Tensions are escalating between the US and China and the recent provocation over Taiwan on the part of both powers could well be a tipping point. Joe Biden will face an agonising choice if Beijing does poke the bear and call America’s bluff.
With US-China relations darkening into a new Cold War, it is increasingly likely that Taiwan may prove a flashpoint in the crisis. And if that happens, that conflict has a real chance of becoming a nuclear war. This is especially so because neither China nor the US will be able to inflict a decisive victory over the other using conventional means.
Indeed, the risk of nuclear war today is probably higher than at any time since the darkest days of the last Cold War.
For 50 years, both powers have accepted a fragile peace towards Taiwan but recent events have strained that relationship almost to breaking point.
Last weekend, US carrier forces showed the flag in the South China Sea; at the same time Beijing launched provocative air manoeuvres around Taiwan.
While neither side wants a war, neither wants to be the first to back down. But the danger is that they will miscalculate one another’s resolve.
Beijing has long claimed Taiwan as its rightful territory and provoking a military confrontation with the US is one way to call America’s bluff.
Beijing could provoke a crisis by, for example, conducting an air and sea blockade of Taiwan. Beijing certainly has the military power for that to succeed. But China would be taking a huge gamble by causing such a provocation.
America could either decide to fight back or not. But when war looms two hard questions force themselves forward: who wins, and at what cost?
America could not easily win or even win at all a full-scale war against China. The US Navy is no longer unchallengeable in the Western Pacific. China’s forces now have the ability to find and destroy the ships and aircraft that America employs to project power into the Western Pacific. America’s iconic aircraft carriers would be especially at risk in such a confrontation.
So if war comes, America would probably face massive losses in ships and aircraft, and achieve at best a grim and perilous stalemate.
However, if it were to use nuclear weapons then the game changes. America still declares that it is willing to cross the nuclear threshold if its conventional forces cannot win. Threatening to do this might seem the only way America could prevail in a fight over Taiwan.
However, China has nuclear weapons too, and it would meet US nuclear threats with counter-threats against America, sparking a nightmare crisis with huge scope for miscalculation.
China’s nuclear arsenal might be small, but it could kill a million Americans, and only a fool would bet that China would blink first.
The other scenario is that America does not come to Taiwan’s defence. However, this would fatally undermine US leadership in East Asia. China would take over as the leading regional power.
Everything depends on how China’s leaders assess Joe Biden. Would he fight for Taiwan or not? We hear a lot from Washington about standing by Taiwan and defending democracy, and it is easy to assume that Biden would fight when America’s whole position in Asia is at stake.
But it is not nearly that simple. With the stakes so high and forces so vast, any conflict would swiftly escalate into the biggest war by far since 1945. That would clearly be devastating for both countries.
Unlike his predecessor, Joe Biden can recognize these risks and weigh them responsibly. But if a crisis looms he would face a truly agonizing choice. If he failed to defend Taiwan he would be abandoning US leadership in East Asia and opening the door to Chinese regional hegemony. If he tried to defend Taiwan he would most likely plunge America into a catastrophe that would destroy its regional leadership anyway.
Faced with this choice, there is a real chance that Joe Biden would let East Asia go, in order to spare America. This is exactly what Xi Jinping hopes – and perhaps expects – Biden would do. But who can say that Biden would be wrong in making this choice for his country, as the lesser of two great evils?
And where would Australia stand? We want America to keep leading in Asia, so it seems obvious that we should encourage it to fight for Taiwan. But again, it is not that simple. We gain nothing by urging America to fight a war it will not win with or without our support. While we might feel we would have to join the fight to preserve the ANZUS alliance, such a war would be fatal to America’s position in Asia, and hence to the alliance itself anyway.
If the Taiwan issue escalates to the point that Joe Biden faces his terrible choice, then Australia stands to lose its ally whether we urge him to fight and chose to fight ourselves, or not. That being so, our best interests would be served by urging him to be cautious, and by being cautious ourselves.
Hugh White is Emeritus Professor of Strategic Studies at Australian National University. He served for many years as a senior defence and intelligence official with the Australian government.
Comments
150 responses to “Australia in a no-win situation if Taiwan crisis escalates”
White adopts the classic arcane Anglo American foreign policy academic analysis, purportimg an objective/neutral appraisal of a so called strategic conflict between equally guilty opposing powers thereby implicitly exonerating or really dismissing the possibility of an aggressor and thus exposing his partiality. This is such an arbitrarily deceptive concoction of the situation at hand and which as a consequence can offer no assistance in the permanent resolution of the matter at hand. Notwithstanding White’s false claim that China looks to “regional hegemony” and is the “provocative party”, White deliberately fails to understand the historical origins of the situation, which would expose that the US is the aggressor using the remnants of the Koumintang to contain and ultimately destroy socialist China. He fails to refer to the long covert CIA and State Dept campaigns to achieve these ends. Yet I guess were he to do so would betray the ANU’s Anglo American allegiance and he would no longer be respected within the consensus establishment.
“With US-China relations darkening into a new Cold War, it is increasingly likely that Taiwan may prove a flashpoint in the crisis.”
I’m never impressed with Hugh White and this just confirms my suspicion. The guy is either clueless or gets paid to write sensationalist garbage (or both).
US is not sending the troops to protect the remaining bits of ROC. US sold out Chiang Kai Shek, they will do it again.
Taiwan is PRC’s core interest, not the US’s. It’s simple as that. Not f-cking hard is it. Taiwan was not even mentioned in the latest Rand military strategy. How obvious can you get.
Is the choice as stark and binary as is presented here? One possibility is that the US brokers a deal on Taiwan or even allows some form of peaceful reabsorption of Taiwan while still maintains a strong US presence in Okinawa, Guam etc in support of Japan, the Phillipines, Vietnam and others.
‘And where would Australia stand? We want America to keep leading in Asia’
The use of collective nouns and pronouns at this point in the narrative needs a definite rebuttal. Hugh White, for all his expertise and the respect in which he his held, does not and should not speak for ‘Australia’.
As recently as last August, Hillary Clinton was asserting that ‘the world needs America to lead it,’ but I dont want America to keep leading the world, and I dont want America to keep leading in Asia. I am happy enough for America to participate, if it can do so without truculence or covert attempts to undermine collective agreements, but I dont want it to lead in any capacity.
Since its victories in ww2, America has shown itself spectacularly unsuitable to lead anybody anywhere. It is a country dedicated to its own self interest.
For decades, Australia has been able to give support to America without unduly endangering itself. In this instance we are beginning to look like a staked out goat or a canary in a coal mine.
And why would China go to war with the US? Every day the World watches whilst the American Empire declines into a deeper abyss. Does any one think Joe Biden and the Democrats, even though they control both Houses of Congress can reverse this? And do you think China isn’t watching too? Time is on China’s side! President Xi Jinping is in no hurry, his main task is to keep the Communist Party in power and that means having a happy and coherent 1.5 billion people. Xi in the interim just needs to taunt the US escalating its inevitable exhaustion.
As Henry Kissinger accounts in his wonderful book “On China”, China is not a country its a civilization stretching back 2000 years BC, – to the time of the ancient Egyptians; pre Grecian and pre Mesopotamia.
Humiliated by the great European powers and then Japan in 1938, one thing is certain China will never ever be humiliated again; not by the barbarians, be they British, American, Russian or Japanese. Certainly not by Scott Morrison he is just an embarrassing joke!
China’s game I think is economic supremacy and with it the control of the Worlds reserve currency. Of course they want Taiwan, but that will fall into their hands as we all will when economic supremacy is gained. China doesn’t want further territory to control, it has enough trouble controlling what they have now, but we like the rest of Asia will become an economic vassal State to China providing them with what they require and being well rewarded for it. It is we the western barbarians who want to have wars and fight every one from our own wives to the next door neighbor. This is not the Chinese civilization we are up against!
You are right on many counts, Peter,especially the currency. The Opium Wars begged for revenge and the West has opened the door by leaving financiers to self-regulate and by worshiping greed. I read the Kissinger book soon after publication. The doubt is whether we will be well rewarded. We need to keep our farms, firms and public works in Australian ownership.
Yes I agree Jerry, China will buy our assets if we are foolish enough to sell them, but I doubt if they will take by force; that’s not their nature. And yes the Anglo/ American financial system is at the heart of our decay. Deng Xiaoping realized this when he began the reforms in 1978 adopting the German rather than the Anglo/American banking system. China knows full well what happened to Japan when the Japanese economy started to challenge the US in the 1980’s. China won’t fall for that trick i.e. modernizing their financial system along American lines.
I have always thought financialised capitalism was the problem, Peter, and whether the President was Joe Biden, Donald Trump or Donald Duck was a minor matter.
Jerry my reading suggests that it all goes back to the industrial revolution. English banks would not lend to innovators unless they could present title to land as security. Thus the landed gentry! Germany who started behind caught up through developing a different system of banking. Montague Norman Govenor of the Bank of England in the early 1920s actively decried lending to farmers and manufactures encouraging instead financial services. Deng Xiaoping cleverly recognized the value of the German system. And yes dependency on Financial services rather than GDP growth encouraged by bank lending to productive enterprises has led to corruption of a mammoth proportions. Because of the dire consequences no one dare look!
Insightful points! I think very much on the money.
Especially the point about the historical humiliation. Calling for an Iraqi-WMD-style investigation of the Corona virus in China, presumably with extra-territorial investigators, including Australians, was just about the most incredible insult you could hurl at the Chinese. It absolutely reminded them of their past humiliations by western barbarians!
Maybe Scott from Marketing could not care less about the effect on the Chinese. But I believe it was this one step that tipped the Chinese into a determination to exact severe economic punishment on Australia. And it is by no means over. They are doing us in, slowly.
Agree with you, Man Lee. It was foolish because it was insulting and ignorant. So little is known about the virus and the Chinese are not the only people conducting gain of function research. There are four theories on the origins of Covid-19, to my knowledge, including the outer space hypothesis of Ted Steele and Chandra Wickramasinge.
Tis a complete fallacy to assert that China seeks economic supremacy. China is governed by a communist party and so seeks economic development to pull the peoples of China and indeed of other nations of the BRI out of poverty and indeed to restore the much ravaged ecosystems of China. Nothing more nothing less.
Stephen yes it could be a fallacy. Only time will tell.
The same CCP with a similar leader that killed 40+ million of its own people. Yeah, right.
And we’re your sources those that told us Iraq had WMD or kept silent on US complicit NESS in the indonesian genocides under Suharto.
This is laughable, are you denying the Great Leap Forward?
Your friends are at it again.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-02-03/uyghur-renew-calls-for-action-report-rape-abuse-xinjiang-camp/13118190
White has always been on the timid side even though he has recently advocated many submarines, massive rearming and nuclear weapons.
Being timid just encourages China to be aggressive.
The West has to go for broke in every avenue such as trade, immigration, politics, foreign investment, a massive lncrease in nuclear submarines, bombers, missile ships, etc, and a crash research and development program to invent the next weapon equivalent to the nuclear weapon which could particle beam laser.
Living with a dominant Communist China would be worsethan dying for those who survive.
The Chinese have a much bigger population and more engineers than the west combined. Why do you think that the west would necessarily win in the arms race? I guess you know that China already has a bigger and newer navy than the USA, more land based armaments and it is only in air defences and that the USA has the advantage and even that is closing fast. Nuclear of course is the USA strong suit but I assume you would not advocate their use.
I say this because personally I would rather my grandchildren live even under a totalitarian regime than die in a nuclear holocaust.
Who knows whether your or my children would be better off alive under a communist regime who has killed 50 million of its population in the last 50 years? Ask the many groups who are being decimated by the Communists.
Freedom is not free and has to be fought for and cost 70 million lives in WW2.
If China is ever to be deterred they have to be convinced that if we suffer the wrath of Chinese nuclear attacks and are wiped out there will not be one Chinese person left alive in China in retaliation.
You really have set a very low bar by tying the welfares of your grand children to the aggressiveness and brutality of a communist state.
I don’t accept that the West cannot overwhelm China in a conventional conflict and cannot quickly rearm if push comes to shove.
If China wants Armageddon with nuclear weapons they should be prepared to die too.
It has been the law of the jungle since man first walked the earth.
Bobby
You have a right to speak for yourself but not for me. I would trade life for freedom these days. Of course when i was young and idealistic i may have favoured fighting etc, but not if it means the death of my grandchildren. Call me an appeaser and you may be right, but faced with the reality of saving the life of my grandchildren”or fighting for someone else’s freedom, sorry but I know where I will be.
You may be shocked by this but for the average 17 year old Chinese kid, they think we live in a repressive society. Our alcohol and smoking laws they see as repressive. Freedom is a very subjective concept.
Your comment re Chinese lives is frankly genocidal and quite appalling. It of course assumes that China strikes first, which it will never do because it has less nukes. The sad reality is that if there is a “kinetic war”, the USA may lose an aircraft carrier or two and then decide to strike China first. What would then be your response if some gentlemen in China thought just like you and say that if the US strikes China first then there will not be any Americans or Australians left alive.
Actually you do not need to imagine such a statement because Putin has already made it, stating categorically that if any sort of Nuke lands in Russia he will doomsday the USA.
Well i have no doubt Napoleon and Hitler also thought they could overcome Russia. I think that reality in recent years suggests that the west could NOT rapidly rearm if push comes to shove. The US did a fantastic job in WWII but it has a much much narrower industrial base than it had then and also far fewer competitors in the game. China is building warships at the rate of 10-20 per year much faster than the USA, but spending much much less. China seems to be in the position that the USA was in 1941.
How about we rephrase your last paragraph If USA wants Armageddon with nuclear weapons they should be prepared to die too. It has been the law of the jungle since man first walked the earth. Now I assume you and your family will be the first volunteers.
You cannot be serious? For starters China has no experience whatsoever in running a blue water fleet in battle, nor do they have the experience in coordinating their various defence force components in a large conflict. The continuous claims about China’s missile capability is just that, claims. If the claims about the speed and range of these missiles were anywhere near true they’d not needed the islands they’ve made in the SCS.
I’d say I’d rather go to war than have my children etc under a CCP regime.
dne
I take it then that you and your children have joined the military, offering to work in the front line. If not, then you have no right to lecture others about willingness to go to war. If your house or that of your parents is bombed and friends killed or wounded will you think the same. Australians have little experience of war on their own soil (except Darwin) and cannot grasp its true implications.
That comment about no blue water training etc makes me laugh. In the modern era, 95% of that stuff is taught via computer simulations and games. It no doubt was true in 1990 but I suspect these days is a bit of an old man’s fantasy.
Moreover the US navy did not cover itself with glory when its ships kept hitting cargo vessels. This was put down to limited training and overwork. I assume that the situation is now much better but it suggests that a few years ago at least the US Navy in the Pacific was a tad under-prepared.
Janet, a couple of days ago D_N_E came out and told us that he supported a war against China, after having avoided the issue for a very long time. So his concern for people like the Uyghurs which he uses to bolster his human rights credentials, is somewhat diminished by the fact that if you are mainland Han Chinese person, Taiwanese, or any other close by country, he doesn’t give a toss.
“https://www.nbcnews.com/news/china/south-china-sea-dispute-international-court-rejects-china-s-claims-n607641”
An outright falsehood, George, but that doesn’t surprise me! What I said was I would support Australia joining the US IF China invade Taiwan. That’s it.
I refer anyone to the article below and see themselves:
Taiwan: a ‘wicked’ strategic problem for Australia
By MIKE SCRAFTON | On 1 February 2021
There Skilts asks: “Do you support Australia going to war against PRC over Taiwan? ”
D_N_E’s response was an emphatic: “YES I DO! ”
And that is the matter under discussion in this thread, and what is pointed out by Hugh White is the hideous consequences for the entire region, and the world. Great humanitarian solution D_N_E, it should wipe out the Uyghurs as well.
It doesn’t matter how you qualify your answer, there is nothing to say that China is intending to invade Taiwan. And if you could read more widely you’d find that China’s recent actions were all about Pompeo and other anti-China hawks had been suggesting regime change in China, and that they had been meddling (with the details provided) in the affairs in the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mark Valencia’s article explained it, but also the Chinese have been telling us for weeks. But of course unlike our side they always lie.
But don’t worry, things have settled down, and I don’t expect Biden to push the envelope with abusive and racist tweets, and Pompeo is out of the picture now in terms of being part of Trump’s appalling government. China is hoping for better relations with the US, and John Howard who took us into Iraq, thinks Morrison should urgently meet Xi Jinping, and tone down the rhetoric a bit. I guess he must be a Neville Chamberlain, but then he is probably more worried about the economy
Janet, here is a C&P of the conversation that George has deliberately misquoted.
Skilts d_n_e • 2 days ago • edited
Hi there. Just a genuine question. Do you support Australia going to war against PRC over Taiwan? You can characterize it any way you want. Lets assume you don’t support our eleven surface vessel navy steaming fearlessly into the Taiwan Strait to unilaterally fight on the side of the brave freedom loving people of Taiwan (lets be generous) but you are storming the beaches with your favorite marines. But declare yourself now. Well do you?
d_n_e Skilts • 2 days ago
YES I DO! It’s an independent country with a democratic government elected by its people. If you were asking about HK I my answer would be NO, because despite the fact the CCP has behaved appallingly there, it is their territory, but they don’t own the people, like all authoritarian govs seem to think they do.
Janet, I’ve done no more than have! Otherwise don’t lecture me that I should accept a yoke as if there is no alternative.
Your comment on sim battle is what is ignorant. Yes, and what do you know of the Chinese, nothing.
Your comment on Australians not able to grasp the implications of war are no different to modern China, or most nations today.
Btw Janet, do you speak English, German or Japanese?
dne
What I said applies to every person who advocates war etc (or indeed other forms of risk). If you believe sincerely that it is better for Australians to fight a war to protect Taiwan or any other place, that is your perfect right. You and any of your willing family members should volunteer.However it is not your right to sacrifice MY family to that cause.
While perhaps not going so far as to be a committed pacifist, as I grow older I see more and more that the fighting option rarely leads to an improved world. Revolutions can have some positive results but there is an awful lot of negatives. The French revolution was followed by the terror, then Napoleon, the restoration of the Monarchy etc. I guess the end result was positive for the people but I wonder if a more peaceful path may have led to the same result.
More recently the Arab Spring turned disastrous and the less said about the unspeakable Libyan incursion the better.
So few people especially those with a military background consider the consequences if they planned or guessed wrongly. The assumption that a foreign force (any one not just china) will be untrained and incompetent is the sort of arrogant hubris that cost Napoleon and Hitler dearly. It may be true 60-70% of the time but it is the other 30% that can be disastrous. In the specific case of China, any war close to home will give their forces an emotional strength and willingness to work long hours that the forces drawn from distant lands rarely have.
Janet, not sure about the Vietnam war, but WW1 & 2 were volunteers. Just as I have no right to send yourself or family to war, you have no right to dictate to me or my family that we should surrender unto China and live under their yoke.
I agree whole hearty about your view on war, but if that step was taken you’d be speaking German or Japanese right now. Sometimes you have no option. If you witness bullying or racist comments, what do you do? The idea of standing by while another country is invaded for no reason is the nonsense.
I can’t help but feel the war issue is a smoke screen for your support of China and the CCP in general.
dne
Sorry but that is twisting the argument for nefarious purposes.
Firstly in WWI conscription was a HUGE issue and defeated by plebiscite, largely pressured by women such as me who did not want their sons to die for British wars.
In WWII there was eventually limited conscription for immediate defence of Australia is no conscripts sent abroad although I think in time this was extended to PNG.
You clearly are very, very young or not raised in Australia. Conscription for the Vietnam war was another huge issue in 1964. conscription was by lottery would you believe.
Your problem is is essence extreme hubris. You think that Australia could send off a bunch of Aussie volunteers to lob a few bombs onto China and the Chinese navy without any blow back. It does not work like that. Yes it worked against poor rural third world Vietnam and Afghanistan but china is not some third world backwater. it has the biggest navy in the world.
If there is a kinetic war then this means China will fire back and we would lose a good proportion of our already very small navy. Moreover because Australian soil is used to assist the US in bombing sorties and to support the US navy, we in Australia will be targets. I am not sure the indigenous people of Kakadu Alice springs deserve the dust poisoning if china lobbed a big missile of bomb on Darwin or Pine gap, not to mention the impact of a nuke.
Then add it all the economic consequences – no oil, motor vehicles etc as well as no exports and consider your position. think personally and be honest. Just how much will you personally sacrifice for Taiwan. – your life?, Darwin? Sydney? your motor vehicle, your parents? nuclear winter.
Fundamentally dne, if you support going to war to defend Taiwan, you must also consider the consequences should that war fail. ie what will be the outcome for Australia if the USA loses that war. What concessions or reparations may Australia be forced to make to the victors in such a war? even if the chance of such an outcome is small, you must still consider the what ifs before you call for an armed response.
So as far as you’re concerned it’s everyone for themselves, and that means will will always be on our own, if everyone thought like you.
Yes, I would join the Taiwanese because it’s the right thing to do! Btw, maybe you should counsel China on what they have to lose, it isn’t just us.
Janet I commend you for a well reasoned out response to someone bent on war. Thank you
Thankyou
Janet if he was getting married and he was asked by the vicar “Do you take this woman to be your lawfully wedded wife” and he answered “YES I DO”. The morning after the honeymoon he would be explaining that he really didnt know the poor woman and he had been misquoted in the ceremony.
Always aggressive, and basically rude to other comment makers, it appears you are now using other peoples arguments as well to bolster your claims. No wonder you support war.
George, you’re a world leader in misrepresentation!
Something I taught you about weeks ago as well when discussing your misrepresentative comments.
Funny how you are using everybody else’s arguments that you have learned now.
So you admit you deliberately misrepresent people?
Read what I said again instead of playing games once more.
lol particle beam laser, pew pew pew. Someone had an oppressed childhood. Err what the hell are you on about? Cold war is over grandpa.
Meeple, haven’t you noticed giving China an inch and they will take a mile. South China Sea, Tibet, the reeducation camps, the millions that disappear in the night never to be seen again, the incredible military build up and you say the cold war is over.
Get Real.
The West should massively increase research in taming nuclear fusion which could lead to the invention of mobile particle beams with ranges over many hundreds of miles.
It will be the solution to the massive chinese arsenal of ballistic and hypersonic missiles which are such a problem today.
Have you noticed give the Anglos an inch and they take 2 f-cking continents, context my friend, context.
I mean China and the West have been collaborating on fusion for a while now, you are so stuck in the past cold war propaganda vortex it is a worry.
I’d imagine exploratory back-channel communications between the Xi and Biden administrations would already be happening. Blind Freddy can see that is what is needed and as soon as possible. Win win situation. “Just don’t ask about the war”. Step back the rhetoric and focus on doing something together about that elephant climate change.
The other day I was in the local shopping centre having a chat to a similarly aged old chap. Somehow the conversation turned to the Port Arthur massacre and how it was a plot by John Howard and others to take our guns from us. I asked him ‘why do we need guns?’ His answer, wait for it….’so we can protect ourselves when the Chinese invade us’. And isn’t that the conspiracy that Pauline Hansen briefly dabbled with concerning trained marksmen at Port Arthur? Oh yes, ignorance is bliss.
It was probably a false flag operation by the SAS so Howard could take our guns! (Personally, I’ve never fired a gun in my life.) I must say, I haven’t heard that theory in Australia, somewhat to my surprise, but there are plenty of crackpots in the US who argue that sort of thing. In particular, the utterly deranged new Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene who wants Democrats executed, who said the Sandy Hook massacre of 17 children was arranged by Nancy Pelosi to restrict gun rights and the California bush fires were started by Jewish-run space lasers. Where do you start with someone like that.
I thought John Howard’s reaction to Port Arthur was over the top. My shooting skills are average but Brigadier Ted Serong was an expert marksman and I recall his comment from one of Bob Santamaria’s columns saying he could not have carried out that number of shootings with such a degree of accuracy on his own.
So what are you saying, Jerry?
I support the Second Amendment. From personal experience before Port Arthur and John Howard the gun licensing laws in Western Australia were strict and sensible.
2nd amend. for the US. But what about the gun laws in the other states?
By your comments are inferring there was a conspiracy at Port Arthur? It read like you were.
There are theories. It seems unlikely because it would be so hard to organise but I suspect we are not getting the full story. I paid attention to Ted Serong who was in the thick of it in Vietnam. The brother of a friend of mine was driving the fire truck that was called in to provide shelter. I attended the funeral in the West Australian wheat belt of one of the victims, who was the niece of old school friends. I don’t know about other States. Michael Moore was interesting on the comparison between USA and Canada. I think the documentary was called Shooting for Columbine.
No offence Jerry, but theories usually require evidence, logic, reasoning etc. I’ve not heard or read anything that wouldn’t belong in the conspiracy basket on PA and third party involvement.
I generally see these situations as opportunistic rather than conspiratorial. For example the present Covid hysteria. Klaus Schwab is taking the opportunity to push the Great Reset. Likewise Milton Friedman was all over General Pinochet and Jeffrey Sachs was in like Flynn when Boris opened the gates to Moscow. Never let a good crisis go to waste. Naomi Klein writes about this sort of thing. I have no idea what John Howard was up to but I do know he is public enemy number one with the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party. So much so that the Party directed preferences to Labor in the last WA State election and contributed to Labor’s surprise victory in the seat of Pilbara. I’m no expert on firearms but I know people who are and may make further inquiries. Not my cup of tea really, d_u_e. My political interest is Keynes versus Hayek. I’m a New Dealer.
Jerry, my nephew did 5 yrs with the 82nd Airborne with 2 yrs in Iraq (infantry), I’ve ask if he can look at what’s available online and give his opinion on the number of shooters and expertise level for what occurred.
If/when I get a response I’ll get back to you.
As I recall, Ted Serong commented on the accuracy. Your nephew is a pro. I’m a rank amateur and I’m not a gun-owner but I know a lot of people who are. Thanks d_n_e
Why would the PRC invade Taiwan? Why would it even blockade Taiwan? It would take a unilateral declaration of Independence by Taiwan before China considered blockade or invasion. This doesn’t look imminent. Taiwan wouldn’t make such a declaration without strong American support. Biden can simply defuse the situation by cooling down any strong pro independence moves from Taiwan. If he wants to go the other way and back a Taiwan independent from China he will need to send American troops to Taiwan. I think that as Taiwan is a part of China then under international law this would be considered aggression and an invasion of China by the PRC and the United Nations. How is America going to sell that to it’s allies and the rest of the world, allege that China has hidden weapons of mass destruction? I can’t see it happening and I thought this article was mainly scare mongering.
Perhaps you haven’t been reading the news so much lately. China’s rhetoric has been quite belligerent, plainly threatening reunification by means of war. This is despite Taiwan not having made the declaration of independence you describe as a necessary precursor. China has backed up its threats with many incursions into Taiwanese air space, clearly intended to convey a message. I can’t believe that Taiwan would defy China so openly, and the prospect is increasingly unlikely as American power diminishes. But China would be unwise to rely too much on that. Brinksmanship is occurring on both sides.
Hello Barney. You have been very busy indeed in the comments section. I haven’t seen any plain speaking threats of invasion from the Chinese government but if you have some links I would appreciate it. Regardless of the rhetoric I don’t think China will invade Taiwan. Talk is cheap. I will wait until the troopships are loaded and embarking for Taiwan before I get seriously worried. You’re right about brinkmanship occurring on both sides. There are would be people and organizations on both sides pushing for war but I don’t think either the American or Chinese proponents will be able to sell it to their respective countries, let alone the rest of the world.
“unilateral declaration of Independence by Taiwan”? I am probably not qualified to take part in this discussion, because I have no idea what that means. Is Taiwan not independent now? That Taiwan is a ‘part of China’ is surely just aggressive posturing by the PRC, and all of the talk of recognition is ‘diplomacy’, that is to say a way of avoiding speaking the truth. We would surely subscribe to the principle of self-determination here, so if we got a vote we’d say Taiwan must stay independent. But we also have got used to peace and prosperity, by and large, so if the PRC is seriously thinking of invading Taiwan we’d like to pretend that they’re not, or else that it’s fine because really it’s already a part of ‘China’. And I’m really hoping that neither the US or China would contemplate nuclear war – surely no rational nation would take that course? Does Hugh White really think that’s regarded as an option by either side in this case, or is he being sensational?
Hello Velocite. Taiwan is independent in some ways but isn’t “independent” from China. From what I’ve read it was and currently is a province of China.
From Mike Scrafton in Monday’s blog
In 1971, the UN General Assembly recognised the People’s Republic of China (PRC) as “the only legitimate representatives of China to the United Nations”. The Australian Government “does not recognise [Taiwan] as a sovereign state and does not regard the authorities in Taiwan as having the status of a national government”.
From Godfree Roberts comments Tuesday
Taiwan ceased being an independent nation and became a Chinese client state in 1972 by the Shanghai Communiqué and the 1982 Joint Communiqué, and the August 17 Communiqué.
That it is the 23rd province of China was codified and made permanent on October 1971, when the United Nations General Assembly passed Resolution 2758, which recognized the government of the People’s Republic of China as the only legitimate representative of China at the United Nations and established the One-China Principle.
I was referring to the reality of the situation, not PRC posturing or international ‘diplomacy’. You are surely aware that Taiwan is a self-governed State and has been for over seventy years.
They’re not interested in that here and most of what they quote isn’t as simple as it’s put.
Hello Velocite. “Reality” what a concept. I agree. Taiwan is obviously a self-governing state, acting independently. As a result I was surprised to read the other day that Australia did not officially recognize Taiwan as an independent state. This is not just PRC posturing. The Australian DFAT website states under “Australia-Taiwan relationship” that after “the establishment of diplomatic relations with the PRC in 1972. Australia’s Joint Communiqué with the PRC recognised the Government of the PRC as China’s sole legal government, and acknowledged the position of the PRC that Taiwan was a province of the PRC.” and “the Australian Government does not recognise the ROC as a sovereign state and does not regard the authorities in Taiwan as having the status of a national government.” Currently only fifteen states recognise Taiwan as the ROC (and thus do not have official relations with Beijing): Belize, Guatemala, Haiti, Holy See, Honduras, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Nicaragua, Palau, Paraguay, St Lucia, St Kitts and Nevis, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Swaziland and Tuvalu. ( Not exactly heavy hitters) This may be ‘diplomacy’ but it’s a fact and it will have a real impact on how the China/Taiwan/U.S. situation will play out. As I said above I’m betting ( and hoping ) there will be no war over Taiwan.
moved
Not correct, here’s a link to the Australian communique that was signed by both govs.
I suggest a careful reading of the wording.
https://pmtranscripts.pmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/original/00003119.pdf
Again what is “China”?
Hello. Thanks for the link. I had to read it twice before I got the point. Presumably the word “acknowledge” which I then looked up the meaning of. In this particular case does it mean ‘accept’ or ‘admit the truth of’? Looking at the DFAT site it looks like the latter The Australian DFAT website states under “Australia-Taiwan relationship” that after “the establishment of diplomatic relations with the PRC in 1972. Australia’s Joint Communiqué with the PRC recognised the Government of the PRC as China’s sole legal government, and acknowledged the position of the PRC that Taiwan was a province of the PRC.” and “the Australian Government does not recognise the ROC as a sovereign state and does not regard the authorities in Taiwan as having the status of a national government.” Also, I note that currently only fifteen states recognise Taiwan as the ROC (and thus do not have official relations with Beijing): Belize, Guatemala, Haiti, Holy See, Honduras, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Nicaragua, Palau, Paraguay, St Lucia, St Kitts and Nevis, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Swaziland and Tuvalu. (Not exactly heavy hitters). So regardless of what you or I think, or the fact that Taiwan does act as an independent state, it is diplomatically and politically seen by the rest of the world as a province of China. My point (above) is that rather than seeing this as a negative or something to be contested it is actually a good thing. This is because rather than increasing the likelihood of war between America & China over Taiwan it actually decreases it. If America is serious about war in real or supposed defense of Taiwan it will need to station troops on the island. Given that the rest of the world regards Taiwan as a province of China this would amount to an invasion of China. Given its past record of deception (weapons of mass destruction) I don’t think the U.S. will be able to sell such action as legitimate to the United Nations. And I don’t think the U.S. can proceed by itself with only a few suckhole countries as another coalition of the willing. End result is world peace.
The Australian Government recognises the Government of the People’s Republic of China as the sole legal Government of China, acknowledges the position of the Chinese Government that Taiwan is a province of the People’s Republic of China, and has decided to remove its official representation from Taiwan before 25 January 1973.
Peter, my I suggest reading that again and put the emphasis on POSITION of the Chinese Gov. What they are saying is they acknowledge China’s POSITION, it doesn’t say they accept or agree with it. The DFAT site is whatever they want on the day, it has NO legal standing whatsoever. In addition the recognition of PRC as the sole gov of China is because the ROC (Taiwan) had a claim as the only legitimate gov of “China” including Taiwan (they have since reminded the claim on the mainland).
Here is a wiki entry that has all the history of the various communiques and UN statements and gives context that they don’t give you here, which makes it completely misleading.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_status_of_Taiwan
Velocity, I would suggest peterthepainter is being rather misleading.
Not correct, here’s a link to the Australian communique that was signed by both govs.
I suggest a careful reading of the wording and suggest same with some of these communiques as well as to there legal standing.
https://pmtranscripts.pmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/original/00003119.pdf
Again what is “China”?
A fairly sobering analysis apart form what Godfrey Roberts points out below, and the fact that the US, and particularly Pompeo and Trump, have been the chief antagonists pushing regime change in China during their last months in office. If anyone has been throwing fuel on the fire to attract China’s wrath it has been those two.
It outlines exactly where things could go if a conflict broke out, and that is such an attractive scenario when it compounds with climate change and the spread of what appears to be a very difficult pandemic that will still take years to resolve.
It is insanity for the hawks here and in the US to be pushing for war and the fact that the US may very well be the loser is something many people have been pointing out for a long time. Where would that place us? Goodbye Australia, that is where.
I note Peter Hartcher is spinning his utterly biased tales on cue again to day in the SMH and following the bellicose screeches from ASPI. I’m sure he is going to pick up his little wooden gun and and go off to take on China at 57:1
“It is insanity for the hawks here and in the US to be pushing for war
and the fact that the US may very well be the loser is something many
people have been pointing out for a long time.”
George, who is actually pushing for war? Which hawks? Please provide examples.
Are you alleging that Andrew Hastie, for example – a leading anti-China MP – thinks we could take on China, either by ourselves or with the US? This is one of the paranoid memes so strong on P&I, and nowhere else; here P&I forms its own little bubble rather similar to Trump-cult fantasists. For myself, I don’t believe anyone in the US or China or Australia thinks kinetic war would be a good thing, and I have never seen anyone in a position of responsibility advocate it.
It won’t surprise you to know that I thought Hartcher made some good points.
I like the term ‘kinetic war’ – as distinct to ‘cyberwar’ I presume.
I have the impression that we’re already in a cyberwar with whoever. Reading Hartcher I get the impression that much of the commentariat isn’t thinking enough about how ‘we’ might stumble into a kinetic war.
How do we limit such possibilities when so much angst is building up here about what are domestic issues in China while we do nothing to encourage both China and the United States to stay in their Pacific territorial boxes.
I learnt the term kinetic war on this website, Ian. You are right – it means guns and bombs etc. I am quite sure there is constant cyber probing by China of us and the US and of China by the US. Maybe by us, but I don’t trust Australia’s expertise. Don’t really trust the Americans’ either after that Russia debacle.
If China wants to punish Australia in terms of war, I doubt there will be missiles or invasion. They’ll just shut down the power grid and the internet and watch us suffocate. I’m pretty sure they could do that any time they chose.
I don’t agree that Taiwan is a domestic issue. Uighurs, Hong Kong, organ harvesting ,persecution of Falun Gong and Christians, this could be argued. I think our ability to influence China is infinitesmal, and to influence the US scarcely more.
Thanks Barney
I didn’t mean to suggest that Taiwan is a Chinese domestic matter. Uighurs [etc] certainly are, Hong Kong historically is though treaty arrangements complicate that one. Taiwan/Formosa on my reading of history has not been a part of China since 1896 and should be treated accordingly – with the complication of course that the then-Chinese government migrated to Taiwan in 1949!
Barney I am not going to do your homework for you. There are any number of articles that talk of the ‘wolverines’ as hawks. Read them yourself. But here, I’ll be helpful:
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/may/23/morrison-could-muzzle-his-china-hawks-but-he-wants-to-be-all-things-to-all-people
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2020/09/08/asia-pacific/politics-diplomacy-asia-pacific/australia-china-strategy/
https://www.afr.com/rear-window/tim-wolverine-wilson-s-huawei-junket-20200723-p55epd
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-12-06/australian-government-china-foreign-relations-bill-beijing/12951314
And again for your benefit a definition of ‘hawk’:
“A war hawk, or simply hawk, is a term used in politics for someone who favors war or continuing to escalate an existing conflict as opposed to other solutions. War hawks are the opposite of doves. The terms are derived by analogy with the birds of the same name: hawks are predators that attack and eat other animals, whereas doves mostly eat seeds and fruit and are historically a symbol of peace.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_hawk
They may talk of it being only a war of words, but the continued negative talk against China is as bad and any hawk in China doing the same. It brings us all closer to conflict.
As for US hawks of China, you can also google, but I’ve been emphasising for days that Pompeo’s hawkish actions post the US election, have brought the potential for conflict far more concerningly closer.
Yes I do think Hastie is pushing for war, he was also given the position of assistant defence minister by Morrison recently. Of course they don’t openly declare war on China , but there permanent anti-China rhetoric, just like Hartcher’s is throwing fuel on the fire.
I have no idea why you continue to push that this has no effect, especially after Hugh White’s very sobering analysis. Yes China does things wrong, but if you are going to constantly berate the country, with no balanced view between US opinions and Chinese opinions (non existent in our papers), as these people do, you are rubbing it up in ways that are exceedingly dangerous for all of humanity. It is the equivalent to holding up a red flag to a bull.
No, I don’t say it has no effect. I do say that being a hawk (and of course I accept your definition) is definitely not the same thing as wanting or urging war. You and many, many posters here continually accuse Australia of wanting war. You say that quite specifically and without any caveats; for many posters it’s as much an article of faith, and therefore not subject to reason, as the eternal perfidy of the US. I think it would be an insane act, and also that the charge is absurd.
Pompeo did go blundering about Asia, totally unsuccessfully. His role was very unhelpful, I agree. But that was an attempt to shore up an alliance, not to initiate a war. Being a hawk often simply consists in not wanting to give in to demands seen as unreasonable.
Hastie doesn’t trust China; he’s perfectly entitled to argue for his position in the public square. He’s been to war; I’d be very careful of charging him with wanting more. What is your evidence for saying “Hastie is pushing for war”? Do you really believe he wants Australian ships and troops and air force in an active engagement with Chinese forces? I think that’s utter nonsense. Why not confine criticism of Hastie to what he actually says on the record? There’s plenty of material for you there, surely.
Yes, I am sure debates in Australia do irritate the Chinese, and sometimes justifiably at the more hysterical end. That said, I am grateful to live in a country where you and I can have this debate.
Barney you say:
“I do say that being a hawk (and of course I accept your definition) is definitely not the same thing as wanting or urging war.”
But if you accept the definition definition it says
“someone who favors war or continuing to escalate an existing conflict as opposed to other solutions.”
“hawks are predators that attack and eat other animals”
someone who favors war or continuing to escalate an existing conflict as opposed to other solutions.” That’s the part I had in mind. Or just taking a suspicious attitude as opposed to a trusting one. Such people we have often called hawks. They usually, at least in Australia, do not want war. And, as I said, I don’t know anyone in Australia, anyone at all, who favours war with China. I ask you again, can you name any public figure in Australia whom you KNOW to favour war?
We both know plenty of people who are suspicious and untrusting of the CCP. I think you would call them hawks, but perhaps I was too quick to accept your definition because suspicion alone doesn’t justify that. Many Australians think Hastie is right to be suspicious and want our Parliament to be wary, and naturally it is entirely your prerogative to try to persuade them to see it differently. Perhaps you should post on the Australian and Spectator (as maybe you do), for there you would not be singing with the choir. I do, and there I am blasted as a brain-dead leftie and China stool pigeon. Strange, is it not?
To me you are just part of a group of people who cannot accept any other views on China, or even make any attempt to understand China’s viewpoints and cultural differences. You have the majority view just by media exposure alone, but you cannot tolerate any other view even if it is on a far smaller site like P&I.
You said you agreed with Hartcher yesterday, who is a total believer in the highly compromised ASPI. He continues in his long bromance with Morrison too with so many articles in support. His article yesterday was already titled with black and white (you are either with us or against us) claims in that anyone that disagrees with our government, the ASPI , and how he personally thinks, should be excluded from having any valid point of view.
Here’s the title: “Apologising for China’s delinquency? We’ll be sorry”
“With encouragement from apologists, Australia and others have given China an inch. But the ‘rising fascist power’ has taken a mile and will be hard to constrain.”
What has it done? Tell me.
You see, anyone with a different view immediately becomes an apologist by default. Yet none of us are apologists, nor supporters of human rights violations, that’s just a convenient ad hominem way of castigating anyone that doesn’t hold his views. And while he charges China with fascism, he’s doing a pretty good job himself.
No wonder you agree with him Barney, it is how you think too.
It even makes John Howard look like an CCP appeaser because he counselled Morrison to arrange a meeting with Xi Jinping ASAP back in November as well as pointing out that he should cool it a bit with the rhetoric.
Do you agree that Howard is a Neville Chamberlain?
Well, George, you are entitled to think of me as you like. It won’t surprise you to learn that it is a matter of indifference to me, and I am sure the reverse is true as well.
I do think of you as an apologist. You constantly criticise Australia, constantly defend Chinese positions and actions, deny Chinese abuses, and constantly put the blame on one side alone. Very seldom in life are matters so simple – I have always been prepared to admit that Australia has played its part in the current imbroglio. Very few posters here are prepared to admit the reverse.
I do not think or say this makes you a disloyal Australian, but I do think it makes you an apologist. In fact, I think you are an apologist by any definition you care to offer. And I am entitled to think of you as I like. Nevertheless I do read your views and consider them, which is why we are still talking. Of course, you consider apologist ad hominem, I think it is a rational, relatively neutral descriptor. I am an apologist for Christianity in the public square, and do not find that description insulting.
You obviously didn’t read my previous post to the end, where I said that on other sites I am called a Chinese stool pigeon. This is by people whom I do not call China apologists, who consider me far too soft on China. (That is probably because I am influenced by what I read on this site.) So your claim that anybody who differs from me is a Chinese apologist is false.
What has China done? I’ve written about this many times. It has sought to bully Australia on trade, sought to gain influence in Australia by clandestine means, bullied Australians of Chinese ethnicity, engaged in cyber investigations, been belligerent with Australia, with Taiwan, with India, with Vietnam, ignored international rulings about the South China Sea, militarised islands in disputed territories, persecuted Christians, Falun Gong, Uighurs, Tibetans, Mongols and political dissidents, engaged in organ trade from political prisoners, closed churches, broken promises to Hong Kong, lied and covered up about the Coronavirus – I could keep going for a while. I suspect you won’t accept a single one, which to me suggests that, like Nelson, you are holding the telescope to your blind eye.
Finally, I think this sentence is unworthy of you: “You have the majority view just by media exposure alone, but you cannot tolerate any other view even if it is on a far smaller site like P&I.” Frankly, George, utter bullsh!t. You post whatever you want, and my tolerance or otherwise is quite irrelevant. I’m not stopping you – I’m engaging with you. I’ve never thought of you as one of those cultural cowards who think this is “your” site and anyone who disagrees should just find their own bubble and shout into the echo chamber there. Why should only the George Wendells of the world be allowed to post on P&I? You do seem to have taken lessons from the CCP – only one view, your orthodoxy, can be tolerated.
Did you see today that Dan Tehan is brokering a FTA with Israel. He thinks he has done a good job.
But what difference is there with human rights issues, military force, spying on Australia, nuclear weapons, and treatment of Palestinians who used to live on and own the land that Israel is built on, compared to China?
Where is the government’s consistency? Shouldn’t the same rules apply to all countries? Why are we selling weaponry to Saudi Arabia with the consequences it has on Yemen?
By the way I personally don’t think of it as my site, it’s John’s. But I think you really should accept that if 99% of the media is always castigating China, then if even less than 1% supports the view that we should take a less megaphone and permanently critical approach to China, and instead used more skilful means through diplomacy while continuing to let China open up so we can share our views with Chinese people (bringing faster change), then we will get there faster than war. The war the Hugh White proposes in this article that could happen. You must know that if you are a parent that constantly berates a child, the same child will never respect the parent for it, in fact it will probably turn against the parent in the end. Do you think it works any better with China?
Show me one article where MSM actually says anything positive about the country. And speaking of cowardice, why are we following the previous US Trump government’s view hook line and sinker? What about Australia? What about our farmers and others that are missing out? What about the danger if the US doesn’t come to our defence?
Anyway I am not too worried so much about China or Taiwan that now Trump is gone, Pompeo has stepped back, and the Chinese and CCP are cooling down. It did get very close there.
So what would you call John Howard who suggests little more than I do?
I would call John Howard much stronger names than I’d call you George. And I can hardly argue with your suggestion that more skilful diplomacy would be a good idea.
More in common again. Hope we can get to know each other more through different topics, I certainly would not like it if I turned you off from writing on here. Your post today on the Jack Waterford article made me realise I”d very likely misjudged you politically speaking. I can see you are a good human being, and I, like you, only wish for peaceful solutions. As I get older I cannot cope with violence, or those who seek violent behaviour, wherever it comes from, especially when it involves children. I firmly believe in conflict resolution and mediation through genuine and skilful diplomacy.
Stop George, it’s too much. Tomorrow or the next day we’ll be at loggerheads again, and you will regret these generous remarks. In fact, I’m going to copy them so I can remind you of them at inconvenient times! 🙂
No worries
George, I’m nowhere near as generous as barney.
“As I get older I cannot cope with violence, or those who seek violent behaviour, wherever it comes from, especially when it involves children. I firmly believe in conflict resolution and mediation through genuine and skilful diplomacy.”
And if the Taiwanese people at so point down the road tire of all these diplomatic games and show the middle finger at China and declare themselves independent after a free and fair vote, you will accept their voices as final on this? And should China accept that?
I don’t think you will, your idea of genuine and skilful negotiation is code for Taiwan giving up its sovereignty. Deny it!
I reckon I qualify as a China hawk on the basis of earlier posts on Pearls and Irritations. I have corresponded with Andrew Hastie congratulating him on his stand. I hope most Australians instinctively feel sympathy for the Tibetans, Hong Kong people, Taiwanese and other groups close to China. What worries me more than anything is the Chinese Government’s attitude to the Dalai Lama. The most urgent task is to defuse the Taiwan issue because Hugh is right. It is a nuclear time bomb.
Jerry, according to the bulk of posters here, if you’re not a China Apologist, you’re a hawk. Pure and simple.
I can live with that.
It’s not anti-China, rather anti socialist China, hence the Taiwan, ‘south Korea’ Japan, Hong Kong militia, Indonesia allegiance.
Does Hastie refer to himself as a “hawk” or is that just the media throwing labels around?
There is no such thing as a “hawke”, unless it was Bob with a capital H.
I don’t care what Hastie considers himself or not, nor the rest of the ‘Wolverines’ with their claws, they display every definition of the word. How many more links do you need?
Do you also believe the Earth is flat because others say it is round?
When you see what everyone else calls an elephant do you call it a banana?
And you of all people who finally exposed himself yesterday as someone who supported war with China, you are that ‘hawk’ you cannot even see when others are hawks.
Sorry barney, I didn’t’t read this response completely when I first came across it, but your 2nd last para hit the nail dead centre.
I think Hugh is spot-on. The nuclear risk is high. The people with the most ability to defuse the situation are the Chinese top brass and their government led by Xi. Will they have the wisdom not to call America’s bluff?
Few may agree with me but I have more faith in the wisdom of Xi and his entourage than the US.
That’s the point, Peter. It is too dangerous to play bluff with the United States nuclear power. I have been in stock yards with angry and confused bulls and you just don’t know what they are going to do.
“…… US carrier forces showed the flag in the South China Sea;” …. Beijing launched provocative air manoeuvres…”
Benign versus the nasty!! Shows an old mindset.
“But who can say that Biden would be wrong in making this choice for his country, as the lesser of two great evils?”
The two great evils seem to be to stop stirring tensions/trouble between China and Taiwan or to live in peace. What a choice for the US President!
Really: US sails through international waters Vs China flies military aircraft (fighters & bombers) through Taiwanese airspace?
Broadly speaking I agree with Hugh. ‘We’ all allowed China to take up its claims in the South China Sea without much of a peep about the ruling that recognised the claims of Philippines, Brunei, Vietnam, Indonesia, etc, over those of China. While I don’t accept China’s claims over the South China Sea I do acknowledge that, as with Tibet, Inner Mongolia, etc, there may be some legitimacy in China’s claims that it has long had interests in the South China Sea. There’s also legitimacy in China’s claims to a a long-standing interest in the East China Sea but on my reading of history Taiwan/Formosa was never part of a historical China. I don’t like the thought but I cannot see but that ‘we’ have to say ‘enough’ if China exerts muscle over Taiwan. Australia as part of the ‘we’ will need to be very careful that it doesn’t over-reach on any Chinese threat to Taiwan because we wont be in the forefront of the military (or strategic) thinking of our big, powerful and geographically very distant friend. As Hal implies Australia really needs to be more open about its dialogues with other friends who have skin in this game (ie Japan, Korea, Southeast Asian countries, Taiwan indeed) as to how we might face up to China
If you are referring to the Arbitration there was no “ruling”. Firstly the corrupt Aquino Manila oligarchs
by initiating the arbitration case, was the party that broke its own commitment made in the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea, signed between China and members of the ASEAN, which states that disputes should be resolved by those countries directly involved, through friendly consultations and negotiations. Territorial disputes (such as those in the South China Sea) cannot be addressed by the Permanent Court of Arbitration under UNCLOS, the Philippines did not present its case as a territorial dispute. Instead, the Philippines’ concerns related to: the legality of China’s nine-dash line, on whose basis China claims the maritime features in the South China Sea; the nature of the maritime features, i.e. whether they qualify as islands (in which case they would generate an Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and an entitlement to a continental shelf) or as shoals (in which case they generate no more than 12 nautical miles of territorial sea, hence undermining China’s claims); and whether China’s land reclamation activities affected the nature of these maritime features. Basically the PCA stated that the nine dash line legality has been wiped out by PRC signing on to UNCLOS and the islands are not islands. There was no “judgement”. It was an arbitration. And one which PRC declined to participate. For balance it should be noted that the urger of this action the US is neither a signatory to UNCLOS nor the PCA and is not bound by any arbitration. Nice.
Can you read a map?
https://i.insider.com/55f8259cbd86ef11008ba4ad?width=1188
Go have a look at that and tell again about China’s claim.
This goes to show you are just a China Apologist.
How does building those island go with ASEAN, can you tell me what the International Court ruled on their claim?
Hi there. You are like a sinophobic sponge. Where did you that get that cartoon from? It says the US is opening four military bases in the Philippines. Really? Duterte just booted the US out of the Philippines. I think i tried to explain what happened. It was NOT a judgement of court. Sorry about the caps mate but jeez its hard sometimes. Do you understand the difference between an arbitration and a court ruling? Arbitration is a voluntary and consensual process. Unlike national courts, an arbitral tribunal will not have inherent jurisdiction to decide a dispute. An arbitral tribunal will only have jurisdiction if all parties to the dispute have agreed to submit their disputes to arbitration. PRC did not submit itself to the arbitration. The Philippines funded by the US submitted the issues but not the territorial dispute because the PCA cannot rule on territorial disputes. As for ASEAN the US/ Philippines referral was in breach of the ASEAN Declaration for the Conduct for Parties in the South China Sea. Which is why no other ASEAN country followed Aquino into the PCA. The Aquino corrupt oligarch gang was booted out of office by the Philippine people in an overwhelming vote for Duterte after this nonsense. The Duterte government and the PRC have reverted to the ASEAN Declaration and are resolving the territorial issues bilaterally. The PCA “ruling” in this instance is basically the equivalent of dunny paper in international law. By the way the Nine Dash line (actually 12 Dash line – the PRC reduced it some time ago) was drawn in 1947 by the KMT and is supported by the freedom loving government of Taiwan so i guess you will be pretty devastated by the Nine Dash line being over ruled by PRC signing up to UNCLOS? Champ have you read the arbitration? Give it a read.
First up, you can’t read! I was referring to the map and the stated claim that China has on the SCS, didn’t even bother to read the txt as it has nothing to do with the claim.
Your arbitration nonsense is just that, it was a ruling by the International Court, it hears via arbitration as no country for sovereignty issues can have its decisions imposed on them like an Australian court can impose a court decision on any person in this country. One of the reasons Australian courts are reticent to hear cases if there is an issue of enforcing a decision on someone outside the country.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/china/south-china-sea-dispute-international-court-rejects-china-s-claims-n607641
Your ad hominem has gone from you accusing me of being a paid agent of Beijing (i wish mate – the yuan’s would come in handy to supplement the generous pension) to being a “China Apologist”. i will take this as a mellowing on your part.
You are having issue with dementia, remember, I called you that as you’d changed from your name to SKILTS (you blamed discus) and your new name showed you only posting here and always on your beloved China.
I have posted as Skilts on Big Footy as a South Melbourne Bloods supporter for years. I had two Disquis ID’s. Called after the great Bobby Skilton. Thats Australian Rules champ. Look it up. By the way where are residing now ? The Lucky Star of the comments board. LOL
Perth WA. Perth born. Lived across the northern top of Australia over a ten yr period, 3 yrs in Brissy, lived in the M.E. for 2 yrs and HK for 5 yrs. The rest in Perth.
Hate to disappoint you, but I’m not American, though I have family there and have spent quite a bit of time passing through there, via work.
lololol I’m guessing it’s a dig, but excuse my ignorance, what’s the Luck Star of the comments board mean?
You dont know who Lucky Starr was? He like you has been everywhere. You claim to have lived in the Middle East, Hong Kong, China, in a closed community (prison/seminary/?) the Kimberlies (sic) Halls Creek and about ten other joints in Qld, NT and WA. And you have apparently passed through the US. Mate you have been in more joints than i have been in hot baths. And you dont know who Lucky Starr was? Look him up on Wiki. Mate you seriously make my day. Every day. Thanks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpRvAnhHfmc
Yeah Skilts, I guess as a pilot, I am lucky!
Btw, didn’t say I’d lived in China. Holidayed there and to and fro from work.
You certainly are flying high here in the comments section. You are good for laugh mate. Good on you.
lololol maybe so, but you could definitely could do with some oxygen!
I’d have to say I’m somewhat jealous, driving a train would have be good fun (freight train not suburban, though I wouldn’t have knocked it back), along with a ship’s captain except the time away from home.
You are the Biggles of the comments Board. Fly in and fly out carpet bombing the Chinese Apologists, Fu Manchu secret agents and Beijing gold pensioners.
From now on you are Biggles.
If conventional war breaks out, I agree with Hal Duell assessment about who wins and nuclear war – all f….ed. I would project a bit further. Initially Japan and South Korea will send token forces to the conflict and when the conventionally is not winnable and the US started to talk about nuclear weapon, things will chanage; Russia will entry the conflict with an opportunity to use its nuclear arsenal on American soil (revenge for losing Cold War 1) when nukes starts flying (not easily to detect for certain where it was launched); Japan and South Korea will change sides for fear of being wiped out by nukes. from China or Russia. Russia can sell nukes to China at a discount. In this bad dream, where does Australia stand? All they have to do is to target Australia’s 7 high population density cities. Given the choices, I rather have peace and properity for all in the planet. If it happens, history (if there were subsequent authors left after MAD) will record that we talk ourselves into a war.
Beijing has long claimed Taiwan as its rightful territory?
Claimed?
Taiwan ceased being an independent nation and became a Chinese client state in 1972 by the Shanghai Communiqué and the 1982 Joint Communiqué, and the August 17 Communiqué.
That it is the 23rd province of China was codified and made permanent on October 1971, when the United Nations General Assembly passed Resolution 2758, which recognized the government of the People’s Republic of China as the only legitimate representative of China at the United Nations and established the One-China Principle.
suggest you read the wording of those communiques. What is China?
Two things come to mind when I read this article. Firstly, the US had been able to live peacefully with China until the Obama and Trump administrations. With the UN recognition of China in 1971, Taiwan kept its sovereignty, protected by the US. There was more than tacit understanding that Taiwan was part of China instead of the other way around. The peaceful co-existence between China and Taiwan soured when two pro-independence Presidents, Chen Shui-bian and Tsai Ing-wen were elected into power. They seem to coincide roughly with a period when China was rising too rapidly for the comfort of the US. Foreign Secretary Hilary Clinton in a candid moment even asked Kevin Rudd:
“How do you deal toughly with your banker?” https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/dec/04/wikileaks-cables-hillary-clinton-beijing
Therefore, what this shows is that the US can live in peaceful coexistence with China if it chooses to. The handwringing now seems to be precipitated by a feeling of despondency at what it sees as its lost of hegemony in the region.
The second idea is the manner in which the rise of China is presented by writers. The word “hegemony” is always used on China as if it is a deliberate political ploy rather than the natural outcome of its monumental economic growth and the influence it is having on the smaller economies of the region.
Fear is as much self-generated as it is an external reality. The hawks are great at self-generated fear mongering. It is better to view the situation from a realist point of view. The contribution above is as close as one can get to a realistic analysis of a complex situation.
TLT
The world of course has changed a lot since 1971, so it is probably not cut and dried for anything political, economic or strategic will be the same now. Back in 1971 the USA was really scared of Russia not China, and indeed I have read many places that the USA became friendly with China in order to place an enemy along Russia’s border. It sort of worked too for a while. At that time China was weak economically and militarily. US was more worried about Japan economically and Russia militarily.
Then after the collapse of the USSR, the US was top dog economically and militarily, Japan having been stalled economically. So Clinton (Bill) could live happily with a weak China and Russia and of course GWB had such hubris that he could set out to invade all sorts of middle eastern countries, confident that there was no one to stop him.
None of this has been really true since about 2000, although it took a while for it to be obvious.
Hi Janet, I agree that the US courted Chinese friendship because the Soviet/Chinese relationship was at an all time low. Strategically, it was a perfect arrangement to have an enemy at the front, NATO, and an enemy at the back, China, to keep the Soviets honest.
I think we sort of agree that the US could live with a weak China but not a strong one like it is today. I think that they could still live with a strong China if they are not so obsessed with wanting to be the worlds most dominant power all the time.
“There was more than tacit understanding that Taiwan was part of China instead of the other way around. ”
Absolute rubbish! The agreements are notes of understanding of how China views Taiwan, not acceptance of that position but an acknowledgement of their position, which is why the west continued to trade with Taiwan, if the west agreed with China we would simply stop trading and in no time Taiwan would be back under Chinese control. Taiwan could not last without west acceptance. Your argument is pure bs!
Bit like Tasmania being take back under control of Australia.
No, Tasmania has always been part of Australia, the same cannot be said of Taiwan with regards to China.
The west pays lip service to China’s claim on Taiwan to enable trade, and that is it. No real recognition, just lip service!
The island of Formosa now Taiwan has been within China’s territory far longer than the period since the British monarchy committed genocide against First Nations peoples of what is now referred as Tasmania. The remains of the Kuomintang, having split from the Communist Party of China and subsequently defeated by the CCP despite military support of the US
fled to the Island of Formosa at the time of the coming to being of the Peoples Democratic Republic of China, and so began the long patient campaign to return Formosa to China.
Rubbish, a simple wiki search will show that.
If America claims it owns what was once American Indian land, and Australia via the British claims it owns indigenous Australian lands, then China has every right to claim Taiwan as part of China. Wiki search does nothing to change that, that’s just another one of your ploys.
In fact Qing dynasty claims go further back than British claims over Australia, and at least Taiwan is close to China compared to the colonial takeovers of Britain with Australia and the US, thousands of kilometres away from England.
If you actually read your history you’ll find the US gave back Taiwan to China under Chiang Kai-shek at the end of WWII in the Pacific. Why does a change in leaders in China due to the outcome of the Chinese civil war make any difference?
Whataboutism lolololololol
China can claim whatever it likes, the point is will the rest of the world agree and stand by and do nothing. On this you and P&I have lost the argument, public opinion is firmly against China on this. And I doubt it will just be us, I think you’ll find japan, Korea, UK and most of the EU.
If China moves on Taiwan that is likely to result in a war with the US and that war will likely go nuclear especially if China got the upper had, and then we will all lose.
If you’re so concerned about the civilian casualties of war, ring Xi up and tell him to pull his head in instead of accusing others of being war mongers for daring to support a democratic country.
What some bunch of partial internet amateurs is now the source of truth on China and Taiwan? Just laziness on your part not being able to read scholarly texts.
What scholarly text would that been? Diplomatic communiques are now “scholarly” texts?
Hsu’s”The Rise of Modern China” for one. Not sure about your reference to DC’s.
Always? , oh so the First Nations peoples of country now referred to as Tas… were, like the Kuomintang, nationalists?
Oh please, the situations are not even the same. Can you point to me when indigenous Tasmanians last made claim to independence? No, didn’t think so.
Well they can’t very well make a claim given white fellas like your self wiped them off the map. Always? does that include prior to 1788 or does history stop at 1788?
s
Omg, how pathetic is that! With that well thought out reply I’m guessing you’re a Dr of Naturopathy; pseudoscience and pseudohistory.
Answer the questions please.
There is no one to claim Tasmania on behalf of the aboriginals, plus even if there was international law would not give recognition to any such claim. There is no recognition of China’s claim to Taiwan, go look at the communiques etc and they will mean whatever the writer wants them to mean.
The west does not recognise China’s claim, they just acknowledge China claims Taiwan.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_status_of_Taiwan
Say what you like the west does not agree with your interpretation of the docs that you lot keep referring to ad nauseum
Moved
Lip service! It was part of the surrender of Japan in WII. Thats some lip service. 45 million dead and two atomic bombs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_status_of_Taiwan
Mate the biggest trading partner of Taiwan is the PRC accounting for nearly 30 percent of the island’s total trade, and trade between the two in 2018 was $150 billion (up from $35 billion in 1999). Your point about “if the west agreed with China we would simply stop trading and in no time Taiwan would be back under Chinese control” is with respect a nonsense.In 1979, the United States established formal diplomatic relations with PRC by concluding a
joint communique stating that “the United States of America acknowledges the
Chinese position that there is but one China and Taiwan is part of China”. The Cairo Declaration of 1 December 1943 was accepted by Japan in its surrender. This document states that Taiwan was to be restored to the Republic of China at the end of World War II. Likewise, the Potsdam Declaration of 26 July 1945, also accepted by Japan, implies that it will no longer have sovereignty over Taiwan by stating that “Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands. The international law position is that Taiwan is part of sovereign China (PRC). Unless you want to undo WWII and the surrender of Japan.
The UN settled this issue in 1971 with Resolution 2758 which is binding on all member nations. I am not sure what you mean by the “West”? Presumably the “white countries of the world”, because it is not a geographic notion, as Australia is the southern continent, so its a racial definition, were part of the UN. Unless i missed something does the UN have a “white nations” bloc? Help me here?
https://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/2758(XXVI)
““the United States of America acknowledges the Chinese position that there is but one China and Taiwan is part of China”
Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. It does the same as our communique; it acknowledges China’s position, it doesn’t assert any acceptance of China’s position, we just understand that they claim it. That is it! That does not recognise Taiwan as part of China!
This is getting embarrassing. The UN Resolution 2758 and the surrender by Japan of its sovereignty of Taiwan under its surrender to the sovereign government of China has settled it. Its all over champ. Take a spell.
https://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/2758(XXVI)
in response to your usual misleading posts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_status_of_Taiwan
I think America has already lost its dominant position in East Asia. China is now dominant. China is the nation building the infrastructure that will determine East Asia’s future. This is a work in progress, but it is well underway.
What is America doing that in any way matches China’s moves in building up rail networks, energy networks, trade networks, financial networks and diplomatic initiatives?
The short answer is, nothing. All of East Asia, with the exception of Australia, is now within China’s sphere of influence.
So America threatens war, over Taiwan principally, and in the South China Sea. If a war stays conventional, China wins. If it goes economic, China wins. If it tips over into nuclear, we are all fucked.
So, the question becomes, who is sitting at America’s China desk? And, who is in command of the various armed forces who would be tasked to launch.
As to the first question, the China desk, I am less than confident that the recycled mischief-makers hired by Team Biden can see beyond their own delusions of unipolar grandeur.
As to the second, the Generals and Admirals in command have all been reared in a blinkered assumption of America’s supremacy. Can they see past that?
A third question is what about Japan and South Korea, the two Asian nations currently occupied by America? Are they willing to risk destruction? Do they have a choice?
I am leaving Australia out of that third question. We seem to have degraded our possible chance to have our views considered to put us on a par with Puerto Rico.
Manifest Destiny carried America across North America and then across the Pacific. Then Viet Nam happened, closely followed by China emerging into what it now is. Asia is Asian, not American. Will America destroy us all before they can admit that? We have to hope there are minds on the Carrier Groups and in the Command Centres who can still think.
Without war, or the threat of war, what has America to offer? Seriously, what has America to offer?
Democracy? Did you follow that last election over there?
The dollar? That’s a shell game if ever there was one.
Wake up, Australia. Urge caution by all means, but wake up!
Hal, I appreciate your brutal statement “Asia is Asian, not American. Will America destroy us all before they can admit that?”
I read somewhere that Australia and Julie Bishop helped in the revision of “Asia-Pacific” to “Indo-Pacific”. Just because you take the word ‘Asia’ out, it doesn’t mean 1.4 billion Chinese disappear from the region!
Must be an Australian thing that we are so freaking fearful of being IN Asia!
Well, surely we are in Australasia rather than Asia. Certainly the Asians I spoke to when I used to travel thought so. But Asia certainly is our best hope of a peaceful and prosperous future. Why are you so sure that we are “freakingly fearful of being in Asia”? I’m not. Asians are people, Australians are people, there are millions of Asians in Australia and for the most part we all get on fine.
Good to hear. But if we are all hunky-dory, politicians from both sides would not have regularly played on the bogeyman of the Yellow Peril ever since the arrival of a handful of Chinese gold miners in the 19th century.
As it currently is, if you are a politician in Australia, and you don’t have at least some anti-China credentials (and by implication anti-Chinese), you don’t win in elections.
But I agree that we all do get along for the most part. Australia, despite what I have said, is a wonderful home for so many. We just need to be kinder to our Aboriginal people, more decent in how we treat refugees… .
Very true.
Spot on but why just urge caution? How about a declaration that we will not go to war over Taiwan as it clearly is not in our strategic interest. This can be done easily and without the loss of potentially millions of lives. The US domination of Asia is over. This is not appeasement. The demand of PRC to sovereignty has already be appeased by Nixon. The lunatics in Canberra who want to turn the clock back have to be challenged directly. Ask most Australians if this country is willing to follow the US into another disastrous Asian war. Vietnam our “enemy” last time is now being actively courted by the morons in the LNP. Call their bluff here. Not in the Taiwan Straits. This is the most urgent and critical issue in Australian politics. And that gutless wonder Albanese just feels our pain apparently. Give him the arse as a matter or urgency, replace him with a real woman and the ALP must be committed to peace. Most Australians will not support a war with PRC.
Good points from Hugh and Hal.
I would not describe Dr Kurt Campbell AO, coord for EAP in the Biden NSC, as a ‘recycled mischief-maker’.