China renews threat to Taiwan

China is renewing threats of war against Taiwan if the move for independence increases.

Questions for the board:
1. What should Taiwan's response be?
2. What should the United States' response be?
3. In your opinion, should Taiwan be allowed to declare independence from China or not?

1: I think Taiwan's response should be this: "Allow us to declare independence and become a soverign nation and not a province belonging to the communist regime of China". They deserve to be seperated from China.

2: The United States shoudl send a signal to China that if they declare war with Taiwan, then we will break off our relationship with them and fight against them

3: They deserve independence because they aren't even connected to Chinese mainland, but China declares Taiwan a province. Also, it would greatly influence reforms in China, but that is probably what the Communist gov't in bejing fears.

In principle I agree Taiwan should be allowed to do what it likes and not be bullied by some totalitarian regime....

However...

Who's going stop China from invading? Its got a big army and nukes.

Does America have the ability to fight another war right now? Nuclear threat is out, because they'll nuke the US back, so its going to be armed forces......not that america wouldn't win, but China aint Iraq.....it'd be costly. Very costly and there is no way you could keep police China afterwards, its too big.....

The US in no way, shape or form has the ability to forcibly deter aggression by the PRC. Except, that is, by strategic air power, and the Seventh Fleet. We would not be able to assemble and deploy any ground forces of merit with our current commitments world-wide.
That said, we do have a relationship with the KMT of Taiwan stretching back to pre-WWII. I think it's important to honor our many decades of mutual trust and assistance with the island nation.

1. Taiwan should continue the course it has taken.
In 1991, Taiwan declared unilaterally that the civil war with Mainland China was ended, and renounced any intention of retaking Mainland China by the use of force. A live and let live arrangement.

2. The US should pursue diplomatic means to end the tension between the KMT and PRC, while pledging to aid in the defense of Taiwan. The possibility of US intervention, coupled with the lack of PRC logistical means have hampered PRC warhawk plans for invasion.

3. In practice, other territories—Bosnia, Slovenia, Ukraine, the Caucasus and Central Asian Republics—have successfully asserted their right to independence.

The above quote and italics are from the following link, which details the relationship between the two China's.
National Strategy Forum

I'm sure NATO would get involved. If China does nuke the US, NATO will initiate Article 5 like they did after 9/11, which states: "an attack on any member nation is an attack on all".

What can Taiwan's response be?..she must always wait for guidance from the US on this issue. She ultimately has no statehood with the US or with China.

The US should remain the mediator. The US must speak for Taiwan or else Taiwan has no voice that China will hear.
An aggressive stance from the US is completely without merit and is not at all necessary.
China has everything to loose so she would never act reckless or disrespectful to her relationship with the US..one of her largest international supporters and trade partners.
I think China takes this harsh aggressive stance more for the domestic stage and not the international one.

I just no longer view it as simply as they should or should not be able to declare independence. Yet I wish them independence.

President Chen Shui-bian wants to hold a referendum for Taiwan independence. I think they should continue on with that. If the people of Taiwan want independence, then they should go for it. If they are not ready for it, then it's business as usual.


Let's see, support an oppressive Communist country or support a freely Democratic country? Hmmm...


Of course it should. Though Taiwan is not officially recognized as a sovereign country by the UN, for all intent and purposes, it is. It seems like the atmosphere is more open in Taiwan for independence than years past. However, if the people are willing to pay the price for independence, that remains to be seen.

I think the question should be 'Is Taiwan's independence worth engaging the US in WWIII?'. That is the REAL underlying question, and I doubt the majority would respond affirmatively. We had dubious ability to win a fight with the PRC back during the height of the cold war, when our military might was at it's strongest and most effective level.

1) taiwans response should be to try for independence if they think they can get it. just if, let's say, california decided they no longer wanted to be part of the union, if they thought they could win independence they should go for it. the taiwanese need to be aware that china has every right to respond with force to quell a rebellion, just as america would if california tried seceeding.

2) this is an internal conflict between china and taiwan, the US response should be to stay out of it, just as if a US state tried seceeding from the union, china should stay out of our business, and as we stay out of the checnya mess (again, a province trying to win independence from a larger country)

3) in my opinion they should be allowed to try, but should not just expect china to sit back and do nothing. taiwan is a part of china, and I would completely understand if china responded with force, just as if the US would if a state declared independence, as britain did when the northern irish tried to get independence (or rather rejoin ireland) and as russia is doing with checneya trying to declare their independence. if the taiwanese are willing to risk what might happen, then I say go for it.



would you be saying the same thing if california (or any state) said they wanted to be their own and sovereign country, seperate from america?



by this logic, we should give the hawaiian islands back to the hawaiian people. lets change the names around GA: They deserve independence because they aren't even connected to the American mainland, but America declares Hawai'i a state.

(for more information: A brief history of hawai'i The overthrow of the monarchy Stolen islands: Hawai'i demands sovereignty)


so to clarify, I think taiwan should try for there independence if possible. they should try peaceful means first, and if china responds with force (as they likely would) the taiwanese should resist. america should stay out of it as it is an internal problem, just as a state seceeding from the union would be.they should be allowed to declare their independence, but should be prepared to deal any possible conseqeunces, such as possible armed conflict. as someone pointed out, this could lead to reforms in mainland china, and those in power in china do not want that, and want to keep the status quo, therefore they will do their best to stop it, and the taiwanese need to be aware of that.

Unabomber,
I don't understand how you are equating Taiwan's quest to be recognized as a sovereign nation with a state seceding from the US. PRC and KMT evolved out of a chaotic situation that pitted the two in a civil war. Mao did not pursue Chiang to Formosa, thus effectively creating two separate states.
I think it's nearly criminal that more nation's have not recognized Taiwan, and done so sooner.

I was under the impression that taiwan was a province of china, ceded to them by japan after WW2, and that china was sovereign over taiwan. (Historical Document Proves Taiwan Belongs to China (note the .cn in URL, meaning china)

taiwan trying to get independence from china is a situation of a province (which is similar to a state) trying to secede from a nation. it would be similar to a state trying to declare independence from the untied states, which is sovereign over it. this is how I can compare the two.

I think that taiwan should try to get their independence by the way.

From the State Department Web page:



You are correct about Japan controlling Formosa, but I don't think Mao's communist forces ever held a legitimate claim to the island. Making, in my mind, at least, an extremely strong claim for sovereignty.

Maybe I'm missing something. As I understand it, the only issue at stake here is Taiwan's right to call themselves a separate nation. They already have their own president, they are democratic, capitalistic, and rich. They have their own military. They are independent in every way but name (as far as I know, please correct me if I'm wrong).

Any decision to call themselves independent, and formally secede from China has been declared an act of war by the Chinese. This would lead to millions of lost lives, and potential world annihilation for Taiwan's right to call itself a separate country. Is it worth that price? Is it worth that much to us? I like the romantic idea of a democratic country seceding from a communist one, but let's be realistic... how do their "ties" with China inhibit their freedoms in any fundamental, compelling-enough-to-war way?

You are correct. But China does not see Taiwan as a legitimate nation as does the UN. I think the US is the only nation to recognize Taiwan as a soverign nation.

Also, most of their military hardware has a "Made in the USA" stamp on it
Like the AIM-120 Air to Air missile, which they tested Nov. 10th in Flordia.

Once long ago when I was..let me emphasize that was... a supporter of the WTO the main reasons for my support was for an alternative international realm where perhaps the small, forgotten nations could have a larger voice. Taiwan is in fact recognized as a nation by the WTO..*** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** China off quite a bit by nonetheless it is true.

29 nations recognize Taiwan as a separate entity, and several more have trade office's.

Here is a Link that lists them.

As Mrs P pointed out, Taiwan is more than a province of China. In practical terms, it's a separate country. China and Taiwan have their own separate governments. There is no real representation of Taiwan in the Chinese government (though I believe there are so-called Taiwan representatives, however they don't come from Taiwan and certainly aren't elected by the Taiwanese). Laws passed in China are not followed by the Taiwanese. They each have their own currency and are not valid in the other. They each have their own military. Taxes are collected by each and revenues are not shared. Direct travel between the two is extremely limited. Written language is slightly different (China uses simplified and Taiwan uses traditional). So, Taiwan is not simply a province.

I think an analogy that's more correct would be America getting independence from England, rather than California seceding from the US.

The Chinese have Hong Kong, too. They grant it a high degree of autonomy. Hong Kong isn't looking for independence, as far as I know. They don't even have a separate president. I don't see why this is so pressing we should potentially be involved in a war with China over Taiwan's ability to call itself a separate entity.

Taiwan undoubtedly expects us to back them militarily. I would say we could support them by cutting off trade relations with China if they attack, but I don't see going to war over this. Giving them 'some military help' isn't enough. If we send in troops, we go to war, and a war with China would be catastrophic for everyone....all so Taiwan could get it's name officially recognized as a country. I realize many countries recognize Taiwan as a separate entity. They probably should be a separate entity (as should Hong Kong), but isn't it better to keep things as they are with no bloodshed?

Edited to add: I posted at the same time as otseng. Do the people of Taiwan pay massive taxes to the Chinese government? I don't know, if that's the case. It seems to me, for as oppressive as the Chinese government is with its own, it allows a great deal of freedom for Taiwan (if limited to no representation in the Chinese government). If the Chinese instated martial law in Taiwan, enforced communism there, and set up their own puppy dictator I could understand the hubbaloo, but that isn't the case.

I share similar thoughts as DTOM.

To clarify on action the US should perform, I think the pacific forces should be moved into a position where airpower and naval power could provide some additional protection if need be. Some could see this as an escalation of the event, but I tend to disagree. Flexing of muscles is common by communist countries. China and North Korea have proven this time and time again. When NATO or the US alone flexes, then they usually back down, but in a way that saves face.

I am curious though of how any invasion would take place. Is the Chinese Navy sufficiently equipped to transfer such a sizable force to the Island? They have nukes sure, but they are not stupid. They have a really large army, but this type of conflict if it ensued would depend heavily on the Naval and Air Force thrown into the battle. Are they prepared to risk open War with the US and other NATO nations?

I think it is relevant to the discussion to determine the significance of the threat in determining the proper course of action.

Mrs. P,
I agree that the status quo is better than waging war. But if the Taiwanese choose to declare full independence in an upcoming referendum, the PRC has stated that this will be tantamount to declaring war.
Should we let communist China invade and swallow up a democratic nation? Should we allow the subjugation of 22 million people by a tyrannical one party regime?
I don't have a good answer as to what our response should be, but I don't think we should stand by and watch this happen.

edited to respond to Regent:

It's been my understanding that this has been one of the major logistical obstacles that has kept serious invasion considerations at bay.

This is also my understanding, but I do not have any hard evidence of this. If this is the case then I suppose adding naval and air strength to the region in response to the threat while seeking a diplomatic solution would be the best response.

This type of move sends two messages to the PRC. The first is that we are not going to stand by; second, we are interested in a peaceful solution to this problem. This puts the ball back in their court.

I am also under the impression that the US has perhaps an unofficial alliance with Taiwan. If this is the case and the US did nothing to honor this alliance, this would destroy our credibility with many other nations in the world especially our allies.

Perhaps we should make it clear, right now, that we might not be able to do much for them militarily if they choose the war route. If the British had the military ability of the Chinese way back then, we'd still be observing tea time today.

As to official alliance between the US and Taiwan:
Mutual Defense Treaty between the United States of America and the Republic of China

Signed at Washington 2 December 1954
Entered into Force 3 March 1955 by the exchange of instruments of ratification at Taipei
Terminated by the United States of America 1980

As to unofficial alliances...I'm still researching that. It's hard to dig up credible sources for that kind of stuff sometimes.

Although, oddly, no one in Britain observes teatime any more either.....

Pragmatically, Taiwan is, in all but name, a free and seperate country. The Chinese are not going to jeapordise their newly found position on the world stage by forcing the issue, so long as Taiwan doesn't declare independence. The last thing China wants is to go up against the US, but it doesn't feel that it would be secure in allowing its seperate parts to go their own way.

I feel and have always felt that China is dominated by petty bureacrats - not so much evil as terrified of instability - a Chinese civil war, for example, would be pretty awful given the numbers involved.

Everyone should make the best effort to maintain the status quo and see how far China can move along the road to democracy, which, even if for no other reason, will be the most proftable form of government. After all, the effect of Hong Kong - where the citizens are used to UK democracy and are starting to demand it from the mainland government - does seem to be causing a small movement along the path...The US should aim to make sure that China moves towards a democratic society (and asap, because maybe a democratic China would be more inclined to push for a regime change in N Korea)..

I think they have a couple aircraft carrier programs going. I know they have submarines as well. But i doubt that they would be able to withstand an American or NATO assault. They would probably use their nukes as a last resort....even then it would be suicidal because they would be labeled terrorists and then the whole world will join in.

Regent:


Oh we would react. We'd be there in a heartbeat. We'd send long range bombers to start off with until we can get a force built up to start the real war.


There is no doubt that once we start flexing our muscles or NATO joins in the flexing, China will either back off or do something very stupid like nuking Taiwan, and saying "If they can't have it, no one can"

I think there may be an issue about timing....if China could quickly invade and occupy Taiwan (it's not far!)- and say it happened whilst the US had large numbers of troops deployed elsewhere (Iraq, Afghanistan) then, rather than heading off a Chinese attach force (A US naval force protecting Taiwan with air power would do it easy), the US has to liberate Taiwan by going in there with troops, which it would have to gather, whilst China dug in.
If the Taiwanese government then accepted Chinese rule in the meanwhile, the UN would probably consider attacking China to be illegal...

I doubt China would ever nuke Taiwan - they pride themselves on long term planning - so they would be more inclined to think 'if not today, maybe in 20 years we could try again'.

The Taiwanese pay no taxes to China.

This won't happen unless they take over militarily.

Since the issue is a lose-lose situation all around, the USG basically has avoided the issue. But one day, the USG is going to have to make a decision if something drastic happens. If China takes over Taiwan, it's either risk WWIII or compromise on it's principle of democratic freedom.

I think there's a chance that there could be little bloodshed if the US backs Taiwan if it declares independence. Certainly China would not want to engage against the US. It's economy would collapse if it did.

If GWB wants to remain consistent in his stand against tyranny, he should also back Taiwan if they decide to become independent.

And if they did do that, we'd get very angry. And China really doesn't wanna mess with an angry America. Osama learned that lesson the hard way.

Let's put a little perspective into this. China has 1.3 BILLION people. We have around .3 billion. They have a billion more people than we do. That's a ratio of over four to one.

They have 206 million men fit for military service. That is almost the entire population of the USA.

They have no real world commitments, whereas our troops are overburdened already....but pretending that isn't the case, we would have a theoretical ready manpower (drafting all men ages 15 to 49) available of 73,600,000 to China's 375,500,000. We have one theoretical soldier (including borderline geriatrics and children) for every five Chinese.

I agree let’s put things into perspective. China has a large population. They do not have the military equipment in the Navy or Air Force to compete with the US. Without such military equipment they would be landlocked. Thus, the only really valuable military advantage they would have would be to use the massive army.

http://www.cnn.com/interactive/specials/99...tary/table.html
Side note on the aircraft that they maintain. Most are older Soviet aircraft.

http://www.idsa-india.org/an-oct9-4.html

( It is wordy, but you can note that they talk about the fleet near Taiwan. It is not able at this time to deter the fleet from Taiwan. )

http://64.177.207.201/pages/16_352.html



You can see by the sources listed above the reports vary on their actual military strength. One fact is for certain. The numbers of aricraft and ships are misleading due to the quality of each unit.

Assuming a conventional war the Chinese would be really hard pressed to successfully invade Taiwan. Taiwan is not defenseless. They have advanced Anti-ship missiles, modern naval weaponry, and 22 million people of which around 300,000 are currently in the military. I am sure if there was an invasion there would be a lot more join or at the very least fight.

The numbers do seem insignificant, but if (key on the if) the US chooses the military option of defense, Taiwan’s forces should hold their own for the short term. By this time US air and naval power can be brought to bear and would hamper or eliminate the ability of China to re-supply or re-enforce its troops. Cut off from re-supply they would not get far.

China would then be engaged in war with the US and, thus NATO would be forced to honor the treaty. This adds the British armed services which are also quite significant in naval and airpower.

China’s immediate neighbors are not really a threat with the exception of the USSR, but they would be really dumb if they were to take on both the USSR and NATO at the same time. They could use NK and advance against SK to hit US interests there like they did in the Korean war, but that would be the best they could do and getting so many units across the DMZ with the allied forces hitting them would prove to be really difficult.

They could affect Hong Kong and seize foreign interest there, but this would only hurt their own economic efforts to keep things intact.

The UN would be virtually useless since at least two of the permanent members would be at war with each other.

It would be bloody and a horrible thing indeed, but simply referring to the population difference is really not a fair comparison.

So what if they have such a large army. With out the transportation to Taiwan they are really not able to use this strength.


In doing some research on the unofficial/official ties between Taiwan and the US, I came across some interesting things.

The first being:

http://www.usconsulate.org.hk/ustw/geninfo/tra1979.htm



http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/twstrait_12182000.html



http://taiwansecurity.org/CNA/2003/CNA-062803.htm



It seems there are laws in place outlining our obligations to assist in the defense of Taiwan, but that US policy does not support their independence. I am not sure how this fits in or how US policy got to this point. But I think it is an interesting point considering Taiwan’s efforts to declare their independence.

I'm curious what makes you think the USSR would side against China? They are the ones who are actively arming the Chinese, just as certainly as we are arming Taiwan. Second, I believe there would be a fair likelihood that India (a neighbor) would join in, as well as Pakistan (another neighbor). They've been waiting for an excuse to blow each other up since the nuclear demo match in 1998.

Admittedly, I don't know a lot about the Chinese military capability. I do know that they place a relatively low value on human life, outnumber us five to one, and have been aggressively working to increase their military might recently. From your first link, they have (ostensibly) 310 naval vessels and 88 in reserve to our 315 and 18 reserve. That doesn't sound like much of an advantage on our end, and it's certainly transportation for a massive army that doesn't need to go very far.

In my opinion, the TRA was carefully worded to allow for the sale of defensive arms to Taiwan, and says an attack on Taiwan from Mainland China would be cause for 'grave concern', but does not directly require our military involvement.

I definitely agree with Mrs. P on this one. War with China could very well be an extinction level event. This would in no way be anything like fighting Afghanistan. These people have a lot more to fight back with than old-as-carbon assault rifles and shoulder-fired RPGs. Our technology is superior, but theirs is on the level. And if Russia did side with them it would get a whole lot better. And if you want to know how easy it is for a communist dictator to convince all his people to fight to the death, just think about Stalin. During World War II, Russian troops would charge into battle at times even without weapons, completely ready to die. I, for one, would really not want to deal with a fanatical military force the size of the entire population of our country.

We cannot threaten them with nukes, because they would threaten right back. Too many countries with too many nukes and too much loyalty to either one side or another.

At it's very best possible outcome this war would be a major world war that would destroy many places and kill many people on both sides. At it's worst, we would nuke ourself into extinction.

Having said all this, yes, I do understand that Taiwan wants to be "officially" independent, but I would be very irate if said events occurred over semantics.

I think a whole separate topic could be had on where Russia would fit into the picture. However, I think as a general rule Russia is not on the friendliest of terms with the Chinese. It is true they are arming them just like we are arming Taiwan, but if there was a confrontation between China and the US. It is my strong opinion that Russia would wait on the sidelines. They are not in any position at all to take on NATO even with China and India. Again the weaponry is simply not there. I can go and find sources to justify these claims, but Russia is simply not the player some still think it is. They also stand to lose a lot if the war does not go well for them. In addition, it is likely that the Ukraine and other provinces would not join in with them.

I also think that it is an unfair assumption to state that the Chinese place a low value on life. I think there are those in all countries who place a low value on life, but certainly not the vast majority. The Chinese are people just like we are and they are not going to simply sacrifice their lives for the sake of communism. But again even if they were fanatical, they would be hard pressed to really hurt the US. The countries surrounding China would stand to lose more.

India and Pakistan have been trying to go at it for years, but adding more instability in the region certainly will not help things. In fact I think if China did go to war with the US, they would side with the US. China is certainly not an ally to them, but the US and India has fairly decent relations. India and Pakistan would not be in a good position with such a large army with in striking distance and so little to deter them. It is true they could have a go at each other, but I tend to think they would want to stay out of the fight and focus on a defensive position. Again I am going with what I view as a more likely scenario. The fact remains that anything is possible. They also seem to be a bit more trigger happy when it comes to escalations.

In regards to the number of aircraft and ships you saw in the source. It was also pointed out that most of the ships were for coastal defense. Simply because they have a large number does not mean they would be effective. It is like trying to compare our coast guard with our carrier groups. Total numbers may look equal, but if they were up against each other it would look like a turkey shoot. As for transportation, they have very few troop carriers, which they would need in order to transfer heavy equipment to the island.

I agree with you on the TRA. It does look carefully worded. I think most documents of such nature are. This is why I think a lot would depend on who was president at the time, and the general world opinion.

If we look at the economic picture does China have the power to really mass-produce the necessary things their military needs? Do they have enough food for their troops, do they have the equipment to keep convoys going etc. It is true they have manpower, but in all honesty if they had the ability to invade, I feel certain they would have already done so.

I guess I do not subscribe to the doomsday scenario of a US-China conflict should one take place. I still say that a show of power by moving our forces into that area would send a very strong message. I guess what I am still confused about is whether the US feels Taiwan would need to be defended by force if necessary. I still see to many conflicting statements in this case.

In response to Looms about Stalin….Germany attacked Russia and was inflicting heavy casualties. If Germany had not attacked Russia…WW II would have been very different. Even with a leader like Stalin, Russia initially chose to stand by rather than enter at the onset.

I think Japan would try to stay neutral as long as possible and North Korea would either take the war with China to cross the DMZ or side with China in the war and fling bombs at SK just for the heck of it.

I see the acronym NATO bandied about in this debate and am at a loss to understand the relevance. Taiwan is not a member of NATO and I doubt whether the US deciding to attack China in Taiwans defence constitutes the required attack on a NATO member which would trigger NATO military response.

The result then would be the US alone fighting China, off the coast of China. not a pleasant scenario.

Anyone remember that sabre rattling when the US plane went down over Hunan Island - much jingoism from the American public and press. The reality was that there was no option open to the US other than to await the repatriation of the plane after the Chinese had a good 3-4 weeks to strip it down.

The same pragmatic response would be offered in the event of the forced reunion of Taiwan and the PRC

Support can come in different ways, but it would still be there. Kuwait was not a member of NATO, but the aggression committed against it triggered a NATO response. Kosovo was not a NATO member, but triggered a NATO response. Simply being a member or not does not dictate if a response will be made. Both cases here provoked a military response.

You could argue that NATO is not required to join in if the US attacks China first in its efforts to defend Taiwan, but that gets really muddy. If the US was involved in defending this country from invasion and China did not heed warnings of a military confrontation, the US would have no choice but to defend its interests in Taiwan. (Assuming the US uses military forces) If NATO did not offer its full support in such an ordeal, then I am certain there would be serious repercussions. Many of which would not be favorable to the other NATO nations.

While NATO’s infrastructure is important in many ways, one thing needs to be clearly understood. The large bulk of most NATO operations contain a large portion of US military personnel and equipment. The British are the second largest supporter in most operations. The rest of the nations gain more from being a member than they give.

Having NATO support would simply allow additional resources to be available, and other forms of support. Hence it is relevant in part to some of the discussions that have taken place on this topic. Recent precedent indicates that the US and other NATO members would not stand by and allow an invasion of Taiwan. Kuwait again is your example.

In response to the plane that went down, there were other responses that were available. While I admit it is conjecture, I feel the US was not to concerned about the state of the equipment on the spy plane. If there was a serious national security issue I feel they would have dealt with it in a way that would have allowed them to deny any involvement. China would then have been placed in a position to escalate if need be, but I do not think they wish for a US –China confrontation.

One could just as easily say that Taiwan didn't heed China's warnings of military confrontation (which have certainly been more overt and direct than ours), and China had no choice but to protect its interests.
The Iraqi and Serb militaries in no way compare to the Chinese. I believe we'd be in this one virtually alone with Taiwan, if we had the bad judgement to involve ourselves militarily...and what repercussions? We'd be in very sad shape in such an event, and in no condition to enforce accountability from our allies.

Edited to add: Regarding your quote
People are the product of their environments. For example, if you or I were raised with farm animals as pets, never having eaten meat or considered animals as food until the age of thirty, and someone would place a steak in front of us, we'd probably need to excuse ourselves to vomit. On the other hand, a person growing up in a rural farm wouldn't hesitate to wring the neck of a chicken, pluck it, and eat it that afternoon.
It's the same with all concepts in human life. A person raised in an environment where people are run over by tanks for protesting the government and religious oppression is often deadly do not have the same view of life that we do.
One small example: My boss in Korea had been in the Korean army. He told me he was ritualistically beaten once a week by his commanding officer for training purposes. He would then beat his subordinates to 'train' them as well. Think that would wash here? He said it like it was the most natural, normal thing in the world.

I'm not saying Taiwan is a member of NATO and that if it is attacked, then NATO would come to the resuce. I am saying if China nukes us for getting involved in Taiwan, then THAT would provoke a NATO response because we are a member.

Remember after 9/11 when NATO initiated Article 5 (Any member nation attacked is an attack on all members)? NATO would ultimatley attack China for attacking us.

To a great degree, I respect and applaud the audacity of the Taiwanese. Perhaps they are treading on thin ice (please accept my apologies if this is purely an english phrase) but I believe they are calling their Bluff, believeing, perhaps niavely, that the Chinese Govt will not react.

We already know that the Chinese government appear to take the rise of democracy very seriously, since they squashed the attempts in Beijing in 1990 - bit given the looming presence of the US and the International World I would hope China would choose not to act in a way that would threaten her world position. They are now taking their economic growth very seriously and would not want to sacrifice it, however on the same hand the Communists are also likely to want to send clear signals that rising up against them will not work as they are anticipating the problem of their inevitable loss of appeal as Capitalism grows more widespread. The greatest problem here is that the Western world's focus remains on the Middle East, and China are all too aware of this. What we have here is a very serious situation that is not getting the news coverage it deserves.

I am hoping that this conflict will take form as a game of poker. We may see some action, some bluffs and some concession in some form but as canadian Poker Columnist Jesse May likes to say, "All is fair in Love and War". And this is the best we can hope for.

My apologies Mrs. P for such a delayed response, illness and work have run their course.

One could argue that Taiwan did not heed the warnings of military conflict and Chinas threats of protecting its interests, but the Us is very clear on this issue. It will only support peaceful solutions to the conflict. If military options are used then it reserves the right to aid in the defense of Taiwan. It is true they could choose not to apply the military option, but it appears that this president would.


Assuming a full confrontation with the Chinese, NATO would be in a real pickle. If they did not support the US, I feel certain that would be the end of that alliance. But if the US were to go it alone as you have indicated, it is still far from the grim scenario you are painting.

It is true the Serb militaries were nothing like the Chinese, but the terrain is also a key factor. The simple fact that the Chinese really do not have a method of transport to invade Taiwan is a serious impediment. The fact that the Taiwan fleet is better equipped and still a very serious threat in those coastal waters is a key point. China does not enjoy a sea superiority in the strait. The fact that most of the Chinese naval vessels are for costal defense not heavy combat. The difficulty comes from missiles aimed at Taiwan and from airpower. Taiwan has some mirage and f-16 fighters, but not enough to defend a full-fledged campaign. The US however can re-enforce both these areas and would be able to do so with deployments from the Pacific fleet. It would not be fun and would not be an ideal situation, but the US does have the strength logistically.

I think Bush’s statement is in line with current policy and that it is an effort to settle down the hope for independence on the part of the Taiwanese people. The reality is both parties need to come to the table and figure things out peacefully, but since they fled to the island and have been separate ever since the Chinese civil war that is not likely going to happen. If the US does nothing militarily to stop a Chinese invasion then we are risking the integrity of our relationships with other nations who sit near countries who threaten them. Hence I think the US has its hands full politically especially with the aid needed by the US of China to negotiate with NK.
As a note to your comments about people being a product of their environment, I agree that there is truth in this, but it does not change the unfair categorization that the Chinese place a low value on human life. I work with people in china. I am on the phone with them and communicate with them via email. They are really good people. I have had a college roommate spend a year in the US embassy. The people are very nice and friendly and very respectful. You have those that are the way you stated, but there are not as many as we would like to think. It goes both ways as well. The US has those that place a lower value on human life than they should.

Should South Carolina have been allowed their independence from the USA, as they once declared? And the other states that joined them?

Should Chechnya be allowed independence from Russia?

Should Northern Ireland be allowed independence from the UK?

Should the Basque region be allowed independence from Spain?

Should the Kurdish region in Iraq/Turkey be allowed independence?

Kosovo, anyone?

I doubt that anyone will answer according to idealogy. Does anyone think that a majority of a culture, wanting independence over their region has a right to it? Or does everyone judge each claim independently, using apathy, political/cultural bias or financial gain to arrive at each decision?