pmI have lived in Taiwan for the past five years and have watched the situation between Taiwan and China closely. I, too, have a very personal stake in the relations between these two countries.
The top of this website has a quote from Ronald Reagan, the fearless communist resistor. I can’t believe a contributor to this website would question the need of a democracy (Taiwan) to defend itself against the aggression of a communist neighbor (China).
For decades, the United States stood firmly with Western Europe to defend itself again the military threat posed by the communist Eastern block.
Why then, are these same Western democracies so timid to defend another free and democratic nation such as Taiwan from the imperial ambitions of a communist nation such as China?
The same priciples are at stake here. China currently has 1000 missles pointed at Taiwan. China claims, incorrectly, that Taiwan belongs to China. And the free people of Taiwan have chosen NOT to be annexed by China, as recent poles have proven.
So it is of the utmost importance that Taiwan be able to defend itself from Chinese aggression. The only way Taiwan can really hope to defend itself is to have the capability of striking back at China. If the dictators in Beijing know that Taiwan can inflict serious damage in Hong Kong or Shanghai, they might think twice before launching any military adventure.
It is rediculous and insulting for a contributor to a website that claims to promote “liberty” to question the mental state of a democratically elected leader (Chen Shui Bien, the president of Taiwan), whose only sin is to stand up for the principles of freedom, democracy, and self-determination.
It is not Chen who is “stupid,” “insane,” an aggressor, or the trouble-maker. The “stupid” aggressor is Emperor Hu in China, who will not respect the democratic rights of the Taiwanese.
By using such terms as “insane” and “stupid,” you only help to perpetuate the lies and deceipts of the Chinese communist party and their local Taiwanese puppets, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). The KMT’s only ambitions are to undermine democracy here in Taiwan, and thus help facilitate a Chinese annexation of a free and democratic country.
Comment by Eric Pickett — March 7, 2007 @ 7:58 pmEric,
Please understand. It’s not that I don’t see the need for Taiwan to defend itself from China, nor do I want to see China make a move on Taiwan and watch America sit on our hands. As I said in the first paragraph of this post, I support a Taiwan that lives in true independence recognized by the world community, for multiple reasons (starting with the fact that Taiwan chooses independence).
My point is that it’s a dangerous thing to play brinkmanship with the Chinese. It’s even more dangerous to do so when your main ally (the USA) is focusing on wars in two other nations. From a tactical perspective, I just don’t understand Chen’s actions here. The article I linked to suggested that this might be Chen’s way of legacy-shopping, since he’s fighting corruption scandals.
Perhaps you can explain why trading what is basically a de facto independence for potential war is a good idea?
(Oh, and to be fair, I question the mental state of any democratically elected leader. I don’t trust people who would aspire to such an office, as a general rule. My default position is that most people who would attempt to be elected to the presidency are egotistical megalomaniacs. That even applies to our own elected “leaders”.)
Comment by Brad Warbiany — March 7, 2007 @ 8:32 pmAs always, people misconstrue the exchange of words across the stait, it has always been, and always will be, for domestic consumption. Any “saber rattling” done by Taiwan are purely for votes (i.e. presidential elections next year and the need to dilute attention from his scandals), and done by China to preserve the legitimacy of communist party rule (not as iron-clad as you may be led to believe). Chen’s remarks solidify the base voters of his party, which have been fairly unhappy recently (due to the government’s center leaning and Chen’s own scandals). If China could be provoked into verbal outrage, that would be a bonus byproduct, as evidenced in the last two elections. They did not fall for it this time.
Military confrontation wise, it is just a matter of time before china invades, if only to preserve their own legitimacy on the mainland. It also makes no difference whether taiwan can repel them for 1 day, 1 week, or 1 month, Taiwan will fall. UNLESS of course, the US intervenes in full force. Time is running out for the US to drop its deliberate ambiguity, belief the US will intervene is declining on both sides of the strait. When China stops believing, and has armed itself sufficiently, it might just invade for the heck of it. Less ambiguity means less chance of another pacific theater, as Taiwan would not go quietly, Japan could not sit idly by, and the US could not lose Japan.
Comment by Sam — March 7, 2007 @ 8:54 pmThat especially applies to our own elected “leadersâ€
Brad, I fixed that for you.
Nick
Comment by Nick M. — March 7, 2007 @ 9:26 pmThe tit-for-tat missile build up in the Taiwan straits is alarming but for the most part irrelevant. China does not have the military might to invade Taiwan and Taiwan does not have the economic prowess to maintain it’s current level of development without market access in the Mainland. They are stuck with each other and will be until the balance is broken.
Comment by Eric Lier — March 8, 2007 @ 1:12 amIn my opinion the offer of missiles by the US to the ROC regime on Taiwan was the direct result of the PLA’s anti-satellite missile deployment last month. The cost for the PRC to effectively threatening Taiwan has just gone up considerably. No doubt we will see a sudden increase in ballistic missile deployments by the PRC in the next few years taking up a large chunk of their increased defense spending.
It was the smart play by the US perpetuating the “status quo” and raising the bar in the Taiwan straits.
Brad, the problem is that China has been provoking Taiwan for years. Look at the huge missile build-up, the constant barrage of nasty comments coming from Beijing, the opposition to Taiwan joining the WHO, the opposition to Taiwan participating in regional free trade agreements, signing FTAs, etc.
Saying that Taiwan wants to seek independence cannot compare with the decisive attempts by China to strangle the diplomatically, economically and politically island. Your arguments are akin to a teacher admonishing a student for giving the finger to a bully who constantly tries to beat him up.
Comment by Raj — March 8, 2007 @ 9:36 amRaj,
The analogy is slightly different. It’s more akin to giving the finger to a bully who has been threatening for years to beat you up, but has never followed through. It’s giving him a reason to actually follow through.
Comment by Brad Warbiany — March 8, 2007 @ 9:44 amMany of you seem to be support Taiwan blindly in a “help the littler guy” fashion with few informed facts.
First of all, people of Taiwan who support independence is NOT the majority.
Second, if the US can send troops to conquer an independent Texas, it would be double standard if China can’t.
Finally, Mr.Chen and his inner circle has proven to break laws, promises, and stirs up tension. This is as suitable to demonize as “Communist China”, “Emperor Hu”. But I guess since they are labeled as a “young democracy” it’s ok to portray these as their inexperience in democracy.
There are reasons why much of the world despise us.
Comment by Jeremy H. — March 8, 2007 @ 11:15 amBrad,
No, China has been beating Taiwan up frequently. What it threatens to do is slash its neck with a knife.
Comment by Raj — March 8, 2007 @ 11:16 amJeremy
“First of all, people of Taiwan who support independence is NOT the majority.”
It depends what polls you read. But certainly a majority do not support unification.
“Second, if the US can send troops to conquer an independent Texas, it would be double standard if China can’t.”
Texas hasn’t had full independence from the US for over a century.
“Finally, Mr.Chen and his inner circle has proven to break laws, promises, and stirs up tension.”
So I suppose stacking nearly 1000 missiles next to Taiwan, deliberately trying to isolate it in the world, bad-mouthing its political system, repeatedly threatening to blow its brains out if it does anything China doesn’t like, etc doesn’t stir up tension?
“There are reasons why much of the world despise us.”
If you’re talking about Taiwan, that simply isn’t true. If you’re talking about the US, only the Chinese are bitter over Taiwan. Some people actually laugh at the US precisely because it lets China manipulate its policy with Taiwan, when it pushes smaller countries around itself.
Comment by Raj — March 8, 2007 @ 11:21 amOoops, I meant “for over half a century”.
Comment by Raj — March 8, 2007 @ 11:23 amYou say that “Chen is playing with fire” by testing a medium-range missile. Why is it that the international community always seem to point the finger at Taiwan, while seeming to ignor Beijing’s beligerance? Taiwan’s government is doing nothing but seeking to acquire weapons to defend themselves, which they would not need in the first place were it not for repeated threats from Beijing to invade and subjugate the island, whicj it has backed up with a hige arms build up along the Strait. Taiwan is stuck with an archaic constitution drafted by the previous KMT military dictatorship, all they want to do is have a modern document that codifies their current democratic system – but when they seek to do this, Beijing threatens to invade and the world criticizes Taiwan! Even in 1996, when Taiwan held its first-ever presidential elections, Beijing tried to foil the process by firing missiles over northern Taiwan. So let’s please put this into perspective, and stop making excuses for the dictators in Beijing.
Comment by Neal McGrath — March 8, 2007 @ 1:28 pm“Second, if the US can send troops to conquer an independent Texas, it would be double standard if China can’t”
This is not what happened: Texas was an independent state, they had fought their own war of independence with Mexico. The epople of Texas WANTED to join the US, but Mexico threatened war if the US admiited the state into the union. The result was tension and eventually the Mexican-American war.
A more appropriare analogy would be that of Puerto Rico: When some people there wanted independence from the US, they held a referendum to decide what to do. Did the US care? No. Or Quebec, which has held five referendums on independence from Canada. No threats of war, no beligerance. Only dictatorships do this.
Comment by Neal McGrath — March 8, 2007 @ 1:47 pm“It depends what polls you read. But certainly a majority do not support unification.”
Yes, most prefer status quo, yet some earlier posters greatly exaggerate the independence leaning portion.
“Texas hasn’t had full independence from the US for over a century.”
As long as there are conflicting interests, the dispute will continue.
“So I suppose stacking nearly 1000 missiles next to Taiwan”
I too am against the missiles. But weapon build up is mutual, especially Taiwan hasn’t given up claim over China until years ago.
“, deliberately trying to isolate it in the world,”
Unfortunately, lobbying nations to not support Taiwan independence is in their interest. US, Taiwan, China all play the same games.
” bad-mouthing its political system,”
vice versa. I am rather annoyed that people can put up with Chen’s wrong doings because Taiwan has the “young democracy” placard, while at the same time demonize the more authoritarian system.
” repeatedly threatening to blow its brains out if it does anything China doesn’t like, etc doesn’t stir up tension?”
That’s quite false in today’s environment. Usually China plays defense from Chen’s rattlings, and let the US issue the warning.
“If you’re talking about Taiwan, that simply isn’t true. If you’re talking about the US, only the Chinese are bitter over Taiwan. ”
As are most territorial/independence disputes.
“Some people actually laugh at the US precisely because it lets China manipulate its policy with Taiwan, when it pushes smaller countries around itself.”
Please do not say “manipulate”. US does whatever is in her interest. As do China/Taiwan.
Comment by Jeremy H. — March 8, 2007 @ 11:53 pm“Why is it that the international community always seem to point the finger at Taiwan, while seeming to ignor Beijing’s beligerance?”
No… Most have condemned Beijing’s saber rattlings in the past.
” Taiwan’s government is doing nothing but seeking to acquire weapons to defend themselves, which they would not need in the first place were it not for repeated threats from Beijing to invade and subjugate the island, whicj it has backed up with a hige arms build up along the Strait.”
We will see if Beijing issues a US to Iraq style ultimatum. Remember, China also has to match up Taiwan’s US weapons in this balance of power.
” Taiwan is stuck with an archaic constitution drafted by the previous KMT military dictatorship, ”
Though dotted with unpleasant past, the dictatorship brought the island prosperity.
“all they want to do is have a modern document that codifies their current democratic system -”
Yes, it’s an angelic purpose easy to sympathesize with.
” but when they seek to do this, Beijing threatens to invade and the world criticizes Taiwan!”
No… the world criticizes China mostly.
” Even in 1996, when Taiwan held its first-ever presidential elections, Beijing tried to foil the process by firing missiles over northern Taiwan. ”
Yes, and that backfired.
“So let’s please put this into perspective, and stop making excuses for the dictators in Beijing.”
Let’s be subjective and not glorify or demonize any government.
I will assume you are the history expert.
Comment by Jeremy H. — March 9, 2007 @ 12:26 am“US does whatever is in her interest. As do China/Taiwan”
not really. the US does what’s in the interest of the small handfull of very powerful business interests that make money in china, who form lobbying groups to jet off to washington to prod the US to comform to china’s wishes whenever something comes up that might potentially threaten their ability to make money from the status quo. is it in the interets of the US to have a massive trade deficit with china while beijing manipulates its currency to keep it artiificially low against the dollar? no, but it is in the interests of US companies that source their products there. i could cite many more reasons, many of which i have first-hand knowledge of.
US policy there is (as it is in many areas) unfortunately dictated by small groups of vested interests.
i am also not necessarily a history expert, just a guy with a good memory (i was there while much of this stuff happened). i also was not saying the KMT didn’t deliver the goods as far as economic development, i’m merely saying that now that taiwan is a democracy, it is stupid for the country to retain a constitution written by dictators. and yes, it IS a purpose easy to sympathesize with, I agree.
Comment by Neal McGrath — March 9, 2007 @ 9:59 amis it in the interets of the US to have a massive trade deficit with china while beijing manipulates its currency to keep it artiificially low against the dollar?
Well, as long as they hold our dollars as a reserve currency and keep buying our debt, yes it’s in our interests. But that’s a different debate.
Comment by Brad Warbiany — March 9, 2007 @ 10:17 am1. Taiwan is built by the people of Taiwan.
2. Taiwan should be governed by Taiwanese
3. People have a better live in Taiwan
4. Taiwan should fight to protect the democratic goverment for the benefit of the people.
HOWEVER
1. National identy is created by history.
2. Taiwan was never an unclaim piece of land.
3. The people of Taiwan and Mainland China do share history, custom, language, cutural value… and LAST NAME.
In short in Taiwan case decaring independence is declaring forever separation. It is like last name changing and deny to move out.
Comment by nathan yu — March 9, 2007 @ 11:41 pm