What is going on with China and Taiwan? The Chinese military has recently been sending about 150 war planes into Taiwan's air defense identification zone (ADIZ), an area which is technically not their airspace, but extends past it in a zone in which aircraft still have to identify themselves.
From this article on the Vox News site, in an interview between Raymond Kuo, an expert on international security and East Asia, and Vox reporter Jen Kirby: The many signals China is sending with its Taiwan flyovers - Vox :
"China’s provocations underscore a long history, and maybe a more complicated geopolitical future....This was always an uneasy status quo, especially as the Chinese Communist Party has never abandoned the idea of bringing Taiwan back under its full control and reunifying China. In the meantime, Taiwan itself forged its own identity and economic power on the world stage, and has been, since the 1990s, a democracy."
"Of course, the “strategic competition” (as we’re calling it now) between the US and China has put the region in focus, making the question of Taiwan’s future more urgent. Chinese President Xi Jinping has tried to consolidate power and bring restive parts of the country — the Xinjiang region, Hong Kong — under his control. The question now is: Is Taiwan next? And if it is, what happens now?"
"China’s warplanes are forcing officials and experts to think about these challenges. The provocations are an effort by the Chinese government to reiterate to a global audience its view of Taiwan as essential to China’s national security interests. Internationally, it’s also a response to the US’s own coalition-building the region, said Raymond Kuo, an expert on international security and East Asia..."
“A lot of the countries in the region — Japan, South Korea, Philippines, probably — they look at Taiwan as a litmus test for US commitment and Chinese assertiveness, which just puts China’s back up,” Kuo said.
"What is the Chinese government trying to accomplish with these incursions?" According to Kuo, ..."We’ve got a couple different signaling audiences. There’s Chinese domestic politics. National Day was October 1. It’s often a day for the Chinese government to emphasize their nationalist credentials and project hope for the future about reunifying China, whether that means Taiwan or suppressing the Uyghurs or that kind of thing....There’s a Taiwanese politics component, specifically an attempt to demoralize the public that China is stronger and you can’t win."
"Then there’s international politics. The US, the UK, and four other countries are doing military exercises in the East Philippine Sea. So it’s partly as a demonstration of, “Stay out, we have a dog in this fight as well, we have the ability to strike too.”
"...There’s also the economic side of it. Taiwan is close to the 20th-largest economy in the world, with a major concentration of semiconductors and other high-tech enterprises. "
"...Certainly something that’s quite important is whether or not China is developing the capabilities that it thinks it can take over Taiwan without a fight, versus the United States and its allies and Taiwan working together to present a credible deterrent force against that invasion scenario."
"...I think the US has a really tricky job here. It has to reassure Taiwan and take the lead in solidifying this coalition, but it has to do so in such a way that China doesn’t think “better strike now, or else we’re going to lose this thing forever.” And then the US has to kind of moderate its own policies toward China so it doesn’t jumpstart a war on its own for some other issue area, like the South China Sea. It’s a really tricky balancing act."
This article today offers a different perspective on China
ReplyDeletehttps://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/washington-is-getting-china-wrong/ar-AAPmuGf?ocid=msedgntp
It asks if the Chinese economy is a healthy as many including the Chinese think it is.
Modern history tells us that economic development is no sure thing. In particular, many poorer countries that grow richer face a phenomenon known as the “middle-income trap,” in which they reach a certain, moderate level of wealth, and then get stuck, unable to progress much further. Only a select handful have been able to transition from an emerging to an advanced economy—South Korea offers a rare example. The problem is often an inability to change: Policies that lift nations out of poverty don’t necessarily work when tackling the next, more difficult step—becoming more productive and innovative, the crucial ingredients to reaching the ranks of the rich.
China is following this unfortunate pattern. The basic problem is that China’s growth is overly dependent on building things, such as highways, factories, and Evergrande apartment towers. All of that construction keeps economic-growth rates elevated, workers employed, and the country’s gross domestic product steadily marching up the list of the world’s largest. But not all growth is created equal. If investment flows into companies and projects that aren’t needed or wanted, and thus doesn’t offer a return, it pumps up national output in the short term but weighs on the economy in the long run.
Maybe we need a wiser policy that encourages China to face its economic problems and encourages them to develop in better directions. I don't know much about Taiwan and its economy. Do they have a better model?
Time to thank the patriotic capitalists again for their massive infusion of capital and technology into the People's Republic. None of this would be possible without them. It's too late now. We are dependent on the Chinese. Even if we have a war and unlikely win it, we'll have to reimburse our capitalists for all their assets in China that were destroyed.
ReplyDelete"Time to thank the patriotic capitalists again for their massive infusion of capital and technology into the People's Republic. "
DeleteThis could indeed turn out to be one of the great strategic blunders of all time. As a policy, it was pursued for the noblest of intentions: that with a rising standard of living and greater interdependency with the rest of the world, the Chinese people would demand greater freedoms at home, and the government would evolve (or be replaced) into something more respectful of liberty and human rights.
An appealing theory, but so far, it hasn't worked.
I don't know if anyone else around here has read Tolkien, but one of the threads running through his long tale is the need for clear-eyed resolve to resist the Evil Eye of Mordor. Appeasement, retreat and inattention all empower the enemy. As the Lady Eowyn says somewhere or other, it takes two parties to make peace but only one to make a war. China's leaders surely perceive the decadent West's current lack of resolve. I doubt anyone believes that the US will stand with Taiwan in the event of an actual invasion. Trump certainly wouldn't have. Would Obama have? Would Biden now? Well, he might. The UK had its own relic of a bygone era in 10 Downing Street during the critical days of WWII. Churchill had that resolve. Biden as Churchill? I'm not sure I can see it.
I remember my optics manufacturing consortium days in the 90's. I was the government leg of the consortium. The director was a very manufacturing savvy retiree from Kodak. But after Tienenman Square, his belief in Reaganite neoliberalism seemed naive to me. I never saw any strong or necessary connection between capitalism and democracy.
DeleteThere have been communist dictatorships and capitalist dictatorships.
I don't think we can stand up to the Chinese unless we become what we're supposed to be. I think we're hanging by a thread now. And the Republicans AND Democrats got us here. It's not a matter of Biden or any leader being weak. The problem now is our democracy being weak. You did use the word "decadent". I think we are.
Greed is greed, whether the greedy people are communists or capitalists, American or Chinese, Christians or atheists. We are all left with the consequences of our greed.
ReplyDeleteI remember when we recognized Nationalist China (AKA Taiwan) as the legitimate government of China in exile. Then we recognized the People's Republic as the legitimate government, and withdrew that designation from Taiwan. Except we sort of wanted to recognize them as their own entity, and had a lot of economic ties with them. Which we still have. All very convoluted. My take is that the PTB in mainland China still have very long memories of Chiang Kai Check ( don't know if I spelled it right) and his claiming to be the rightful government in exile. And they want to squash that notion forever, and repossess the Taiwan football. Xi Jinping is as authoritarian as any of his predecessors, but I think money matters to him more than anything, and in the end economics will rule the day (see Jack's comment above about greed.)
ReplyDeleteShould be "Chiang Kai-shek"
Delete