ASPI’s executive director Peter Jennings is banging the war drums over Taiwan again. He would have Australia automatically marching into a war in defence of the island. Why would Australia go to war over Taiwan?
Sovereignty has been elevated in Australia’s national interests to near sacred status. But to argue for joining a US defence of Taiwan’s sovereignty would be specious. 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”.
In US policy the significance of Taiwan has shifted with political and geostrategic developments. In the early years of the Cold War, John Foster Dulles believed that if Formosa (Taiwan) fell to the Chinese Communist forces, US resolve would appear weak, and the Soviets could establish an important military presence in East Asia.
The 1972 joint Sino-US communique stated: “There is but one China and Taiwan is a part of China.” In 1979, China and America commenced formal diplomatic relations and President Carter ended formal relations with Taiwan, abrogated the mutual defence treaty, and withdrew all military forces from Taiwan. After pro-Taiwan US legislators passed the Taiwan Relations Act that re-established the previous situation with Taiwan, and in particular the defence arrangements and arms sales, the Reagan Administration subsequently negotiated another communique in 1982. This made clear the US had no intention of threatening China’s sovereignty or seeking the separation of Taiwan.
In the post-Cold War era, the US position on Taiwan’s sovereignty has continued to displease at times the Chinese and the Taiwanese. In Senate testimony in September 2020, Assistant Secretary of State David Stilwell reiterated longstanding US policy on Taiwan. He stated that the United States “will not take a position on sovereignty” which was “to be worked out between” the PRC and Taiwan.
Geographically, China would gain no significant military advantage from possessing Taiwan. Just 130 kilometres separates Taiwan from the mainland. Potential Chinese targets, in South Korea, Japan and Southeast Asia, are closer to military installations on the mainland, and the opportunities to interdict shipping in the South China Sea would not be enhanced. Any adversary assets in the Taiwan Straits or on the island are already extremely vulnerable to overwhelming attack from China.
Instability in East Asia would not increase nor the strategic situation be transformed if China took possession of Taiwan. The defence of Australia would be unaffected by a PRC takeover of Taiwan. The relative military situation in East Asia would remain unchanged, and there would be no increase in the direct military threat to Australian territory.
Jennings does raise the key strategic issue. China “might just commit a military blunder of globally disastrous proportions” if the US was determined to resist an invasion of Taiwan. The potential is great for such an encounter to spill over into a major war between two great powers. The longer-term consequences for Australia from such a war would be multidimensional and disastrous.
Yet, for Jennings: “[W]hatever Biden does about Taiwan, he will expect Japan and Australia to be there. There is no exit strategy from our own region.” More emphatically, Paul Dibb has claimed: “[T]aiwan certainly comes within the ANZUS Treaty’s definition of an armed attack in ‘the Pacific Area’. If Australia didn’t rush to the defence of Taiwan, it “would be seen in Washington as the ultimate betrayal of our alliance commitment in our own region of primary strategic concern.” Dibb further claims that “[I]f Taiwan isn’t worth defending, why would anyone come to Australia’s defence?” Like Jennings, Dibb seems to be saying Australia has little discretion over going to war over Taiwan in the event that the US does.
Leaving aside whether these positions are misrepresentations of Australia’s ANZUS treaty obligations, these strategic experts never discuss how the military encounter might unfold in East Asia. While the exact details cannot be known, some aspects of the conflict between the US and China can be surmised.
The fighting could not be restricted to the island, the straits and proximate areas. Chinese forces would be operating from a range of locations on the mainland, and US forces would be operating from bases across East Asia and the Pacific. These would all necessarily be targets. In theatre, initially, China would have the preponderance of forces, and a combined amphibious and air assault would succeed quickly, with US and allied forces in the region suffering substantial early losses, as would the Chinese.
In that scenario, the decision confronting the US and its allies would be whether to abandon Taiwan as lost or regroup for a major campaign for its recovery. What would the objective be? To expend enormous human and other resources to recapture an island within a stone’s throw of China’s mainland, and fortify it in perpetuity? Perhaps launch a full-on war to convince China to surrender its claim?
What Jennings and Dibb are proposing is the subordination of Australia’s strategic autonomy to that of the US in order to maintain an alliance that may lead the country into a major war with devastating consequences for Australia. The economic disruption would be enormous. There is a high probability that Australia would suffer direct and significant casualties and destruction of infrastructure, not to mention the obliteration of its military power. The potential global consequences are incomprehensible.
Taiwan remains a ‘wicked’ strategic problem. The Taiwanese have over time established strong claims for their autonomy. The US has a huge investment in Taiwan’s security, while not denying it is part of China. The consensus in Australia still seems to be that the alliance is a strategic requisite. However, defence of Taiwan could see the island devastated, the ANZUS alliance become irrelevant, and Australia’s security lost. What objective justifies this? Taiwan is not Czechoslovakia in 1939. Defence of Taiwan is not defence of sovereignty.
The experts who default to wanting Australians to rush into war need to give a full account of what exactly they are asking of Australians.
Mike Scrafton was a Deputy Secretary in the Victorian Department of Sustainability and Environment, senior Defence executive, CEO of a state statutory body, and chief of staff and ministerial adviser to the minister for defence.
Comments
131 responses to “Taiwan: a ‘wicked’ strategic problem for Australia”
It appears homo “sapiens” thought processes have stagnated where people still perceive other people and nations as the “enemies” whereas the real enemies have become the processes civilization has unleashed on nature and on itself, namely global heating and the nuclear radiation.
China has had Triads and Tongs for far longer than the CCP.
Why do they never feature in discussions of the future of China?
USA was created by Masons. It has never been truly democratic.
Arms sales are big business, perhaps almost as big as the US conmtrolled opium and coacaine business? Arms are also more lethal than any drug except alcohol. Buying ‘journaists’ is the best way of advocating much more than 2% of GDP be devoted to buying US arms.
Corruption is a way of altering the world. Taiwan, HK, Macao are all useful in slowly teasing apart the Empire of China into its constituent parts.
The BS posted by ASPI works because the propaganda they get fed in primary and secondary education history classes.
There is not even a country called Taiwan, there is only ROC founded in 1911 and PRC founded in 1949, both claim the same block of land that’s China (including Taiwan).
PRC was too weak to crush ROC so technically it’s still civil war over the same piece of land (including Taiwan).
What goes unsaid is that what incentive would politicians in ROC get to give up any amount of power however symbolic to PRC no matter how beneficial it is to its own population?
Best to brainwash its own plebs, demonise the mainland. KMT been doing that since 1949 and DPP is doing the same thing. It’s just political survival mate, nothing personal.
Fate of the plebs? F-ck them, they are all brainwashed anyway. Here have some Ractopamine laced imported US pork Taiwanese comrads! It’s good for you! And oh yeah I’m shutting down CTi channel for being too “pro china” in the name of free speech.
Where’s all the outrage from the democratic hippies? It’s not even reported in the propaganda press here.
I don’t think anyone should take the shrill cries of the ASPI seriously because of its dependence on a range of donors that are the usual Western players in the cultivation of war against China, and many who think they would be beneficiaries if a war broke out. Part of their funding comes from the US, Britain, 11% from mainly US corporations, and specifically 3% from military industrial complex corporations. With this last group, it is clear that there should be no reason why any donations should be taken because as we see in federal politics such companies have a great deal of lobbying power over the current government, and it is in their interests to sell weapons. It is the same old problem of donations weakening democratic principles. The full list of funders can be found here and it is interesting to look through the list:
https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/ad-aspi/2020-10/ASPI%20By%20the%20numbers.pdf?N_LlogMEIny9Yia_Csr0VGDlw_xkXtof=
Over the last month China has been carrying out many air force and navy drills in the Taiwan Straight and around the island, and there is no doubt that has been connected with paranoia over Pompeo’s visits to South East Asia and meddling through increased US-Taiwan cooperation in attempting to create far closer diplomatic ties. It’ s been written all over Chinese state newspapers. That’s after a long period under Trump’s policies with increased military sales to Taiwan and reinforcing of the US de facto embassy in Taipei. (Incidentally, we have a similar de facto embassy in the same building that donates small amounts to the ASPI).
In the last weeks of the Trump presidency Pompeo did everything to provoke China over Taiwan and create as much mess as possible to inflict on the Biden administration. He also carried out a campaign within SE Asia to promote regime change. The result was that it came very close to a conflict.
No doubt Biden will be a more skilful diplomat with China, but there is little doubt that American desires to contain China economically and geographically will still continue. America still thinks there can be only one alpha male country in the world. But I think things will cool down a little leaving Australia somewhat marooned in its position.
Australia is making huge mistakes here, and Morrison’s obstinacy continues. Being the former American president’s megaphone has hardly served us well, and time is running out given that he and Biden are to some degree on a collision course, particularly over climate change.
I found myself agreeing with John Howard recently for the first time in my life, a prime minister I have always considered disastrous for Australia with his divisive politics, adoption of Pauline Hanson’s politics, and taking us into war in Iraq. The Saturday Paper this week revealed the advice he gave to Morrison as far back as November last year:
‘In John Howard’s assessment, China is going through something like growing pains. In an interview last November, the former prime minister said we should “wake up to the fact that China is doing what all emerging powers do and that is throwing its weight around”.
“It is doing that at the moment,” Howard said, “but you just have to understand that and we shouldn’t overreact to it but we might have to get used to living with that sort of thing for some time.”
That same month, Howard told the University of Melbourne’s Asialink Milestones podcast that he had told Scott Morrison to get to Beijing and have a face-to-face meeting with Xi Jinping as soon as possible. He had done the same as an icebreaker in 1996 with then Chinese president Jiang Zemin, after a chill set in between the two nations.’ (1).
For some this would make Howard a CCP apologist, but it is surprising to see such a directive come from him and it demonstrates how far Morrison has gone out on his own to appease Trump.
Kevin Rudd went even further by saying:
‘Almost uniquely in Australia, the core problem has been the predisposition of Mr Morrison and his senior ministers to routinely take out the megaphone in their response to Beijing, in large part to feed raw meat to their far-right domestic political base…’ (1).
I have to agree with that assertion too.
I think we are in dangerous hands with the Morrison government because like the Trump administration they have no idea what diplomacy is. It has simply gone too far, and what the prime minister does not realise is that China’s resolve to punish Australia over its megaphone Trumpian repetitions, and its willingness to be the mouthpiece of US foreign policy makes us even more diminutive compared to the US in the eyes of China. Once again it is clear that the damage is done, and the only way this can be solved is for the kind of action Howard suggests, but it is probably already too late. Morrison has simply no understanding of diplomacy nor matters beyond domestic politics and appealing to his base.
(1). https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/news/politics/2021/01/30/exclusive-scott-morrison-misrepresents-china-advice/161192520010984#hrd
Thanks for the link to the Saturday paper. Noted that Howard also said “You have got to have a good personal relationship. And the key to our relationship is to accept that [with] a country of Australia’s size and everything, what matters to the Chinese is the relationship between our head of government and their head of government,” Howard said. “… He [Morrison] understands that.”
I don’t think Morrison understands that: Guānxì. There used to be anecdotes some years ago of Australian business men rushing to China with contracts in hand and once signed they were eager to depart. When invited to dinner by the Chinese: this was too much, their stomachs turned.
I think this is Morrison’s attitude do business but don’t eat or form a relationship.
Thanks for your comment and I agree. As I say I am no supporter of John Howard, but I was surprised by the quotes in the Saturday Paper. Is it possible that Morrison understands the importance of the relationship between heads of government, but deliberately through his obstinacy, allegiance to Trumpian politics, and parochialist allegiance to his base, he simply sidesteps responsibility once (again) for populist gain for himself?
One thing is certain, his genuine (non-concocted) social skills, and paucity of diplomatic skills within his government are there for everyone to see.
All good and thanks for your reply. I have commented on these P&I pages before regarding Morrison’s religious convictions and how it impacts on relations with others.
I noticed this link posted in The Conversation https://newrepublic.com/article/160922/capitol-riot-revealed-darkest-nightmares-white-evangelical-america this is a very worthwhile read. My point is that if Morrison is influenced by this sort of evangelicalism – this really worries me.
Thanks for the link
Yes I think Morrison is influenced by both Pentecostal and evangelist thought.
Morrison, Pompeo, and Pence are all Pentecostals. Within Morrison’s cabinet reshuffle he added two evangelicals, the most dangerous is Andrew Hastie, a ‘wolverine’ and now assistant minister for defence, and Amanda Stoker, assistant minister to the attorney general. She does not seem to be able to differentiate between the Liberal Party and evangelist faith. Stewart Robert , the minister for Robodebt defence, and government services, is also a Pentecostal.
The conclusion to your excellent comment George can surely only be that the only way the Morrison Governments China mess can be resolved is for a change of Government in Australia. In the meantime I trust all Labor MPs have read Henry Kissingers “ON CHINA ”
It is too late for Coalition MPs to read this excellent book. Liberals don’t read anyway.
He’s got a lot to learn about diplomacy, and not only with China but with all of our geographical neighbours. I think his focus is domestic and short sighted, and he literally does not have much understanding of cultures beyond Australia and the US.
I meant to say thank you for your kind words too.
Its time for Albanese (after his near death experience on the mean streets of Annandale) to take this issue by the scruff of the neck and call the LNP for what it is. It is the War Party. Always was (Korea and Vietnam) and will be again. He seems more concerned about his own life in a near death experience with a Land Rover than that we are on the brink of a war which if the LNP has its way will costs Australian lives.
The first challenge for Albanese is to win the fourth coming election and get Penny Wong in to the Foreign Affairs ministry.
I am not sure the Australian electorate is ready to be weaned off Uncle Sam’s just yet. That is something that a skillful leader will take some time and courage to do and can only be done from the treasury benches. That surely must be Albanese’s first priority.
Yes i agree mate. We can only pull up the socks we are wearing. Unfortunately that means Timid Tony. Wong would be an outstanding MFA.
‘I don’t think anyone should take the shrill cries of the ASPI seriously’
I agree. I dont think the ASPI should be taken seriously at all. However, it has been taken seriously over the past decade or so, and media outlets such as the ABC have relied heavily on ASPI for information about things Chinese; to its own detriment and ours. Beijing lists ASPI as one of the stumbling blocks to more harmonious relations between China and Australia, and the sooner its activities are curbed, the better.
OMG, my head is ringing…..have…to….get….out of…the…echo…… chamber
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?
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.
And just so there is no confusion, or more likely you drawing long bows, I do not support the Iraq / Afghanistan wars, and never have. Nor do I agree with the Vietnam war.
Afaik, we don’t have any marines.
So you have finally come out.
Took a long while.
So your compassion for Uyghurs was somewhat a fake argument, because you don’t give a toss about how many Chinese or Taiwanese people die or suffer the atrocities of war.
That’s complete and utter bias.
How is my concern for the CCP atrocities against Ugihurs fake because I would support defending a country being invaded? How is supporting Taiwan in a war fake concern when the Taiwanese have shown they want nothing to do with China? Talk about twisted logic!
Btw, what am I coming out of?
George its a question that should be put to Morrison now and directly. Dibb reckons we should precisely on the same grounds we went into Vietnam. Its time to flush this lunacy out now in Australian politics.
lol sure, you go first! Talk is cheap mate. Put your entire family in the firing line for “DEMOCRACY!!!!”.
Easy to chuck other people in as canon fodder to make yourself feel warm and fuzzy inside, but would you, your siblings, you parents, your offspring all take arms and fight for “DEMOCRACY!!!!!” and be target practice for DF series of missiles?
Shame you’re not a mind reader, mate!
Thanks for your honest reply. You dont disappoint. The caps indicate you are a fully paid up member of the War Party. The marines i was referring to were American.
Skilts, here you go again, making unfounded comments, though it doesn’t surprise me as you have history doing that.
Thanks Mike, a typically astute analysis.
I have just read Peter Jennings article at the Strategist. In normal fashion the first half of his article builds a frenzied case that we, Australia, must act now. The first half is really about triggering a fight or flight response from the reader.
And of course the fight response necessarily involves spending billions on additional defence procurements such as advanced missile systems. There seems to be a fundamental mismatch however between the urgency which Jennings suggests actions must be taken, and the earliest timeframes that any of these acquisitions would be delivered.
Some of the major weaknesses in Jennings position include:
– What if China was to attack/invade Taiwan next week or next month or before these systems are delivered? There is no discussion of what Australia should do in this circumstance.
– Other than getting involved, what is Australia’s strategy? What are our objectives?
– The potential conflict would impact/disrupt the best part of half of our oil imports. How does the economy continue to function?
– He provides only a very narrow, perhaps cherry picked perspective, on China’s actions vis a vis Taiwan. China’s rise has been achieved by avoiding conflict (in a corollary to the US, whose decline is being accelerated by numerous military conflicts and misadventures). Sure there is brinkmanship going on which could turn out disastrously, but it seems equally probable that China’s target in these provocations is the United States rather than Taiwan (i.e. back off Uncle Sam).
– The potential conflict would likely accelerate the decline of the United States. Given the plethora of anti-shipping missiles and surveillance systems that China has (with Russian support as well which should be considered) in its littoral approaches I would not be surprised at all if the prime force projection capability of the US, the aircraft carriers of its Carrier Strike Groups, were sunk or badly damaged within the first hours or days of the conflict. Then what Mr Jennings?
It is clear that Peter Jennings is little more than a shrill for the arms industry whose policy recommendations would if implemented have disastrous consequences for Australia.
“Covid-19 exposes the real nature of the CCP” Jennings is a propagandist for the US military industrial complex and this absurd claim made last year shows he is a Trumpist. A peace movement needs to mobilise very quickly in Australia. Dibb has set out the Vietnam War rationale for us to be dragged into another US Asian war. There can be little doubt that Biden’s neo-con Democrats will launch one against the PRC. A war of national unity with the Republicans in full support. The US economy is heading for a 1929 type stock market crash, Biden’s plan against unemployment is pathetic and will fail. Its time for Australians to face reality. There will be war. And will we be dragged into it again by spurious claims to ANZUS? The hope that somehow PRC can avoid a war is naive. An Australian peace movement needs to develop on the basis that Australia will not be involved in a war over Taiwan. And we need to convince a large majority of Australians that this is in Australia’s interest and the protection of our country. Australia can be a force against war by declaring now that it would not be involved in a war against PRC over Taiwan.
Not only are we in need of a, anti-Vietnam War era-scale, mobilised peace movement, we’re also in dire need of an “Independent Australia Party” (IAP), led by the likes of an insightful and seemingly indefatigable George Wendell, and perhaps you Skilts as deputy leader.
Our political establishment, elites and opinion (mis)leaders need a bloody good shake up, and out of their complacency, torpor and idiocy; with an IAP as the political arm or vanguard of a reawakened and mobilised peace movement (perhaps linking up with the young generation-led climate change resistance movement; not least because, a major kinetic war between China and the US would be unthinkable from a climate impact, and many other perspectives.
Labor and Greens have for too long seemed an almost complete waste of space and verbiage on the defence and national security front. They haven’t disappointed, because I’ve long expected little of substance from them. Pathetic and prolix in their rank timidity. Hence our dire need for an IAP (or similar).
Thanks mate. Dont know about Deputy. Lot of ability here. Some classy operators. Happy just to get a independent party committed to peace, prosperity and fairness.
A little belatedly, like you Skilts, and I gather much of the impressive talent on here (including those I disagree with), I’m also approaching or in the “bell lap of life”; which makes me think there’s little time and breath to waste with essentially just talking/conversing among them/ourselves.
With our extremely narrowly owned and controlled, broad public opinion moulding and influencing, MSM, I’m ever mindful of what we are up against. And I’m afraid I’m lacking any practical solutions, apart from suggesting that progressive forces need to link up and synergise their strengths (a daunting initial hurdle in itself). But I can’t believe it is beyond the capacities and imagination of the collective and diverse talent on here to devise a plan to significantly extend their messages beyond essentially, and generally very knowledgeably, talking among themselves (ie, assuming they wish to).
Frankly, I feel pretty “lost” and powerlessly frustrated re many “big picture” issues traversed here on P&I, but like many on here have long generally felt that there’s “something rotten in the state of Denmark”. But what to do about it? Perhaps is best for my/our remaining mental health to try harder to think happier, less discomforting and anodyne thoughts (and perhaps just give up).
PS And I partly agree with you Skilts that, smooth talking, Penny Wong will make an excellent Foreign Minister (certainly by comparison with the current incumbent), but, as with multiple of her predecessors, likely, if things were to turn really nasty, more in USA’s rather than Australia’s (vaguely defined) national interest.
Hi there Wayne. I feel exactly the same. But sometimes just hanging on is the main virtue. Reality will prevail. I have to subscribe here actually because i am free riding. But just keeping the flame smouldering has its worth. Reading the outstanding articles here and putting my bib in makes my day. A better Australia, a just and safer world still is the go. That a Swans Grand Final is worth hanging on for. I reckon i might see socialism here before the Swans win another one.
A belated, but hopefully not too belated, thank you Skilts, and good on you. You’ve clearly much more mental stamina and staying power than me; and a great deal of empathy, understanding and background knowledge to (Swans Grand Final) boot!
Keep up the “good fight” for as long as you feel able, and does not overly stress you out. You mention in a couple of your posts, your feelings of low self esteem. Any such feelings should be completely outweighed by the fact that, unlike overwhelmingly most of us, at least you have put in the effort and tried; even if you might fail. I like to think you’ve planted more than a few seeds – for what little it’s worth, you have with wary and weary old Wayne.
I can’t quite share your optimism about seeing socialism here, but live in hope that the tide has truly turned against the rapacious “dog eat dog” neoliberal individualism of past few decades (or am I being too optimistic?).
“A better Australia, a just and safer world still is the go.” – you’re a dreamer Skilts. Me too.
A good start might be putting in a submission to the Independent and Peaceful Australia Network’s (IPAN) People’s Inquiry into the costs and consequences of Australia’s involvement with US led wars and the alliance with the US.
https://independentpeacefulaustralia.com.au/
Memories fade with every passing generation while once again fascism is rising around the world, and that after World War II in which some 70-85 million people were killed.
Civilization and war were born around the same time in roughly the same place – they have effectively grown up together. This challenges the belief that the more civilized we become, the less likely the resort to war to resolve differences and disputes.
https://researchdirect.westernsydney.edu.au/islandora/object/uws:16426 .
Australian sedition law and the anti-terrorism bill criminalize urging the overthrow of the Constitution or Government. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_sedition_law
The same ought to be the case when it comes to promotion of, or incitement for, wars
Given that climate change and possible other releases of viruses will already be serious challenges to life, then we are mad to go down any pathway to war again. Especially because of he scale it could get to with clashes between major countries today, and the fact that wars increase the use fossil fuels for vehicles, ships, displacement of people and aircraft, plastics and explosives. That followed by fossil fueled needy reconstruction of buildings and infrastructure. How pathologically destructive to life do we want things to be?
Yes, those inciting China to invade a democratic country like Taiwan, should feel the full force of any such law.
Edit: OH Paul Kok, you’re hurting my feelings by continually voting me done!
Hahahaha, and no comments but you’re voting on me on every comment, mate no one outside a dozen china apologists who comment so wonderfully for the CCP are reading this. If you what to move opinion you’re wasting your time here.
This is a good post. Wicked is the right word. There was nothing we could do about land-locked Tibet and we were helpless with Hong Kong, apart from accepting refugees. Taiwanese individuals are appealing directly to us. I think the Americans are bound to defend Taiwan if it is attacked directly. So who loses more face? China by cooling down the issue or America by failing to defend the democratic island? I’m hoping the Chinese politburo can quietly shuffle Taiwan to the back-burner and shift attention to other matters.
My guess is that America will lift no finger if China were to take back Taiwan (the current Republic of China) in spite of its posturing. There is no intrinsic benefit to the USA, only serious loss of life and equipment. The island has no oil or other critical minerals (apart from some rare metal sands.
Which, in my vies, makes Australia’s jumping up and down simply took ridiculous in my and the world’s eyes.
That is a helluva gamble to take if you are President Xi. Wonder what the Pentagon thinks.
It’s also a ‘helluva gamble’ for Xi to do as you suggest, even if he agreed with you. The question of Taiwan and its independence is not simply a CCP problem. It is a problem that engages the whole of China and its self perceived identity. It may seem to you or me to be a problem that could be put on the back burner, but this is not a position shared by the Chinese people.
Why? Are they being stirred up on the issue? I can’t see how the Chinese mainland has anything to fear from Taiwan. Can you generalise to that extent on the Chinese people? Are they all that different from people everywhere else — more concerned about their families, towns, villages than about affairs of State?
Everyone in Australia who presently hates China because of its supposed, if unproven human rights abuses has less reason to gamble with their own future security than the people in China you talk about, yet these columns and others are full of people who seemingly are prepared to risk all for a principle, a point of view or a belief.
If Manhattan or Tasmania were to declare independence and were being supported by China in their efforts, crowds of outraged Americans and Australians would gather, demanding action. It certainly did not benefit the average American or his family to go to war with Japan over the destruction in Pearl Harbour in 1941, yet they rallied around the flag and fought ww2, as Roosevelt hoped they would when he provoked Japan into attacking something.
Look around you. Countries do not surrender territory Sometimes they sell it, but they dont give it away. Beijing is happy enough to allow Taiwan to play out its autonomous impulses, but only on the understanding that some day, perhaps in the distant future, it will return to the fold of the motherland. If Taiwan suddenly declared independence from China, this would cause problems enough between Taiwan and China. But if Taiwan declared independence with the military backing of the US, this would be seen as a declaration of war.
These columns are full of people who support the Chinese Government. Just look at the comments on this post. Let’s hope the leading players have the sense to tone down the rhetoric. In the long term it is to be hoped that when Taiwan “returns to the fold of the motherland’ the politics of the motherland will be more relaxed.
“There is no intrinsic benefit to the USA, only serious loss of life and equipment. ”
You think so? There is a lot for the US to lose: Japan, Korea and the rest of SE Asia will very quickly fall into China’s sphere, if the US walks on Taiwan. No asian country will ever trust the US again. It would be their downfall.
PRC has already declared its position. The declaration of independence by the DPP in Taiwan will trigger a response by PRC in defense of the territorial integrity and sovereignty of China. This from a politician Tsai that drew 56% of the vote in the last election where only 70% of the electorate voted. For this we will go to a devastating war? The RAND war games suggest that Taiwan will be militarily defeated in a week and the US will have to literally storm the beaches of Taiwan to take it back. The Japanese navy will be obliterated. The question is with us. Will Australia fight a war for Taiwanese independence from China? Its time for the political parties in Australia to stop hiding behind ambiguity and false hopes. Will Australia ally itself again with the US in the worst Asian war in history. Time for realism.
We don’t know, Skilts. It would be preferable for the Chinese to bide their time, keep undermining Taiwanese politics and move to a peaceful merger. What’s the hurry? If I were in Xi’s position I would not want to be potting pressure on the USA in such a volatile period. I don’t think it is anything to do with Biden or Trump. It is about the North Atlantic establishment — State Department, Ministry of Defence, Pentagon, Oxford, Cambridge, Foreign Office, Harvard, Yale. The people who are used to running the world.
I hope you are right Jerry. Particularly for the people of Australia, Taiwan and PRC.
Skilts, you have no concern for the Taiwanese people.
As time goes on the view of who the Taiwanese people are will only grow stronger.
Skilts, what you propose is that the Taiwanese people have not say in this, you want a political solution that favours the CCP. Vomit inducing.
There are no “Taiwanese people”. There are Han Chinese, the Ami, Atayal, Paiwan, Bunun, Puyuma, Rukai, Tsou, Saisiyat, Tao, Thao, Kavalan, Taroko (also Truku), and Sakizaya peoples of the province of Taiwan of the PRC. “Taiwanese people” is another one of your delusions along with the “West”. May i recommend a fine ginger tea imported from the Peoples Republic of China, the excellent “Prince of Peace”Instant Honey Crystals, harvested and packed by socialist workers, retailing at a reasonable 5 Australian pesos, for the tummy upset. It helps me with the occasional bad curry. In the alternative perhaps you can stop swallowing hook line and sinker the sinophobic toxic racism garbage from the Trumpists. Might clear the old guts up.
lololol. Busy on wiki for the various ethnic groups for that massive area you claim as contiguous country, called China?
No, the Chinese did not occupy Taiwan in the manner you claim. You’re deliberately obtuse on this and most other Chinese matters.
Voter turnout was 75% (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Taiwanese_presidential_election),
British 2019 Election was 67% (https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/general-election-2019-turnout/)
German 2017 turnout was 76% (https://www.statista.com/statistics/753732/german-elections-voter-turnout/)
French 2017 turnout 48% (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/french-election-turnout-emmanuel-macron-parliament-france-victory-fn-marine-le-pen-national-front-a7785366.html)
Swedish turnout 2018 87% (https://www.scb.se/en/finding-statistics/statistics-by-subject-area/democracy/general-elections/general-elections-participation-survey/pong/statistical-news/general-elections-electoral-participation-survey-2018/)
Well, what do you know? 70% looks pretty good, but it doesn’t surprise me that you would attempt to display that as a failure. But the biggest part of that is getting 56% of the vote, a decent majority, don’t you think Skilts?
Chinese leaders over the last few decades have consistently said that they would invade if Taiwanese leaders declare independence. They have also said that they would be prepared to pay ANY price to do so.
American leaders also know this, and so the US would not push it over this red line. The Chinese also know that it is already too costly for the Americans to intervene militarily if China actually invades Taiwan. Taiwan is only useful as a strategic wedge against China. Once China invades, its value drops to zero to the US. (A bit like Hong Kong- once the CIA operatives were all chased out by the NSL, and Chinese agents, it was Game Over!)
Only that the current Australian political leaders are too stupid to understand all this.
You war mongerer, you! All the time going on about the lives lost and you’re finally admitting what your aim is and that is in line with what the CCP want. You couldn’t give a damn about the views of the Taiwanese people.
Skilts, if the Taiwanese people vote to remain as they are, a free democracy are you accepting of that and should the CCP accept the will of the Taiwanese people?
A response please.
Jennings and ASPI are part of a National Grooming effort; to perform acts that satisfy others but are against our interests, health and well-being – IMHO
They are also called the 5th Column.
Jennings and Dibbs are inviting us to play “Leap frog in the minefields”just based on our on the Anzus Treaty. By beating the war drumsm they are goading us to MAD and there is no point discussing about the military capbililities of China, US, Japan and Russia. We are all going to be victims of MAD with nukes flying in all directions. Spare a thought for the 24 millionTaiwanese, despite most of them dislike China, the overwhelming majority of them would like to have peaceful co-existence with China except for President Cai’s hawks. The 1.2 million Chinese Australians and 50 million overseas Chinese, would like to see a peaceful reunification in the future without bloodshed. Their families members have fought on PLA and KMT sides and they don’t wish to see brothers killing brothers again! They also beleive that Taiwan is part of China (this information has been handed down from parents to their children, since the migration of Chinese people to SE Asia and abroad) and got nothing to do with CCP or Chinese government influence. It is just cultural heritage. The official name of Taiwan, the Republic of China, speakes for itself. Let Chna solve her her domestic problems!
Formosa was invaded and was never part of China.
The KMT are successful in a military economy, as many of the economies in Asia seem to be.
Sir, thank you. Watching with interest the China/Taiwan issue over the years, one cannot but come to the conclusion that there is no real interest in the in the welfare of the Taiwanese people. The real scenario is that they are being used as the proxy for challenging China by those who fear the rise of China. While the US laments the rioting in their own country, they encourage the rioting accompanied by severe vandalism in Hong Kong. While they fought a civil war at a cost of above 600, 000 lives (a huge figure for the population of the US at that time) to prevent the splitting of the US into north and south, they did it to others (Taiwan and Korea which they succeeded; and Vietnam which they did not). Now, they seem to think that it is moral to keep Taiwan permanently separated from China.
If the US and the rest who support them are sincere, they should encourage the peaceful reunification of China and Taiwan. This is possible but it will take time and patience. China is a rapidly evolving country – economically, politically and socially. Its people are enjoying more freedom than ever before and one can expect the Chinese government to become more liberal with the passage of time. In time, the differences between the rights of the people in two entities would become smaller, to the extent that reunification would not involve a huge sacrifice on the part of the Taiwanese people. This is the hope of someone who wishes them well. It is a better option than using them as a stage to wage war.
“the conclusion that there is no real interest in the in the welfare of the Taiwanese people.”
Yes, I agree here. However, all the conflicting and contradictory rhetoric by Australia, US and China
just leads to more confusion . For example, in the link provided for the saturday paper below Xi comments in his Davos speech Xi and says:
“… There will be no human civilisation without diversity, and such diversity will continue to exist for as long as we can imagine.
“Difference in itself is no cause for alarm. What does ring the alarm is arrogance, prejudice and hatred. It is the attempt to impose hierarchy on human civilisation, or to force one’s own history, culture and social system upon others.”
Well those words as noble as they sound doesn’t quite fit with the reality, Hong Kong for example were citizens speak of being like a bird in a cage with new laws being imposed by China. I can only imagine how stressful it is for Taiwanese to be caught is this so called “strategic ambiguity” because they most probably don’t trust the US, Australia of China to be really there for them.
The majority of Chinese people outside of China, and outside of Hong Kong and Taiwan, do not read the situation like how it is interpreted by the Western media. Ditto Xinjiang and Tibet. There is one constant across all 4 regions- British and American gross interference, whether it was MI6 or the CIA.
You are not wrong about some people in Hong Kong who are frightened about the “loss” of freedom and democracy. But I put it to you that this loss of freedom is more imagination rather than real. You don’t see Western expatriates running away from Hong Kong. Rather Hong Kong and the ‘communist’ region across the ditch, Shenzhen continue to attract much Western expatriate interest, to go and take advantage of the opportunities. As for democracy, the people of Hong Kong never had it under the colonial administration.
The fact that so many Chinese Hongkongers are frightened is due more to the success of Western propaganda. What was attempted in Hong Kong circa 2019 was nothing less than a colour revolution to hammer China on the world stage. A lot of people truly believed the ‘facts’ coming out of the CIA fake news department.
The current situation is a bit like the situation before the handover in 1997. Lots left Hong Kong, but many returned when they realised that it was just they scaring themselves for nothing! (And most Chinese Hongkongers, let’s face it, can’t hack it in the West. They imagine that they are ‘Western’ but actually are culturally inflexible and are unable to adapt to things Anglo!).
Thanks and I appreciate your reply. All I can say in response is how moved I was to read this: https://www.chinafile.com/reporting-opinion/viewpoint/viral-alarm-when-fury-overcomes-fear
You would never know whether some of these internal Chinese/exiled Chinese critics of the Chinese government are financed by Western intelligence agencies.
China does not have superior governance system per se. But it has been the best for the ordinary folks for a millennium.
Extreme Chinese critics of Chinese governance are not looking at the facts on the ground. Or perhaps they have been seduced by clever Western propaganda of “freedom” and democracy.
“You would never know whether some of these internal Chinese/exiled Chinese critics of the Chinese government are financed by Western intelligence agencies.” Maybe so?
Perpetual consumerism for perpetual happiness is also a dangerous Faustian bargain that can be shown to lead to inequality and social unrest – revolution even.
As Julian Assange points out in A Secret Australia – what really safeguards us ordinary folks is that corruption and incompetence seems to be the one constant that brings about the eventual downfall of our political masters.
What about the 40+ million killed in the Great Leap Forward?
Another myth. Life expectancy increased in PRC from 35 in 1949 to 65 in the 1970s. Stop peddling anti-communist propaganda. Chinese history scholar Carl Riskin believes that a very serious famine took place but states “In general, it appears that the indications of
hunger and hardship did not approach the kinds of evidence of mass famine that have accompanied other famines of comparable (if not equal) scale, including earlier famines in China.” Risken is currently a distinguished Professor at Queens College. He is also teaching at Columbia University. Please dont refer to Wiki in reply. China in its history has had over 1,500 famines. 1959 was its last. Socialism works.
Another myth. Life expectancy increased in PRC from 35 in 1949 to 65 in the 1970s. Stop peddling anti-communist propaganda. Chinese history scholar Carl Riskin believes that a very serious famine took place but states “In general, it appears that the indications of hunger and hardship did not approach the kinds of evidence of mass famine that have accompanied other famines of comparable (if not equal) scale, including earlier famines in China.” Risken is currently a distinguished Professor at Queens College. He is also teaching at Columbia University. Please dont refer to Wiki in reply. China in its history has had over 1,500 famines. 1959 was its last. Socialism works. New research in China seems to have finally demolished the myth that tens of millions died due to the actions of Mao in the Great Leap Forward. Rather it seems that the famine of 1959-1961 was the last of a series of famines that China had endured throughout its history. The actual death toll figures for this famine were comparable to previous famines and had the same underlying cause-the poverty of a country that had been kept in a state of economic backwardness by imperialism. The new statistical evidence indicates that the famine tragic as it was caused a death rate figure in PRC that was the same death rate figure prevailing in India at that time.
The new death toll figure for 1959-1961 is provided in a paper by the mathematician Sun Jingxian. Sun published it in the April 2016 issue of Contemporary Chinese Political Economy and Strategic Relations: An International Journal:
Sun Jingxian, “Population Change during China’s “Three Years of Hardship” (1959-1961). I am a pensioner and getting a bit tired of being your research assistant mate. Spend a quid and read the latest research. PS – Its not on Wiki.
Just like you, denial to the end of historical fact; very Trumpian of you.
Go ask Frank Dikötter. I’m pretty certain he knows a lot more about modern Chinese history than an aged pensioner.
Another swing and a miss. Dikkoter is a HISTORIAN (apologies for the caps). This area of expertise is STATISTICS. Sun Jing xian is a brilliant mathematician. Among his outstanding work is “Structure of solutions set of nonlinear eigenvalue problems”
November 2015
Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications 435(2)
Dear old Dikkoter when he is isnt fantasizing about famines wrote the the historical bodice ripper Sex, Culture and Modernity in China: Medical Science and the Construction of Sexual Identities in the Early Republican Period. Not the first white old codger in Asia to be fascinated by the so-called “exotic’ of the East. Poor old Dikkoter is more dated in this field than spats and homberg hats. Dikkoter is funded by the KMT in Taiwan which is a nice touch also. I know Dikkoter is a white man but i think i will go with the numbers expert Sun in this field. Brilliant maths and writing with the benefit of the latest research.
Another own goal. yes, he’s a HISTORIAN, who’s had access to official Chinese documents, not mathematics based on bs numbers: bs in, bs out!
You’re not just a China apologist, but also a denialist.
Completely UNVERIFIED documents that no other historian has had access. He also deliberately lowered the Chinese per thousand death rate pre-1959 in order to dishonestly increase the increase in deaths during the famine. A poseur and a KMT funded fake. Mate i have a bridge in Sydney you can buy cheap. You would buy that also wouldnt you?
Another own goal. yes, he’s a HISTORIAN, who’s had access to official Chinese documents, not mathematics based on bs numbers: bs in, bs out!
You’re not just a China apologist, but also a denialist.
lololol. Retired train driver critiques highly credentialed historian.
Ben Chifley was train driver. I would back Chifley against any pommy academic. Bernie Willingale (you wouldnt have a clue who he is champ) would have run rings around him also.
lololol He’s Dutch!
He’s a two bob Pom. Born in the Netherlands but educated in University of London (never made to Cambridge or Oxford) and now reposed at the University of Hong Kong, specializing in the study of “sexuality” in the Republic of China and torture porn Believe me hes a Pommie second rate academic. A propagandist.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8gaHPVaaCk
Neil,
Anything that isn’t pro China is viewed as western prop or separatists / terrorists or just anti china people with an axe to grind.
Plenty of different perspectives on this blog d_n_e – good thing really – multiplicity of voices.
I would also say Man Lee, that perhaps the true role of politics is to make the world safe for hypocrisy.
No Man Lee you are wrong on HK, I lived there for 5 yrs and they are concerned about their freedoms, please don’t talk on their behalf.
The Lucky Star of the comments board. Mate you have been everywhere. Middle East, PRC, Hong Kong, across northern Australia, Kimberlies (sic), NT & Qld, one year in a “closed community” (prison, seminary? – just asking), Halls Creek, Wyndham, Kununurra, Derby, Bamaga, Gove, Darwin & Karratha. You have been in more joints than i have been in hot baths mate. Impressive.
With respect what birdcage? 61 mainland Chinese cities are connected with eight airports in Taiwan.
The flights operate every day, totaling 890 round-trip flights across
the Straits every week. There are 480,000 people from the island working on the mainland. The inter-strait economic trade and interdependence is enormous. The integration of Taiwan into the economy and social life of PRC is closer than Tassie with Canberra. Thats what Tsai is trying to unravel with her independence line.
Skilts you are spot on. Lots of disinformation and lies put out by foreign people like ASPI because of ignorance or others with a hidden agenda of greed and power.
Apart from a minority of indigenous Taiwanese, most residents are of Chinese heritage. President Ma got on so well with PRC and started exchanges with mainland and since then both sides are families again. What is in it for US, Australia and the Western allies trying to interfere into Chinese domestic affairs? Money and power again?
PRC and ROC will sort it out peacefully eventually and we foreigners, must let them sort it out peacefully themselves. Both sides know another “civil war’ is bad bad and bad for them. Only fools will venture into it. Majority of Taiwanese Chinese in all the surveys to date support peaceful co-existent with mainland Chinese. There will only be a peaceful, mutually agreed reunification when all conditions are properly negotiated. It will come one day without the interference of “foreign powers”. There is no reason for PRC in mainland to invade ROC in Taiwan as both are part of family of Chinese heritage. Hope this simple information will clear all the ” bombastic supposition” from Peter Jennings and others in Australia. Remember we hate “foreign interference” in our domestic affairs and why should we do it to others?
So, how does it get “sorted out” in your world? Do the Taiwanese people have any say, or in your world of “must let them sort it peacefully themselves” mean they have no say.
If a vote is held and it’s for Taiwan to remain a democracy are you and China going to accept that?
If its ok Dr Ka can i take this one? There never will be a plebisite because the KMT, the main opposition party along with the PRC opposes Taiwanese succession (can never be independence legally). If you want to support a genuine independence movement that is calling for an independence plebiscite you can join me and many other supporters of the United Liberation Movement for West Papua. This is a genuine movement for independence, against a real genocide and is on our front door. Join us in opposing Indonesian oppression. You can sign the Westminster Declaration. Will get you onto an ASIO watch list immediately.
https://www.ulmwp.org
How about it champ are you with us on this. Or are you just a Trumpist anti-com who really doesnt give a flying toss about the rights of small nations to independence but are just part of sinophobic racist push? Well what is it? (Thinking music plays softly in the background).
So you’ve showed your true self, there be no independent Taiwan, because your CCP beliefs don’t allow it!
It doesn’t matter a tinkers toss what the KMT believe, but you would deny the Taiwanese people a say in their future. You are a hypocrite, pure and simple.
Amazing that you’re pro West Papua independence, but not anywhere the Chinese are involved. Like I said hypocrite.
And yes, I support WP same as I did ET.
Hi Skilts my comment was referring to HK. The ABC showed footage of some of the HK people involved in protests against the new security laws. Some asked why they were protesting and a comment from a few I recall said it was now like living in a birdcage. I understood/assumed this to be a metaphor for clipping one’s freedom? Thanks for the info on the flights going in and out of Taiwan.
Do the wishes of the Taiwanese people have any relevance at all? I know many of the posters here would sacrifice them happily, but I think better of you.
Once again, that’s your invention.
You think so? No poster besides me seems to have the slightest concern. Look at Skilts just above. Their job is to knuckle down and accept the inevitable. You are concerned, but your solution is much the same as Skilts’.
Barney are you sure the people of Taiwan want independence? The last time i looked the DPP did not get a majority of votes of the population of Taiwan. 56% of 70% bothering to vote is not a majority. There hasnt even been a plebiscite. The PRC will only use force and trigger a war if the DPP declares independence. Otherwise Taiwan is peacefully being integrated into PRC as we bowl along. The peaceful integration of Taiwan into PRC is inevitable. Why is that immoral? The peaceful evolution of a sovereignty that has already been acknowledged by the US. Only a lunatic would support the unilateral declaration of independence at the risk a nuclear war. Because that is what we are on the brink of. So you are willing to fight to last Taiwanese because of your hatred of communism? We have been here before.
“The peaceful integration is inevitable.” So it long seemed, but the PRC is increasingly bellicose. I don’t want to fight to the last Taiwanese; I agree with the majority here that it is nothing to do with Australia and we would be reckless to involve ourselves in any way. We’ll never get a plebiscite because such a move would really infuriate the CCP. Nor do I hate communism; not sure where you got that from. As a 19-year-old in Wellington I joined the Socialist Action Party. There were about42 communists in Wellington, and their only interest was in arguing with each other, and I left after a few months.
Didn’t Churchill say something along the lines that any man who wasn’t a socialist at 20 was a cad, and any man who was still a socialist at 40 was a fool?
Hopefully this will be resolved by who should have the final say. Between the people of the mainland and the island. Lets give it time and de-escalation. No one apart from a few lunatics wants and is prepared for a war here in Australia. Hat tip also for seeing through the Trots.
Yes, but the people of Taiwan have had their say and you ignore it.
There are two economic provinces of PRC. Taiwan and Australia. With a trade over 30% of total trade by both economies the integration of Taiwan into PRC is inevitable. The restoration of a sane and equitable relationship between the other economic province of PRC – Australia – will kick start when the Trumpist faction of the LNP is booted into touch and out of office by the Australian people. So you see democracy will prevail.
God, I’m getting tired of hearing that 30%. And as the price of IO reduces down to $50 pt over the next 12-15 months so to will that figure. Commodities are fungible and as we have already seen our wheat etc will find new homes. As product that replaces our exports to China that opens up a market to replace that, doesn’t matter whether it’s wheat or wine. Australian wine blocked from the Chinese market will find a home in the market that wine is diverted from to replace ours.
You must be living in lala land (stop watching teletubbies for goodness sakes!). It pains me to say this, but the Labor party isn’t likely to see gov for some time and if you’d paid any attention to the poles, the bulk of Australians support the gov position on China
So the anti-war man is happy for China to kill if a declaration of independence is made? Your position on war is an interesting one.
Btw, your vote theory is bs, a 70% turnout for voluntary voting is pretty good and the 56% majority is even better considering 48/52 is considered a rout. Go check your other comment on that for the links to other elections.
Hate to rain on your war parade but the opposition party in Taiwan, the KMT, opposes Taiwan “independence”. There is no majority for a declaration of independence in Taiwan which why the crooks in the DPP have never gone for a plebiscite.
No majority; do you understand how democracy works? Is there a constitutional law that requires the ruling gov to get the approval of the opposition? The last election, as you stated in another post, the gov was reelected with 56% of the vote, a massive majority. You don’t know what you are talking about.
Btw, with all your claims of communiques, declarations etc, read this as it shows the devil is in the detail and it points to your hubris on claiming that the west recognises Taiwan as a province of China and confirms what I’ve been saying all along and that those pieces of paper are nothing but artifices to enable trade, and that is it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_status_of_Taiwan
They do not have the right to endanger the peace of the world by a reckless adventurism by declaring Taiwan “independent” when for a half century the KMT has accepted and claimed Taiwan as a sovereign part of China. People don’t have the right to express their “freedom” to play with matches in an ammunition dump.
The ammunition dump is entirely of China’s making. It could just leave Taiwan alone. I’m sure glad you weren’t Prime Minister of England in 1939-45. The Czechs, the Poles, the French, the Belgians, the Dutch etc should accept that Germany claimed those areas. They didn’t have the right to play with matches in an ammunition dump. The problem is not the matches but the ammunition dump. I find your view contemptibly expedient – might makes right.
Hi Barney. There can be no appeasement. The appeasement has already occurred. Nixon with Kissinger appeased the PRC when they acknowledged that Taiwan was effectively part of China in 1972. Blame Nixon not me. You apparently want to turn the clock back to the Cold War of the 1960’s with the very real possibility of a devastating hot war. Poland was a sovereign country. The analogy you are looking for is Sudentland in Czechoslovakia. Hitler invaded on the basis of an entirely bogus claim that “Sudetanland” was not part of Czechoslovakia. At the “request” of the pro-German minority. Do you see an analogy here with the US and the “independence” of Taiwan. As for my expediency. Barney i was a draft resister against the last horrendous war that the yanks launched in Asia. I am in the bell lap of life. And i was called a traitor and commie lover back then. The enemy was the Communist Party of Vietnam. A government the war hawks of 1966 are now appeasing and courting. So i guess in the great race of life i have been at least a consistent runner. I dont have the deaths of the young kids of the 60’s sent to a useless and immoral war by the LNP on my conscience. Are you really prepared to support the deaths of possibly millions of people in Asia for an “independence” that was sold out (in your mind) fifty years ago? I find you view appalling complacent for the value of life of the people of China (that includes Taiwan). If that is really your view. You are a thoroughly decent Christian who i respect from your writing. We need thoughtful and deep moral consideration of this issue. Not slogans.
“The appeasement has already occurred. Nixon with Kissinger appeased the PRC when they acknowledged that Taiwan was effectively part of China in 1972.”
You keep distorting the truth! What the US has done is the same as us and that’s acknowledge China’s position on Taiwan. You’ve seen the link to the one page communique, stop misrepresenting it.
There is the UN resolution 2758.
https://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/2758(XXV
Again, your claims of western acceptance are false.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_status_of_Taiwan
“Western” if it includes Australia is not a geographic construct as you presumably include Australia. So you mean the “white” countries. This is a racist construct entirely in your fevered imagination. I and the rest of the rational world will stick with the UN. Please stop using Wiki and go the UN source documents. There is a good chap.
Fair enough Skilts. I did get hot under the collar and I apologise for calling your view contemptible (I certainly didn’t call you that, however; I hold no such opinion. Or of George, or those who engage with me). Morning always brings a better temper. You are right, the Sudetenland was the beginning, but the cry was lebensraum, which was why I broadened it out.
It’s still not clear to me why China can’t simply leave Taiwan alone. As with the former Hong Kong, it brings the PRC economic benefits and is no sort of threat economically or militarily. It’s clear Taiwan doesn’t want to be part of the PRC, and who can blame it?
I’ve never come across the term bell lap of life. I can guess from context, but where does the term come from? A most interesting phrase.
Hi Barney no need to apologize. I actually have a pretty low opinion of myself also.
I think all sensitive and thinking people must share that to some extent, Skilts. We’re aware of our failures, whether by commission or omission. People who have no capacity for shame are usually not very nice people.
I like the bell lap phrase. How many laps in the average trotting race? That will tell me if I am too – eg, if it’s four, I definitely am.
Barney the average is four laps. But the nags i backed seemed to be running six.
Barney the phrase is from Trotting racing. The last lap is acknowledged with the ringing of a bell. Hence the bell lap. I heard mine a little while ago and like a good trotter in harness am giving it everything in the race to the finishing line. Hopefully i will finish in front. Or at least a place.
Barney his claim on the west acceptance of their claim on Taiwan is false. As always, the devil is in the detail. The link explains the diplomatic to-ing and fro-ing. Skilts is in denial.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_status_of_Taiwan
Thanks for the link, d_n_e. I will look, but having called it up it seems very long and complex, and I think I am talked out for now on this subject. But I do appreciate you posting it.
Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never harm me; appears not.
I have nothing but contempt.
I agree with the first part of your statement. As for the second part. I have always had low self esteem. Good on you mate.
I was referring to China and their expected response to a Taiwanese declaration of independence.
“Expected”? Your hero Donald is gone. The geriatric in the White House wont support Taiwan “independence.” At least call it for what it would be succession. Its all over champ. Take a rest.
Skilts, see your GP, I think dementia is something you need assessment for! Glad to see him gone (as I’ve told you a thousand times!!!!!), but the damage is done and I’m not sure Biden will do much to repair the damage. Sanders would have been a far better choice, same as Corbyn.
A little thought experiment:
The American annexation of Hawaii started in 1893, but was made formal by 1898. Many Americans already lived there, were part of the insurgency, and it became a state of the US. No one apart from the Hawaiian indigenous population ever challenged the US ‘s claim to the country.
In my thought experiment we now go back to the US civil war.
It was of course waged between the Confederate states, and the Union states, with the division being roughly along the Mason-Dixon line.
Abraham Lincoln was president, but not many know that the Confederate states also had an alternative president – his name was Jefferson Davis.
If the Confederate side had won, Davis would have most likely become the US president.
Now imagine if Hawaii had been annexed before the civil war.
Would a change of US leaders mean that Hawaii was no longer part of America?
This is very similar to what what happened with China.
China was in civil war between Mao and Chiang-Kai-shek, but the two armies put aside their grievances to repel the Japanese during the 1930s until the end of WWII. Then the civil war started again. In 1949 Mao Zedong claimed leadership, Chiang Kai-shek lost.
At the end of WWII, the US ferried a party of 20,000 of Chiang Kai-shek’s troops to Taiwan to take it back from Japanese occupation. The Japanese had previously held it from 1885, not just during WWII. He reclaimed it for China.
Before that, from 1683-1895 it was under Chinese Qing rule. 6,000 years before that, it was highly likely to have been colonised by Chinese farmers, and they are considered to be the probable origin of the Taiwanese indigenous people. Being so close proximity, and considering the history, it is hard to think of it as anything other than China, and similar to Hainan, an island as well.
After Mao won the civil war and PRC became the government of China, if we are to follow the example in my thought experiment above, why is there any doubt as to who owns Taiwan, and why is it considered not to be part of China? There was only a shift in leaders.
All I can say is that because the US always supported Chiang Kai-shek due largely to their fear of communism, they continue in their political influence to challenge Chinese ownership in clandestine ways over reasons they would not tolerate themselves. That’s a pity for both China and Taiwan, who are essentially the same Han people and part of the same country.
So far as I can tell, George, your history lesson is accurate. Nevertheless, Taiwan has been an independent body under a democratic government for 70 years. They seem to have been fairly resolute in NOT seeing themselves as part of the same country and not wanting to be governed by the CCP. They have elected increasingly pro-independence governments, not that anyone actually uses that word. I ask you, as I asked TL, why should their wishes be irrelevant?
“Nevertheless, Taiwan has been an independent body under a democratic government for 70 years.”
China has tolerated that for many, many years too. It has been quite accepting of having two systems of government,but since they won the civil war, there has been antagonism over whether the PRC or the ROC should be governing all of China, the latter from Taiwan’s part. The island is certainly stuck between the two forces of China and the US, but essentially they are Han Chinese like the majority on the mainland. They are human beings too, so I certainly would not like to see them suffer.
I don’t think Mao wanted to hurt them either, he could have killed all of them at some point, but allowed them to have a safe haven. Nor do I think Xi Jinping would genuinely want to hurt them.
I am against war in the region, and I have said before that the people in either location live mostly in high density high rise and on the coastal areas so whether Chinese or Taiwanese it would be atrocious.
Essentially there are similarities with China and the US which is also dealing with its civil war.
The difference between you and I, is that neither of us wants to see people suffer, we just believe there are different ways to deal with it. I can tell you that I have even lost sleep over it recently because from my point of view it got very close to an unknowable, yet potentially very powerful conflict. And the Chinese voiced this in their media as a reaction to Pompeo’s actions and it with directed at the US with Taiwan in the middle of the sandwich.
I don’t like the US meddling in the whole process, especially how Pompeo and Trump have acted in their remaining days in office. Hopefully things might cool down now and Biden will be more skilful in his diplomacy. Putting the shoe on the other foot, I sense that if China was meddling with the politics of the American civil war and taking sides the US with its ongoing Confederate/Union divisions they would not like it either. The only difference with the US is that their civil war divisions are more geographically homogenic now, while China and Taiwan remain geographically separated.
George,
Why don’t you come out of the closet and admit you couldn’t give a tinkers about the Taiwanese peoples wishes? Your only concern is China and their authoritarian style of gov.
And just one correction:
Taiwan had its first fully democratic direct election (by the people) in 1996. During the entire period that the KMT (Chiang Kai-shek’s party) were in power it was a one party state. Movement toward democracy only started in 1980s. So it has not been a genuine democracy for 70 years.
Good point, George. I was a bit casual with my checking. But what about the main question – they are a democracy now, increasingly resistant (at least in elections) to Beijing; why should their wishes be irrelevant?
I never said the weren’t.
More or less like South Korea ’til the 80s and more or less like Singapore (pretend opposition).
George
Not sure there were too many early Han farmers in Formosa. I thought they arrived with Koxinga about the same time as the Dutch/Portugese. However I am guessing that Han seafarers fishermen, pirates and traders had been arriving on the island for many years.
The original inhabitants were a bunch of head hunting people who spoke Austronesian languages most closely allied to the Philipines, Malaysia and of course Polynesia.
Modern anthropology I think suggests that the Polynesian people originated in the region of Formosa.
However as is always the case it is a mixed story for China especially those in the South. Koxinga was a Ming dynasty patriot and was seen as a hero against the invading Mongols who established the Qing rule. I am guessing this adds to the symbolic importance of the island.
I accept and thank you for your correction, concerning the indigenous peoples of Taiwan, and it is true that the Han Chinese people arrived there in the 17th Century. But I don’t refer to the Han in the same paragraph, only Chinese people.
There was also a second wave that came after WWII to even beyond 1949, and that is why I say it would be Han pitted against Han if there was a clash between modern Taiwan and mainland Chinese people, which is the claim I make in the final paragraph.
Anyway it is not that important to my thought experiment (not that you are criticising that), especially given that countries like Australia and the US also colonised countries where indigenous inhabitants lived, and it does not cancel the view that those who colonised these lands claim to ‘own’ these countries over the claims of indigenous peoples. China would be no different in that respect.
The question that would clarify this, is where did indigenous peoples come from originally to arrive in any country where indigenous people live now? Genetic mitochondrial studies point to us all coming from single mother in Africa, and Australian aborigines and Melanesians have Denisovan genes that originated in Siberia. But we don’t have much other than theories as to the pathways people moved around the world, and it is prehistoric.
Thanks George
Absolutely agree. Since we know that Chinese (as in people who speak Chinese language etc) arrived on Formosa to settle well before the English settled Australia, it is of course silly to deny that they are the dominant inhabitants (owners) of the island. Yes Han versus Han would be the battle lines.
Much as I accept the important symbolism of Taiwan to China I do rather think that the people of the island should have the right to determine their own status (I support Scotland’s right too) however I also think that any such status needs to be based on strategic realities, ie Taiwan can be independent but not if it chums up with the existential enemies of the mainland.
Put it this way. I fully support the right of Scotland to leave the UK but I am realistic enough to understand that if the new independent government invited Russia or China or Japan to station military in Scotland pointing at London, the chances of successful independence would be essentially nil. So Taiwan can be independent but should not set up US bases etc.
I am not sure there is scientific consensus on the out of Africa theory anymore, what with knowing we all have Neanderthal and Denisovan genetic contribution (AFTER leaving Africa)
Jennings is a menace.