Invasion of Kinmen and Matsu Islands

[Vlad Plasmius]

Now, while most people talk about the invasion of Taiwan, we tend to forget there are Taiwanese-held islands on the coast of China. Any invasion would have to factor in these islands. So, the question here is, can Taiwan effectively defend these islands were conflict to erupt?

Now here's what we have:

- Matsu has a Tien Kung missile battery with a range of 100 kilometers and the Hsiung Feng II with a similar range for ant-shipping.
- Matsu Islands are home to about 18,000 Taiwanese troops
- Kinmen Islands are within 2 miles of the Chinese mainland
- Kinmen Islands are home to about 55,000 troops
- Are capable of launching artillery strikes on Fujian province at the beginning of a war
- Xiamen has S-300 batteries preventing any air support to Quemoy island
- Xiamen is also home to a port making it possible to send ships to Quemoy and maintain them
- Two divisions, a normal infantry and motorized infantry, and five brigades are headquartered in Xiamen
- The U.S.-Taiwan defense agreement does not cover the islands on the mainland coast

The Sky Bow battery gives Taiwan some limited air defense capability over mainland China. That would need to be removed completely to keep China on the offense. Given that the islands have an airport with two more planned, China would have good reason to invade the islands. With Taiwan's development of a cruise missile the ability to get inside Chinese airspace and fire one would be a threat needing to be dealt with.

On Kinmen the proximity to Chinese airbases, air defenses, naval bases, and army bases makes it a key target for attack. Naval power would be able to cut off the island from naval support and air defenses and air power could suppress ground forces and prevent airlifts. The artillery regiments stationed there would be able to shell Kinmen island, though Taiwanese forces could react in turn. In a pre-emptive strike, however, it’s likely that initial air support and artillery shelling would negate this kind of attack.

If both island groups were invaded successfully the PRC would likely end up with thousands of prisoners to use to advantage in negotiations. In addition, China would have reduced Taiwan’s active military force to around 147,000. The most important part is that such an attack can reduce any delusions of China being weak and incapable of taking on Taiwan. It would serve an important warning to Taiwan.

This would be an important operation in the event of full-on war with Taiwan. It would allow for a slight narrowing of the field of operation in the Taiwan Straits. And make it easier to create an effective blockade of the Straits by filling them with destroyers. This would help pave way for an invasion of the Penghu islands and establishment of a beachhead in Taiwan.

[Finn McCool]

Have you factored the Pescadores into this equation? I don't know what Taiwan has on them, but they are positioned right in the middle of the Strait and they would be able to massively screw up in-air refueling, transfering supplies to a beachead on Taiwan and pretty much any thing the Chinese want to do undisturbed in the Strait because they would be taking fire from their rear (presumably after taking Kinmen and Matsu). Do you know what forces they have in the Pescadores? I don't so I'll check it out and post it.

And for some reason I really want to use a banana here so I will.:nana:

In the 40's the Kuomantiang repulsed an invasion of the islands. They had far superior weapons though, and this is no longer the case.

[The_Zergling]

Actually, in the event that China would want to invade Taiwan, I would think that the islands would be more of a weak point for Taiwan as opposed to China.

In one of the discussions I had with one of my teachers at school, he posed a hypothetical in which China would threaten to strike one of the outlying islands (Kinmen, for instance) unless the government agreed to unify. Obviously the island itself would be incapable of protecting itself, as there are no (as far as I know) Patriot missile batteries stationed there, so basically it's a sitting duck. Although there are extensive underground tunnel networks (which is why Kinmen survived the bombardment in the 40s) a full scale missile strike would still cause a LOT of damage.

Its location also prevents the bulk of the Taiwanese military from protecting it, the same goes for Penghu or Matsu. There used to be a F-CK-1 squadron based at Penghu, but I'm pretty certain that it's been redeployed.

At any rate, how would the Taiwanese government respond? Either let the people on the islands die or give in to the demands of Beijing. Though animosity towards China might rise due to this kind of action, the government would be even MORE pressure if it decided to let the islands fend for themselves, effectively sacrificing them for... what?

I'm currently ignoring the factor of international backlash, because there's no way of really determining how the world would react if China used the "it's an internal matter, mind your own business" excuse.

Anyway, that's pretty much why I've always considered the outlying islands to be more of a hindrance to Taiwan than an effective deterrent. There are military garrisons in Kinmen and Matsu (Though I haven't been to Matsu) but probably only capable of repelling amphibious landings. Penghu's a tourist trap (Awesome place, went there last summer), and has little to no defenses, making it easy pickings.

[Finn McCool]

China would not be well served by the tactic you described. It would make them look like a huge bully and would bring the international community (or at least good old Uncle Sam:D) rushing to the rescue. However, China might try to "reclaim their rightful territory by peaceful means for the good of the Chinese people" and simply move in on the islands, paying no attention to the Taiwanese. The Taiwanese would either have to fire first or let the Chinese in without a shot. That would make it look a lot less bad for China and would maximize public confusion and apathy over the issue in the US. Trust me, I live here and if people don't really understand:confused: why their government is sending troops someplace they won't like it after the whole Iraq thing.

I think Penghu would be tough to land on because of the outlying islands and coral atolls and islands that appear at low tide. The same goes for Matsu and Kinmen I think. (I've never been there. People in the US generally don't vacation in bizzare leftovers from the Cold War) The Chinese would probably face some of the same problems the americans faced when attacking islands in the Pacific during WWII; obstacles like tidal reefs messing up landings, sucidal resistance because there is no where to retreat to and warrens of caves. Only it would be alot harder for the Chinese because they don't have any experince in combat.

[The_Zergling]

China would not be well served by the tactic you described. It would make them look like a huge bully and would bring the international community (or at least good old Uncle Sam:D) rushing to the rescue.

Um... as opposed to a full scale invasion? As long as it's a military invasion I don't think it's going to look anyone look good. You described a scenario in which China moves in on the islands "peacefully". I have to question how on earth that could possibly be pulled off, assuming the tens of thousands of Taiwanese soldiers on the islands don't simultaneously mutiny against the government. I would say "moving in" would be considered unilateral action by the international community, albeit not on the same scale as a missile strike. But yeah, you're right that it would help confuse the US public.

Penghu is located pretty much smack in the middle of the Taiwan Strait, I think. (It's embarassing that I've already forgotten where it is) In other words, I never envisioned the PLA using amphibious tactics to take it, I was thinking more along the lines of airdrop. There aren't very many military forces defending it, directly capturing the airfield wouldn't be inconceivable.

I've never been to Matsu either, but I've been to Kinmen. I'm not exactly sure why it's a tourist trap either. It's interesting seeing all those fenced off areas saying "MINES" and to see the barriers in the beach, and to see the kitchen knives they make out of old (expended?) artillery shells. There's a museum there documenting the short conflict between the PRC and ROC in the 40s, and a F-86 on display... I really don't see China using an amphibious landing on any of the islands, at least an artillery or missile salvo first. Since air superiority is guaranteed in those areas I expect the PRC would use it before sending in the grunts.

[Vlad Plasmius]

It would make them look like a huge bully and would bring the international community (or at least good old Uncle Sam) rushing to the rescue.

The Kinmen and Matsu islands are right on the coast of China. Attempting to retake them would result in all-our war with China. Plus, I made a point of bringing up the fact that our agreement with Taiwan doesn't cover these islands. We aren't legally able to do anything by anybody's law.

Only it would be alot harder for the Chinese because they don't have any experince in combat.

Why is it whenever a comparison to a strategic situation involving China is made to World War II people try to find some way of saying it will be harder for them. The island-hopping campaign relied almost entirely on ground troops for many battles. Plus, many troops were placed there from sea. China can place thousands of troops there from the air. Also, the U.S. troops didn't exactly have experience either. They weren't the best in the world. Most of Europe was still better in terms of experience, training, and technology.

Plus, the war could not receive as much naval, air, and ground support. China will be able to shell the islands using artillery, bomb the islands with the airforce, and fire missiles from the sea. The Chinese would have complete superiority. The only problem would be making it so that there are few casualties on both sides. The less of a death rate the better it looks for China's government.

[Finn McCool]

Plus, I made a point of bringing up the fact that our agreement with Taiwan doesn't cover these islands. We aren't legally able to do anything by anybody's law.

Who says having an agreement has anything to do with it? That doesn't seem to matter much to the Americans lately. :nana: If the US really wanted to do something it would just say it was defending freedom and go right ahead. The real challenge would be convincing the American public why it was about to fight China over a place most Americans have never heard of and could care less about.

Good points about how easily the islands would be taken...I never really thought of just helocoptering troops in the chaos and confusion just after a huge barrage. But...you said Kinmen had a lot of tunnels right? At Tora Bora etc. and in Saddam's Bunkers the American bombing didn't seem to do much no matter how hyped it was in the media. So maybe low tech could defeat high tech again. But it wouldn't really matter since the garrisons would still be trapped on the islands. They would simply be overrun no matter how effective or ineffective the bombardment was. (my WWII analogy works there)

Forget my "occupy peacefully comment"...I sort of know what I was trying to say but it didn't really come out right:(

[Kampfwagen]

It sounds to me that if China were to invade these islands, or even 'reclaim' them, the international backblast would most certantly be signifigant. And beleve me, I realize that probably wins the award for Understatement of the Month.

It seems unlikely that China would have anything to do with these small islands unless it was not worried about causing a full scale war in the Pacific. Even if these islands are not part of the Taiwan-U.S agreement, it would definately be seen as an act of agression by China. As such, Taiwan might insist that, even though the islands are not covered by this agreement, it is not within the realm of impossibility to assume that Taiwan could try for an apeal for more suppourt or even assistance in an open war against China, on the grounds that it is clear indication of a threat against the home islands. The United States it's self might even initiate a war on it's own in on a similar basis. This possibilty is remote. Not impossible but likely improbable to my knowlidge.

However, the situation is a sticky one at best.

[Finn McCool]

I think that at this point any sort of war in the Taiwan Strait is pretty unlikely. Especially if it is as inconclusive as just snatching a few little islands. The only way I can see this whole thing starting is if something happens in China like what happened in 1989? when the Soviet union was collapsing. Hardline communists in the Politburo and army tried to stage a coup and save the Soviet Union but failed. It could happen in China if some people in the Communist Party thought that the Party was loosening its grip to much and decided to act. But even that is not really foreseeable as the party is still in absolute control. Read some comments Hu Jintao made sometime this week in some speech he made. It sounds less like Deng and more like Mao...

Anyway, the international community would react with panic to any disruption of the status quo in the Strait so I don't think this situation will happen anytime soon.

[The_Zergling]

In any hypotheticals that I propose between Taiwan and China, generally I don't factor US involvement because it's too much of a swing factor.

In other words, straight Taiwan vs China scenario, without factoring international backlash. Of course, the only way I could get away with this kind of hypothetical is if China's economic power gets so strong in the future that nobody dares say anything.

That being said, taking the islands or threatening Taiwan using the people on them as hostages would be a plausible tactic to be employed by the PRC. As of the current technological and numerical situation, China would have a hard time taking Taiwan without suffering substantial casualties itself, and picking off the islands would be the safest way to do it. The internal Taiwanese conflict would no doubt be fierce, as even if most people see themselves as Taiwanese instead of Chinese, they're not exactly willing to fight a battle that is (relatively) pointless, seeing as the PRC would prevail in the end.

I propose this scenario mostly as an alternative to a full scale invasion of "mainland" Taiwan. (That's what the people on the outlying islands call Taiwan), or a action preceding the invasion. I mean, if you are the President of Taiwan, what are you going to do? Tell the troops to fight and inevitably die? Or concede and let China occupy the islands? There are also many civilians on the islands, how would they react? Either way they'd be in a sticky situation, on one hand they'll probably die in a missile strike, on the other hand they'd be the newest citizens of the PRC.

In all likelihood, the public would demand that the President concede to Chinese demands, considering that generally the Taiwanese are pretty divided regarding a conflict with China.

Of course, once a Chinese aircraft carrier is factored in these islands would probably be a non-factor military wise, as China could just ignore them and attack from the east.

[Finn McCool]

In any hypotheticals that I propose between Taiwan and China, generally I don't factor US involvement because it's too much of a swing factor.

I don't think so. American involvement is a definate. No sane American president would let the Chinese get away with that. Even if the Chinese only attacked the outlying islands, the Americans would send a couple of CVBGs as a warning and demand in the UN that they withdraw. The Americans would do this because if the Chinese continue onto "mainland" Taiwan they would have to get involved because of their treaty obligations so they would want to stop any war before it starts. Peace is in everybody's interest in the Strait.

[The_Zergling]

I don't think so. American involvement is a definate. No sane American president would let the Chinese get away with that. Even if the Chinese only attacked the outlying islands, the Americans would send a couple of CVBGs as a warning and demand in the UN that they withdraw. The Americans would do this because if the Chinese continue onto "mainland" Taiwan they would have to get involved because of their treaty obligations so they would want to stop any war before it starts. Peace is in everybody's interest in the Strait.

I respectfully disagree. For example, suppose the US invades Iran in the near future. It will divide the public even more regarding foreign operations, and also strain the military. I don't think treaties have been very highly regarded by the US, but that's just my opinion. Just because the US has "promised" to defend Taiwan in the off-chance that China invades doesn't mean it will, especially if there is a strong public backlash against the US sending troops overseas to "fight other people's wars".

Something else to consider if WHY the US would want to defend Taiwan. Right now it's an unsinkable aircraft carrier, but it doesn't have (that much) in terms of natural resources, so basically it's only valuable for its convenient location. However, once the PRC gets an aircraft carrier operational it will drastically enhance the abilities of the PRC to project power, it will have the ability to simply go around Taiwan if it wishes to, effectively island-hopping.

Though I still believe that the US would probably defend Taiwan, it's by no means definite. (Again, opinion) It all depends on the American public, and how much they would approve of involvement, I'd say. The US has a lot to lose in a conflict and if they feel that China would negate the advantage of having the "unsinkable carrier" Taiwan in a few years anyway it's possible that they'd just say, "You want to unify? Fine, if Taiwan's okay with it."

However, there's a sticky detail. Taiwan has a lot of high-tech US equipment. Sure the F-16 isn't in the same league as the F-22, but if the PRC gets their hands on one (not to mention all the Patriot missile batteries, the E-2s, etc) the US would be in a very uncomfortable position. So actually even if Taiwan WANTS to unify it might in fact face opposition from the States. Again, hard to say.

[Finn McCool]

The US simply wouldn't tolerate the Chinese taking over a democratic country that is an ally. It would be percieved as a direct challenge, even if it was only something realtively small like taking over Kinmen and Matsu. The American people would be caught up watching the military blow stuff up on TV. (PRovided we aren't involved in a war in the Middle East as you said.) But the main objective the Americans would have would be preserving the status quo. (de facto independence for Taiwan, a China that claims the territory but doesn't really want to do anything about it).

Back on the islands...

The best thing they could do is try to hold out until a ceasefire. I think one would come fairly quickly (a few days of fighting) due to international outrage and American intervention. If the garrisons can stay alive for a few days they would probably be returned to Taiwan.

[Vlad Plasmius]

Before I start responding I want you all to look at this nice little map:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/images/taiwan-drawglobe-3.gif

The areas in red are the islands being discussed. Imagine the difficulties of having to reinvade these islands. China would have advance warning and be able to shell, bomb, and do just about anything else imaginable to any force trying to assist or retake the islands.

Finn McCool

Who says having an agreement has anything to do with it?

How many Congressman do you think would support this? By that I mean specifically retaking these island, which would require open war against China? There are some hawks in the Administration and Congress, but not even the most hawkish would support such a suicidal move to retake some small islands. What they would do is suport certain measures to prevent an attack on the main island. Deployment of carriers, air patrols near the straits, that sort of thing.

Taiwan they would have to get involved because of their treaty obligations

The thing about tnat, we aren't exactly ones to honor a treaty even if it is required, let alone obligated. We've stabbed plenty of people in the back, no reason we should stop now.

I think one would come fairly quickly (a few days of fighting) due to international outrage and American intervention.

You greatly overestimate our ability to give a damn. I think there's a real possibility we'd let China have all of Taiwan if there looked to be a slight possibility of high American casualties. We certainly wouldn't and, more iimportantly, couldn't do anything about China invading Kinmen and Matsu. Taiwan's only hope would be making the cost too great for China.

Kampfwagen

It sounds to me that if China were to invade these islands, or even 'reclaim' them, the international backblast would most certantly be signifigant.

All China would have to say is "What are you going to do about it?" and no one could argue with them. Defending the main island of Taiwan would be hard enough, but defending these islands

The_Zergling

Taiwan has a lot of high-tech US equipment. Sure the F-16 isn't in the same league as the F-22, but if the PRC gets their hands on one (not to mention all the Patriot missile batteries, the E-2s, etc) the US would be in a very uncomfortable position.

Not really. Granted, we're ridiculously paranoid, but there's no way we could argue on that point alone. maybe, the E-2s, but China has a good understanding of much of our other technologies. Remember that China has good military ties with Israel and Pakistan, plus they've done a bit of scavenging in our last wars. They know plenty about us and our technology. Were they to devote the resources to it, they could produce technology surpassing our own by looking at what US technology they have access to.

There is one possibility, if the international community is outraged enough, they may support a Taiwanese declaration of independence. This is doubtful though. I think the world would actually kind of understand why China wouldn't allow Taiwan the ability to maintain artillery regiments neary a major port city or a SAM battery that could shoot down civillian airliners, Regardless of whether you see Taiwan as an independent nation or a renegade province, having the ability to do this while maintaining an active claim to that nearby nation (China) poses a good threat to that nation. China can't extend their SAMs very far into Taiwanese airspace and can't use artillery. Taiwan has this ability and with the new LACM it mean Taiwan has an even greater ability to attack China. China can probably cook up a pretty good argument for doing this.

[The_Zergling]

I agree with most of Vlad's points, his stance is pretty much what I'm thinking. The American public's tolerance for casualties (only American casualties, they've generally shown a sickening indifference to civilian or enemy casualties on the "other side") is considerably low, and they definitely won't be eager to suffer even more. Conflict with China simply cannot be compared to conflict in Iraq, where most of the casualties came after occupation.

So, yeah, it's probably true. Don't OVERestimate the US's ability to not give a damn.

I don't know anything about Matsu so I won't comment on that, but like I said before Kinmen has a extensive tunnel network, which would (somewhat) increase survivability should the Chinese want to take it. But once it's taken, then it's pretty much gone for good, there's no way Taiwan would have any chance of taking it back.

Penghu is that clump of islands smack between China and Taiwan, near the bottom of the picture. It's got a medium sized airport and harbor, and is more capable of full-scale operations than say, Kinmen. Taiwan has been reluctant to put high-tech stuff on Kinmen, considering that any fighters stationed there would be rat bait for Chinese missiles, both SSM or SAM. If I was in charge of defending Taiwan, I'd probably put emphasis on surviving a first PRC missile strike, by strengthening runways and shelters, plus building underground tunnels. The cost is relatively cheap, compared to 8 diesel submarines that wouldn't even enter service fast enough to make any difference anyway.

On a side note, I believe that the US reluctance to sell really high-notch weaponry to Taiwan does have a lot to do with the fact that they could very possibly fall into the hands of China, either via forceful or peaceful unification. I just don't see the US exporting F-22s or the newest AMRAAMs anytime soon, also taking into account that in all likelihood Taiwan will elect a pan-blue President in 2008, and might just decide to unify.

[Finn McCool]

I didn't ever mean that the Americans or Taiwanese would have to land on the islands to get them back. I meant that the us/international community would offer a choice to China: Back down and give the islands back or risk full scale war. It would be a game of brinkmanship. It would probably be something like the Cuban Missle Crisis. That way the pressure is on the Chinese. They have to decide if a few little islands are worth the risk. I know which option I would pick;) . And about the public support thing...everybody always says that the American public is unwilling to tolerate casualites. However, historical data from WWII to Iraq War II shows that the American public is very willing to take heavy casualties as long as they understand why the war is being fought and they believe that the US is winning. The US public abandons a war when it is loosing and it can't figure out why its men are being killed. Plus short military deployments get a boost in public approval when the general public can see its tax dollars at work. When I say that I mean they are watching aircraft carriers launch planes and doing the sort of stuff you see in recruting commercials. So I don't think public support would be a problem because the american people would realize China would need to be faced down to prevent all out war. (If the PRC gets Kinmen and Matsu they will probably be moving on to Taipei soon.)

Basically I think that China will take the islands and prepare for a full invasion. But they would not get to do it because the Americans would deploy a bunch of troops and hardware and the Un would demand a Chinese withdrawl. As I said earlier, China would be faced with the choice of war with an American and Taiwanese UN-backed force :nono: or just giving up the islands :) . Truly major combat would never take place other than on the islands themselves when the Chinese attacked them to begin with.

[The_Zergling]

However, historical data from WWII to Iraq War II shows that the American public is very willing to take heavy casualties as long as they understand why the war is being fought and they believe that the US is winning. The US public abandons a war when it is loosing and it can't figure out why its men are being killed.

That's exactly the point. Does the American public even know why they would/should be fighting in Taiwan anyway? Public support was easy to drum up in the months leading up to the Iraq war, because of the "shock and awe" propoganda, nobody expected casualties, plus the media pretty much dehumanized the Iraqis up to a point that nobody really cared if they were being bombed. Then everyone's surprised when the Iraqis aren't exactly showing up with flowers after getting bombed.

I guess ignorance is the main factor here. Does the average American even know where Taiwan is, and what the majority of its people look like, and how things work? The basic consensus is, "Taiwan is democratic so we should protect it, blah blah".

In Iraq it was easy to profile Arabs (Iraqi or non-Iraq, Sunni or Shiite, etc) as enemies, because they generally don't look like Americans. Now imagine a situation in which they would possibly be fighting in Taiwan, where the people they're fighting and protecting look pretty much alike, and speak the same language. It's hard to dehumanize the enemy when your ally fits the description nearly perfectly.


So I don't think public support would be a problem because the american people would realize China would need to be faced down to prevent all out war. (If the PRC gets Kinmen and Matsu they will probably be moving on to Taipei soon.)

Again, this depends on whether or not fighting over Taiwan is worth it. What makes Taiwan worth defending, in the eyes of the US public? (I know that as a rule the current administration hasn't really been a good portrayal of the wishes of over 50% of the American people, but what the public thinks of a war is important nonetheless)

[FriedRiceNSpice]

China can't extend their SAMs very far into Taiwanese airspace and can't use artillery.

But they do have that 700 ballistic missiles...

Back down and give the islands back or risk full scale war.

Full scale war could mean the destruction of both nations. In that sense it is exactly like the Cuban Missile Crisis.

[RedMercury]

UN support? You've got to be kidding me. Don't you know who are the permenant members of the security council? "International" support, from Japan, perhaps Australia, and some Europeans perhaps, but not under UN.

Brinksmanship can go two ways. Remember both sides have nuclear weapons and highly intertwined economies. And no one ever questions China or the Chinese people's resolve for eventual unification.

[Finn McCool]

UN support? You've got to be kidding me. Don't you know who are the permenant members of the security council? ".

OK OK maybe Un suport is a bit generous considering China is on the Security Council. I don't know how I forgot that:o. But international support would be very broad. Who do you think the most countries are going to pick? "Commies" who just attacked a democratic country or (as distasteful as it may be) the US? India would feel threatend by such an assertive China. The Europeans would be with NATO. Russia would be the main swing factor but I'm guessing that hey would go with America. At least they wouldn't veto anything because that would be percieved as siding with China. And by the way the permanant members of the Security Council are: US Britain France Russia China

I have a question. What is the topic of this thread really? I kind of want to get away from the topic of US reaction because its becoming everybody against McCool.

I think the best thing the US could do in this situation is confront China over their attack of the islands, get some sort of a ceasefire agreement. Basically, prevent war by scaring China and making it realize it isn't going get away with snatching Kinmen and Matsu. Given the choice of fighting a real war or getting a face-saving agreement and then claiming victory or something China would definately choose option #2. That's what I'm advocating. Avoiding war and preventing China from getting away with agression. The American forces would never even fire a shot. They would just be there to back up what the diplomats say. As I said earlier, prevserving the status quo is in everybody's interest.

Of course China's reaction in this scenario is just my opinion, and betting on an opinion is a situation as deadly as that is...dangerous.

[Vlad Plasmius]

Finn McCool

I meant that the us/international community would offer a choice to China: Back down and give the islands back or risk full scale war.

Again, China then asks, "What are you going to do about it?" It would be considered distasteful of China, but it's not like they can do anything about it as legally it is recognized as their territory and would therefore certainly not be an arguable issue.

India would feel threatend by such an assertive China. The Europeans would be with NATO. Russia would be the main swing factor but I'm guessing that hey would go with America. At least they wouldn't veto anything because that would be percieved as siding with China.

You are slowly but surely turning this conversation into a World War III discussion. It wouldn't end up even close. China's actions would probably be frowned upon and looked at, but there will be no real action except to prevent an invasion of the main island. Most likely no one will demand a withdrawal, though they'll ask for one. Everyone knows there's no way anyone could back up any demand for a withdrawal. We're not sacrificing anything for two islands that are sparsely-populated and technically part of China to begin with.

I have a question. What is the topic of this thread really?

Pretty straightforward.

Basically, prevent war by scaring China and making it realize it isn't going get away with snatching Kinmen and Matsu.

How? That's the problem and why I bring up conflict. There's nothing we could do to China. Threatening war will get us no where and any attempt to back it up would be disasterous for us.

[PiSigma]

i doubt the europeans will do much, or the american government. remember that the economy of your own nation is always more important than the survivabilty of another nation even if its an ally. if it's a ally with liabilities like taiwan, then you can forgive about defending it.. especially if the rival can offer good economic incentives.

remember NATO is a DEFENSIVE alliance, only if an nato nation gets attacked does it truly take effect, if there's an offensive operation, it's pretty much voluntary.

UN can't do anything, and most government's don't give a damn if a nation is "democratic" (i put that in quotes bc USA is really an aristocracy, or olligarcy, and not truly democratic anymore) or a nation is "communist" (that is in quotes because we pretty much all know china is more capitalist than most other countires in the world). and most nations won't risk their own economy to antagonize china.

here's a little example.. if let's say USA decides to put pressure on china, china can dump all american bonds, then stop all shipments to US. in a month all stores in the US will be completely empty, anything anyone want to buy will have skyrocketed prices, and that's when the american public want to get on the chinese good side. sure it will hurt the chinese economy, but they'll show the world how the world need china and once and for all make sure no nation will ever even think of pissing china off.

[FriedRiceNSpice]

Given the choice of fighting a real war or getting a face-saving agreement and then claiming victory or something China would definately choose option #2.

Hmmm... lets see how that would play out.

Public Announcement from Hu Jintao:
"Our forces have just achieved a maravelous victory against the Taiwanese rebels! We were able to secure two of their minor offshore islands, which clearly taught those separtist dogs a lesson. They are now chastised for their existence, and they will never again dare to do absolutely nothing! Even the Americans didn't dare get in the way of our forces. After hours of negogiations dominated by us, we were able to gain many concessions among the Americans, highlighted by a promise not to decimate us completely. In return, all we have to do is to give up the islands that are the fruits of our victory. A new age has dawned in which we are now recognized as a world power. No nation shall ever dare to coerce us again without threats and intimidation!"

[The_Zergling]

In my opinion as long as the war doesn't get too personal then I don't think the average Chinese person will be too against it. Kinda like the US mindset, only when the magnitude and horror of war sinks in to people start to oppose it, but before that it's all a video game, the "glory" of a nation. (Just switch on the TV in the States and you get military recruitment ads all the time, I imagine there's a similiar situation in China).

So, realistically I don't think China would fear a full scale (non-nuke) war over the islands, so long as the public only gets the good news, and sees it as a just war to right some wrongs.

[FriedRiceNSpice]

So, realistically I don't think China would fear a full scale (non-nuke) war over the islands, so long as the public only gets the good news, and sees it as a just war to right some wrongs.

Eh... not so much once cruise missiles and precision-munitions dropped by B2's start landing around Beijing and major ports, airfields, and industrial centers...
Especially if they have no way to retaliate. Even sinking carriers is not at the same level as bombing the heart of a nation.

[The_Zergling]

Indeed. I was just pointing out that war would be much more personal for the Taiwanese (compared to the Chinese or Americans) which would either help motivate the troops to get some revenge for some dead friend/relative/significant other or else it would have them surrender to just get it over with, expecting China not to do things like imprison everyone.

But even when there are bombs being dropped on you, sometimes it just strengthens resolve. Like I said earlier, war is getting less and less personal for technologically advanced nations, the US government has an official policy of not showing the flag shrouded casket of fallen soldiers. Not even the dead bodies of the soldiers, mind you, just the clean and (morbidly) pretty American flag draped on a coffin. They're afraid of the public losing its taste for the war once the reality that it's not a video game sinks in.

Now, I'm not sure how well this would apply to China. For one thing, I have no idea how well communication works in China, I know that there's the internet nearly all over the US so if something bad happens (like Los Angeles getting bombed) everyone's going to know about it.

If some B-2s bombed some industrial city in China, I'm not sure if everyone would know about it, but this is mainly because of my ignorance regarding China, and if anyone more knowlegeable could clear this up I'd really appreciate it.

But anyway, my point still stands that as long as war is "un-personalized" and the bombs aren't falling on them, people generally go along with it, at least that's what I've been led to believe, watching history, and people on the internet who flaunt military force as if it makes their country great, and see war as something glorious.

[FriedRiceNSpice]

Some very good points you make. Although the Chinese government may try to hush up news regarding B2 attacks and internet in China might be less developed than it is in the US, the word will eventually get out. At least the people living in the industrial cities will notice that they are getting bombed, and most likely at least some of these people will divluge this information to relatives and friends over the phone, and pretty soon much of the urban population will figure out that they are being bombed. It is not a good feeling to have when you are being bombed and you know you can't bomb them back.

[adeptitus]

On a side note, I believe that the US reluctance to sell really high-notch weaponry to Taiwan does have a lot to do with the fact that they could very possibly fall into the hands of China, either via forceful or peaceful unification. I just don't see the US exporting F-22s or the newest AMRAAMs anytime soon, also taking into account that in all likelihood Taiwan will elect a pan-blue President in 2008, and might just decide to unify.

Noooo...

Uncle Sam doesn't want to sell a stockpile of advanced weapons, because it might encourage the pro-TI guys to declare TI and fight it out.

The US has placed restrictions on even F-35 exports to allied countries that contributed to its development:

http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2152035/joint-strike-fighter
Britain warns US over jet software codes

£12bn Joint Strike Fighter order could be scrapped
Matt Chapman, vnunet.com 15 Mar 2006

The UK has warned America that it will cancel its £12bn order for the Joint Strike Fighter if the US does not hand over full access to the computer software code that controls the jets.

Lord Drayson, minister for defence procurement, told the The Daily Telegraph that the planes were useless without control of the software as they could effectively be "switched off" by the Americans without warning.

[Roger604]

I can't believe how many Americans have an opinion on the Taiwan issue without any knowledge of what kind of nasty surprises await any US intervention in the straits. I mean, geez, there's an entire site of military information here.

It's also ironically laughable how many Americans think the world loves them to death and will follow them to the death. Europeans already despise the Americans. Not to even mention Cold War enemies like the Russians.

[Gollevainen]

Ok but in this forum, if we despise some country, we keep it to ourselves....

...mean: Cut the USA bashing and focus on the actual matter

[The_Zergling]

I can't believe how many Americans have an opinion on the Taiwan issue without any knowledge of what kind of nasty surprises await any US intervention in the straits. I mean, geez, there's an entire site of military information here.


Well, what with the "China threat" ploy being used all that often I'm sure that most Americans don't think it would be a walk in the park, but in all honesty I don't think they have any idea what they would be up against.

I guess education is the kicker, if soldiers that might be deployed to Taiwan have absolutely no understanding of Taiwanese culture or customs, social rules and such, chances are that they will make mistakes and possibly offend the Taiwanese people. For instance, if the war drags out longer than a week or so, and US forces land on Taiwan, and they dig in, effectively occupying, how would Taiwan react?

I'm guessing the US gov would order the ROC to follow its lead, and its rules, and I'm not sure how that would rub off. You can't just go to a country and expect them to follow YOUR customs, it's totally unrealistic, things that you think are natural might not be to the locals, therefore you might actually alienate the ones you are trying to liberate.

On a side note, I'm impressed that Gollevainen hasn't locked this yet. Either he believes that we're getting more mature and more capable of keeping this civil, or he's lost his edge:)

[Gollevainen]

I'm optimistic in my deep nature...

...But don't think that i wouln't be monitoring this and letting things slip trough my fingers...i'm like Hawk circyling in the skies and just when you think you are safe to start some sort of trouple....you never knew what hit you:nono: :nono: ;) ;)

[FuManChu]

i doubt the europeans will do much, or the american government

Obviously an assault on Taiwan itself would, doubtless, be met by an American military response. And the European Union would quite probably have a serious diplomatic/economic response - it certainly wouldn't just ignore it. But to be honest I'm not so sure that an invasion of those outlying islands would just be ignored. I could easily imagine the E.U. (for example) taking some sort of action in protest. It's impossible to know because no one really has an idea of what these governments' real policy over Taiwan is.

they'll show the world how the world need china and once and for all make sure no nation will ever even think of pissing china off.

That's one reason why nations might take action against China if it were to launch an attack on Taiwan, depending on the scale of it. Better to try to rein a country in while it's still growing than leave it to develop even further.

[KYli]

OK OK maybe Un suport is a bit generous considering China is on the Security Council. I don't know how I forgot that:o. But international support would be very broad.
That would be questionable. I doubt many countries will fight the chinese simply because china is a very powerful country both in term of military and economy.

Who do you think the most countries are going to pick? "Commies" who just attacked a democratic country or (as distasteful as it may be) the US?
most countries will stay netural, and others will choose the one that benefit them the most. It had nothing to do with commies or democratic.

India would feel threatend by such an assertive China. The Europeans would be with NATO.
India will stay netural because there are no reason fort them to get involve into the conflict.

Russia would be the main swing factor but I'm guessing that hey would go with America. At least they wouldn't veto anything because that would be percieved as siding with China. And by the way the permanant members of the Security Council are: US Britain France Russia China
Russia will probably not go with America. Why you keep mention "veto", did you forgot that China is permenant member.


I think the best thing the US could do in this situation is confront China over their attack of the islands, get some sort of a ceasefire agreement. Basically, prevent war by scaring China and making it realize it isn't going get away with snatching Kinmen and Matsu. Given the choice of fighting a real war or getting a face-saving agreement and then claiming victory or something China would definately choose option #2. That's what I'm advocating. Avoiding war and preventing China from getting away with agression. The American forces would never even fire a shot. They would just be there to back up what the diplomats say. As I said earlier, prevserving the status quo is in everybody's interest.
What made you think China could easily agree to an agreement purpose by US?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Have you factored the Pescadores into this equation? I don't know what Taiwan has on them, but they are positioned right in the middle of the Strait and they would be able to massively screw up in-air refueling, transfering supplies to a beachead on Taiwan and pretty much any thing the Chinese want to do undisturbed in the Strait because they would be taking fire from their rear (presumably after taking Kinmen and Matsu). Do you know what forces they have in the Pescadores? I don't so I'll check it out and post it.

And for some reason I really want to use a banana here so I will.
I born in Fujian. I could tell you that the islands are only miles from the mainland China. It is relatively difficult to defend against Chinese invadision, and if China had sucessful took the islands. I doubt US willing to launch counter attack on the islands. When I am kid, I usually go to mountain and take a look at these islands.

In the 40's the Kuomantiang repulsed an invasion of the islands. They had far superior weapons though, and this is no longer the case.
In 40's PLA did not even had a decent warship.

Hi Fumanchu

That's one reason why nations might take action against China if it were to launch an attack on Taiwan, depending on the scale of it. Better to try to rein a country in while it's still growing than leave it to develop even further
It is true that US might want to take some action now, but for all other nations I doubt they are interesting in this conflict. unless the countries which are close allies of US, most countries just did not cared who will be the world super power.

[Vlad Plasmius]

Obviously an assault on Taiwan itself would, doubtless, be met by an American military response. And the European Union would quite probably have a serious diplomatic/economic response - it certainly wouldn't just ignore it.

I don't know. Nothing serious would be possible. China can do quite a bit in response, economically. I think the response to even an attack on Taiwan itself would likely only result in some ship movements. Our response would be the most severe, however, we'd probably only try to assist the Taiwanese clandestinely. I just think there'd be a major fear within the political community as to the after-effects of engaging Chinese fighters. We'd probably have air patrols over certain parts and maybe increase funding and transfer weapons to taiwan. I can't see our military being allowed to go much further.

The most that would happen in the rest of the world is some condemnations and limiting of economic assistance during the span of the conflict that would be receded at its end.

But to be honest I'm not so sure that an invasion of those outlying islands would just be ignored.

By everyone but us it probably would. There may be some more alertness among neighbors and diplomatic appeals, but likely it would be very quick and resolute. We would probably only just somewhat strengthen our stance with Taiwan. I'd say the only thing that this could have as a negative effect is the possibility of emboldening the cause for independence. It's doubtful though as most would see a rapid victory at those islands as a sign of China's determination and warfighting capability. It might scare enough people to where they'd be more against independence.

[Finn McCool]

All right its time for me to put reality into this disscussion.

It seems we can all agree that the risks China would take in attacking these islands would be quite large. What would they gain from it? Even if by some miracle everbody just looked the other way and let China take over it would still give lots of ammo of China-phobes everywhere. Attacking Kinmen and Matsu would pretty much trash all of Hu Jintao's "Peaceful Rise" rhetoric, provoke hostility everywhere, have adverse effects on the Chinese economy and cost quite a bit in military equipment. Taiwan would go about buying and making all of the weapons and defences it could. Any attack would play right into the DPP's hands. They would win every election for 10 years. It would make China look like a bully and damage their international prestiege. In case anybody hasn't noticed, attacking places randomly doesn't win you too many friends, just look at what happened to us in Iraq. On top of this China would be risking war with America, Taiwan and possiblly Japan, major trading partners all, so why would they do it? It's just not a good idea. Maybe Kim Jong Il would, but not somebody as smart as the leaders of the CCP.

[KYli]

All right its time for me to put reality into this disscussion.

It seems we can all agree that the risks China would take in attacking these islands would be quite large. What would they gain from it? Even if by some miracle everbody just looked the other way and let China take over it would still give lots of ammo of China-phobes everywhere. Attacking Kinmen and Matsu would pretty much trash all of Hu Jintao's "Peaceful Rise" rhetoric, provoke hostility everywhere, have adverse effects on the Chinese economy and cost quite a bit in military equipment. Taiwan would go about buying and making all of the weapons and defences it could. Any attack would play right into the DPP's hands. They would win every election for 10 years. It would make China look like a bully and damage their international prestiege. In case anybody hasn't noticed, attacking places randomly doesn't win you too many friends, just look at what happened to us in Iraq. On top of this China would be risking war with America, Taiwan and possiblly Japan, major trading partners all, so why would they do it? It's just not a good idea. Maybe Kim Jong Il would, but not somebody as smart as the leaders of the CCP.
If China ever try to take Taiwan, it would be full scale invasion including Taiwan island. CCP would not risk for war with America for just Kinmen and Matsu islands.

[Vlad Plasmius]

Any attack would play right into the DPP's hands.

Actually, no. It would probably further damage their reputation. The DPP has already received criticism for its large military purchases and its provocative tone towards China. An attack could quickly be blamed on the DPP's inept nature. People would see the attack as a result of the DPP provoking action and see that even the already large deficit is being wasted since it can't effectively defend Taiwanese-held lands.

An attack would only embolden the remaining minority, but would bring more into the majority. More people would come against the DPP and see diplomacy as an effective means of handling it. The DPP might move for more purchases, but they've already put a drain on the economy. A push for more spending would probably make it uncomfortable for many in Taiwan's legislature.

It wouldn't be as straightforward as you think.

[Kampfwagen]

Sorry for the length of time it has taken me to reply to this.

It's a tricky thing to reply to, because it is a very delicate kind of discussion. But I wonder. Would there be any real reason that the PRC would invade these islands for anything other than using them as a staging point for a possible invasion into Taiwan? I ask this with all sincerity.

To factor out an outside power is rather lop-sided and also unlikely. Lopsided because the PRC is several times more likely to win in a straight one-on-one battle with the Taiwanese. Unlikely because the political backlash, especialy in the EU and the United States. Armed conflict is unlikely, it always was. My examples of such were 'last resort' scenarios. A future conflict with China would be deemed risky. China is a whole 'nother league compared to countries like Iran and North Korea. Besides, as stated earlier, a war with China would shatter economic ties that the United States has with the nation, needless to say.

Sorry, I will probably end up sounding like an idiot here. :o

Vlad: I couldint have said it any better myself. It's definately never so straight-forward.

[King_Comm]

I don't think that China will try to take Kinmen and Matsu inorder to use them as a stagging ground for a full scale invasion or bargainning chip with the DPP under normal circumstances, as the invasion of Taiwan has to be completed with in a week, if the offensive drags longer than a week, the Americans will move in their carriers from the Indian Ocean and Hawaii, and make things really difficult for the Chinese, so what China most like to do is eliminate Taiwanese SAM and anit-ship missile positions on Matsu and Kinmen(countrary to popular believe, China has precision strike capabilities too), and then simply bypass the Islands.

But, if the US is bogged down in an other unpopular war, lt's say Iran, unlike Iraq, Iranian military is led by competent professionals, it will be a polonged war with big casualties, with the US military tied down in Iran, China would be able to use more flexible means to deal with Taiwan, then Matsu and Kinmen can be considered.

[Vlad Plasmius]

I don't think that China will try to take Kinmen and Matsu inorder to use them as a stagging ground for a full scale invasion or bargainning chip with the DPP under normal circumstances, as the invasion of Taiwan has to be completed with in a week, if the offensive drags longer than a week, the Americans will move in their carriers from the Indian Ocean and Hawaii, and make things really difficult for the Chinese

They don't have to invade right after though. It's not like they would be hard to hold like the Penghu Islands. China could delay an invasion for weeks, months even. Waiting until the perfect moment to strike. In fact, it is possible there will be no need for invasion. China can convince Taiwan to act in China's favor. an invasion of the islands, if truly successful, could easily lead to a Chinese victory. China would never have to resort to open war on the main island and even then an invasion wouldn't be necessary. Imagine the effect of holdding tens of thousand of Taiwanese soldiers captive. China would have justifiable reasons for it. After all, the international community recognizes China's sovereignty over the islands. What would any other country do if a province was raising an army to defend itself from the federal government and received international support militarily? Legally we cannot justify our actions or any other country.

[Finn McCool]

Waiting until the perfect moment to strike. In fact, it is possible there will be no need for invasion.

If China attaked the islands, it would greatly effect its chances to take Taiwan. Unless they attacked simaltaeneously on the islands and Taiwan or the islands and then strike on Taiwan as quickly as possible. The Chinese would actually gain very little militarily from attacking the islands and then
waiting. It would give the Taiwanese time to fortify beaches, plant bombs on raids, move forces around, protect their planes on their airfields, plant explosives on bridges, etc. More importantly it would give the US time to deploy its forces. So I doubt China would attack the islands simply to take Kinmen and Matsu. This assault would only be done as a part of a larger attack on Taiwan. Otherwise the Chinese would just be making it harder on themselves.

[Vlad Plasmius]

This assault would only be done as a part of a larger attack on Taiwan. Otherwise the Chinese would just be making it harder on themselves.

You fail to see it. The Taiwanese would not give much support to the government. It would probably be seen as a sign that the DPP is endangering the people of Taiwan.

[The_Zergling]

You fail to see it. The Taiwanese would not give much support to the government. It would probably be seen as a sign that the DPP is endangering the people of Taiwan.

I'm not going to say that I totally agree with this premise, but it's a plausible guess at how they would react (to the islands being held hostage).

Myself, I can't accurately judge what the majority of people would do in that sort of situation.

To my understanding, the Taiwanese people genearlly aren't going to exactly "roll over" and take it easily, but distaste for war is relatively strong, at least compared to the US or China (No commercials glorifying military force, for example) so it's hard to say whether or not the anger of being bullied so blatantly would overturn the other alternative, which is to just say, "Aw shucks. Maybe life will improve, who knows. It beats getting shot.

[RedMercury]

Everyone's distaste for war is the same high level if the war is to be fought on one's own soil, destroying one's own home and economy, randomly killing one's own relatives and friends. Citizens of the US have been fortunate enough to not have that since the mid 1800s. Thus, unfortunately for the rest of the world, not even the oldest generation remembers first hand what the devastation of war is like. Thus, there's no distaste for war.

[Finn McCool]

You fail to see it. The Taiwanese would not give much support to the government. It would probably be seen as a sign that the DPP is endangering the people of Taiwan.

I see it clearly. The DPP is just a political party. China can't attack the DPP. It has to attack Taiwan. And when you attack Taiwan, its citizens will die regardless of their political affiliation. You don't drive people into your arms by bombing them. Just look at Iraq. Given a chance of success (i.e. US intervention) I think that most Taiwanese will take the chance of resisting. However, if they cannot win, they will express the sentiment Zergling contributed. Aw, shucks.

Finally, an attack on the islands alone would produce fear in Taiwan's general populace. It is quite possible that they would vote a Kuomantiang presidnet in to power to try to step back from the brink, but any attack would put the possibility of reunification farther in the future, regardless of the party in charge. A Kuomantiang president would be elected in that situation in order to preserve the status quo and prevent further conflict, not give up de-facto independence in the face of threats.

[JonMan]

RedMerc, maybe Vietnam has firsthand experience, because some South Vietnam had to fight with the North, and Korea, I believe. North fought better because they were forced to by their leader, and were hopeful with better weapons, and with unification promise. And the South was reluctant to fight.

Finn, your ideal of a world who wants to "defend democracy" is not likely. Europe didn't help Israel in Yom Kippur war because of Arab Oil. And on a same token, how valuable is trade with China? The US however never backs on their word, but they promised to NOT defend Taiwan for CSB, if he keeps making aggressive statements. And their promise of unconditional war with China even if China strikes first is probably like the promise to Israel. Just equipment. But Taiwan will be overpowered no matter what. Israel just had a lot better military personnel in general.

Nuclear war, I say no possibility.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,18002497%255E31477,00.html

The Bush Sr. administration and Clinton administration both turned down to take military action against china when its military was growing. Its a fact. The gap between US and China is closing, and they didn't want to deal with it when they had a better advantage.

I am sure that generals have a decent brain to work with and know that there is not much point in taking some aggressive actions to small islands and waiting.

The media portrays Iraq as anti-US after intervention. Its not wrong, but not the opposite is true. They have mixed feelings, and like it a bit less than the status-quo there, but real iraqis didn't resist much. Almost their entire army surrendered, but the REAL problem is soldiers coming from other countries like Iran. You don't realize that Arab states do this A LOT, just look at recent history with Arab problems.

Who's going to pour into Taiwan? From out of the country? The backlash within america will be bad too. They really have little sympathy for war with things they don't understand. They would rather pull out of Iraq and let them fend for themselves because America lost 1,000 soldiers. We can agree war with China will inflict extremely heavy casualties compared to that war.

The morale in Taiwan is probably not be that high, no matter what president they have.

[Vlad Plasmius]

You don't drive people into your arms by bombing them.

That's why an invasion of the islands is different. They are far more important as military installations. It's not like they're bombing a city. That's why it's important. A large portion of the population is military. China can allow the civllians to do whatever they wish as far as travel goes, but hold the soldiers captive. It's very liegitimate behavior. It wouldn't be easy to say that China is being immoral or that it's an international crisis. We're talking tens of thousands of soldiers as prisoners. The people are not going to be too interested in having this go further and they know they can't do anything to defend themselves. If CHina does not show any truly ill behavior then it's likely the people will be less supportove of action against China. What matters most is how China handles it politically. It's a great deal easier, though, than an invasion of Taiwan itself.

[SampanViking]

Without re-stating yet again, my view on cross strait relations. I will add one tiny point.

China would not simply go ahead and act without gathering any kind of International support. In fact China has been busy doing this ever since Mr Chen made his New Year speech. A steady stream of International Statesman have and are passing through Beijing and all of them are signing trade deals and publicly declaring there adherence to the One China Principle.

Here are some photographs of one such world leader in China last week:

http://img55.imageshack.us/img55/9665/xin432030323090782820394175tv.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img47.imageshack.us/img47/6240/xinsrc34203032308513430179110h.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img47.imageshack.us/img47/8614/xinsrc342030323085164026297121.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img55.imageshack.us/img55/374/xinsrc342030323085193732740135.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

They say a picture can paint a thousand words!

[FuManChu]

Sampan, Russia would never be a "problem" for China. Although Putin is far too clever to get involved in any other China's war (other than flog it whatever supplies it needed), he has never shown any disquiet about China's attitude towards Taiwan. After all, think about the Russians' attitude towards Chechnya.

No, if there is anyone that needs to be "won over" it is the European Union and America. After all they're the ones that objected to the Anti-Secession Act. And I doubt that they would ever support China taking military action against Taiwan, regardless of the circumstances.

[Finn McCool]

I do not think it is realistic for China to do something as radical as using force in the straits and expect the international community to simply let it go ahead. When a nation as big and powerful as China does something like that, upsetting the balance of power in the world's most important and fragile area, risking a massive war, poeple aren't just going to sit back and say "Oh well, they've got a lot of money so there's nothing we can do." The scenario I envision is one in which the US tries to broker a diplomatic solution while perventing an all out invasion by deploying troops, planes and carriers to East Asia. I know that at least the Us isn't going to losse so much face, let China flaunt its word with so much ease and act so aggressively. Its simply dangerous, because when the Chinese push the envelope like that and find that there is no one pushing back, there's no telling exactly how far they might push it.

[FuManChu]

Its simply dangerous, because when the Chinese push the envelope like that and find that there is no one pushing back, there's no telling exactly how far they might push it.

This is a point that I made as well earlier (at least I think I did). First of all America has interests in Taiwan just like China does in North Korea. But second, and more importantly, American opinion (both in the government and general public) is very much that the US should not let China do as it pleases. China has to be told where its boundaries are, so to speak, they would say. Sure it wouldn't adhere to them 100%, but it would "behave" better than if it was given carte blanche.

[Finn McCool]

But second, and more importantly, American opinion (both in the government and general public) is very much that the US should not let China do as it pleases. China has to be told where its boundaries are, so to speak, they would say. Sure it wouldn't adhere to them 100%, but it would "behave" better than if it was given carte blanche.

Exactly. It is dangerous to simply let China "bend the rules" by attacking Kinmen and Matsu. Just look at what happened when the Japanese attacked Manchuria in 1931. No one did anything, and only a few years later Japan attacked all of China, know that it would not be stopped. At least that's how it would be percieved in the US. So an attack on the islands would be met with a stern response.

[Vlad Plasmius]

At least that's how it would be percieved in the US. So an attack on the islands would be met with a stern response.

It wouldn't be seen as severeley, or even close. Manchuria was larger and was part of a very large country important in strategic affairs. The international community came against Japan when they began to commit war crimes and massacres. China won't have to do that to take the islands. It will be about as much of a crisis as the invasion of Chechnya. People were against it, but no war erupted because of it.

An invasion of these islands would be even less objectionable than the invasion of Chechnya, which has faced far more problems.

[SampanViking]

Hmm I thinks you guys have missed something.

When every country states their adherence to the One China Principle, they are acknowleding that China and Taiwan are one country and that conflict between them would be civil, not International Aggression.

If any other nation sought to intervene in the conflict against China, then this would be International Aggression against Chinese Territory. This would trigger the Shanghai Six Mutual Defence Treaty, which means Russia and the other members would be obliged to enter the war.

I would also pre-empt those who would seek to cast doubt on the other members fulfilling their treaty obligations, by stating that all nations take these kind of obligations seriously and so to disregard them would be a foolish error of monumental proportions.

[FuManChu]

If any other nation sought to intervene in the conflict against China, then this would be International Aggression against Chinese Territory. This would trigger the Shanghai Six Mutual Defence Treaty, which means Russia and the other members would be obliged to enter the war.

I would also pre-empt those who would seek to cast doubt on the other members fulfilling their treaty obligations, by stating that all nations take these kind of obligations seriously and so to disregard them would be a foolish error of monumental proportions.

I doubt that would happen. Do you really think that Russia would launch an attack on the US if it intervened over Taiwan? Putin is more canny than that. He would either say that this was not a direct attack on China, or make some foreign diplomacy bluster and leave it at that. Unless American marines tried to take China's eastern sea-board settlements (as unlikely as that would be), Russia and China's neighbours would find themselves "unavailable" to lend anything other than moral support to China.

To put it another way, those countries could risk pissing China off by not getting involved, or really piss the US off by attacking it and suffer whatever economic, diplomatic and military response it could muster. I think it's a no-brainer - play it safe and make profuse apologies to Beijing.

[KYli]

I doubt that would happen. Do you really think that Russia would launch an attack on the US if it intervened over Taiwan? Putin is more canny than that. He would either say that this was not a direct attack on China, or make some foreign diplomacy bluster and leave it at that. Unless American marines tried to take China's eastern sea-board settlements (as unlikely as that would be), Russia and China's neighbours would find themselves "unavailable" to lend anything other than moral support to China.

To put it another way, those countries could risk pissing China off by not getting involved, or really piss the US off by attacking it and suffer whatever economic, diplomatic and military response it could muster. I think it's a no-brainer - play it safe and make profuse apologies to Beijing.
Maybe you are right, but same thing could be say about China. Do you really think that how many nations would lanch an attack on China if China attacked over Taiwan. The so call allies of US, how many of them will want to involve a major military conflict with China.

[Finn McCool]

Yes I agree with Fu and Kyli. Most countries would try to stay as far away as they could from any US-China War. We could expect to see the Russians aiding the Chinese like they aided Iraq. Nations would probably line up into camps diplomatically, but would stay away from military involvement. why would Russia enter the war when it could reap the profits by selling vast amounts of gas to both parties, possibly sell weapons to China and watch its to greatest competitors beat each other to death? Russia would probably be like the US in the early years of WWI and WWII: stay neutral and reap the profits.

[FuManChu]

Maybe you are right, but same thing could be say about China. Do you really think that how many nations would lanch an attack on China if China attacked over Taiwan. The so call allies of US, how many of them will want to involve a major military conflict with China.

I don't think any would attack the mainland - even the United States wouldn't, unless it was desperate to limit reinforcements. But a country like say Japan might help defend Taiwan itself. As to countries like the UK, we don't have forces deployed in the region so we couldn't give direct military aid even if we wanted to.

[RedMercury]

Japan would be violating its constitution.

[flex]

I do not think it is realistic for China to do something as radical as using force in the straits and expect the international community to simply let it go ahead. When a nation as big and powerful as China does something like that, upsetting the balance of power in the world's most important and fragile area, risking a massive war, poeple aren't just going to sit back and say "Oh well, they've got a lot of money so there's nothing we can do."

funny.....isnt this what the world community did when the US attacked Iraq....a lot nations was against the war like France....but did they do anything about it? Nada.....except for a few word trashing:D

The US has shown that "might is right" with Iraq.....no one dared opposed their invasion with military or economic pressure.....why? because the US is the no.1 global consumer.....upsetting that will cause havoc in the global economy.....

Now look at what China is doing.....and i believe what China is doing right now is trying to get closer relations to a lot of countries as possible whether in terms of military or economic cooperation. China is trying to interlink their economies with China and further isolating the US.....look at the broader picture of whats happening right now.....once that happens not a lot of countries can do much if "eventual reunification" happens whether by force or thru diplomatic means......

[Obcession]

Hey, is it possible to encircle Jinmen and Mazu with ships and subs further on into the straight, and offer them to surrender? Should this be successful, you'll save a lot of hassle, along with casualties (not just human casualties, but precious fighters and ships). Provided that the officer in charge of the defence of these islands answer quickly, of course. Give them a minute or two for answers. Of course, have your planes and troops ready, so if they do not surrender, you can then assault it, and try to convince the troops on radio or loudspeakers that you have landed on the island and that they have no hope... just a thought...

[The_Zergling]

Hey, is it possible to encircle Jinmen and Mazu with ships and subs further on into the straight, and offer them to surrender? Should this be successful, you'll save a lot of hassle, along with casualties (not just human casualties, but precious fighters and ships). Provided that the officer in charge of the defence of these islands answer quickly, of course. Give them a minute or two for answers. Of course, have your planes and troops ready, so if they do not surrender, you can then assault it, and try to convince the troops on radio or loudspeakers that you have landed on the island and that they have no hope... just a thought...

Let's just imagine what's going through the mind of the commander of the islands when that happens. Either surrender to the enemy without a fight and be charged for treason, or fight against a vastly superior enemy force and either be killed or taken as a prisoner of war.

Yeah, surrender is a little bit more attractive, I suppose. I guess it would depend on his (Yeah, I'm pretty sure there are no female commanders in very important military positions in Taiwan) stance on unification. Of course, I don't think he would have thought out all of the potential economic, cultural, and political pros and cons, but hey, who can blame him.

A gun pointed at your head's a strong argument.

[PiSigma]

don't think the commander will need to consider treason, since there's only two opposions, surrender now or surrender later. or the third choice of getting killed. there's pretty much no doubt he'll loss control of the islands, and get captured if he decide to fight it out. and don't think that china is going to give him up after capturing him either if he surrenders early or later. because that'll just be giving those guys on taiwan more capability to defend.

[SampanViking]

Hi Fu Man Chu

I doubt that would happen. Do you really think that Russia would launch an attack on the US if it intervened over Taiwan? Putin is more canny than that. He would either say that this was not a direct attack on China, or make some foreign diplomacy bluster and leave it at that. Unless American marines tried to take China's eastern sea-board settlements (as unlikely as that would be), Russia and China's neighbours would find themselves "unavailable" to lend anything other than moral support to China.

To put it another way, those countries could risk pissing China off by not getting involved, or really piss the US off by attacking it and suffer whatever economic, diplomatic and military response it could muster. I think it's a no-brainer - play it safe and make profuse apologies to Beijing.

I have to say that this view sounds more like Neo-Con wishful thinking than any kind of reality I would wish to bet my life on.

Arrangements of this sort are entered into on the basis of trust and utermost good faith. The first priority they deal with is Peace and Security between the agreed parties. The second is external Security. The two however are inseparably linked and the history of the twentieth centuary is littered with examples of major conflicts starting because an aggressor has made this very mistake of not taking the commitment of his enemies allies seriously.

You can include both World Wars, the Korean War, the Falklands War and the First Gulf War in this catagory.

For China's SCO allies not to respond actively in such a fundemantal situation as a violation of Internationaly agreed Chinese Territory, would blow the entire treaty structure apart and plunge the region into a perod of deep internal division, distrust and even possibly conflict. Everything in fact the treaty was set up to prevent.

Even though the allies might be unwilling to take part, the consequences of inaction would be too great to consider, especially for Russia which would risk sliding back into the Anarchy and disintergration of the early Nineties, but this time on a terminal basis.

A failure to respond in such an event would take a hell of a lot more than a Card with Flowers and Chocolates to make up for.

[FuManChu]

Hi Fu Man Chu

I have to say that this view sounds more like Neo-Con wishful thinking than any kind of reality I would wish to bet my life on.

"Neo-Con"? What's that supposed to mean and/or imply? :p

A failure to respond in such an event would take a hell of a lot more than a Card with Flowers and Chocolates to make up for.

So you're telling me that Russia would launch a military strike on American bases throughout Asia, engage USN carrier groups at sea, etc? I could see Russia making some contribution, such as helping protect the Chinese mainland from an attack. But Russia would be seriously stupid to get directly involved in something as serious as a war with the US. Are you really telling me that the consequences of not getting fully stuck in would be worse than taking the US head on?

Remember Russia had strong interests in Iraq, and there wasn't even the suggestion that Moscow might intervene to stop the Americans. If the US and/or any other forces attacked the Chinese mainland, that would be different. But Putin is far too clever to shoot himself in the foot and get involved in a conflict he might lose.

[SampanViking]

Remember Russia had strong interests in Iraq, and there wasn't even the suggestion that Moscow might intervene to stop the Americans.

Please remind me of the mutual defence pact which existed between these two countries:confused:

So you're telling me that Russia would launch a military strike on American bases throughout Asia, engage USN carrier groups at sea, etc? I could see Russia making some contribution, such as helping protect the Chinese mainland from an attack

Real Wars, major Wars seldom just start, they escalate. Russia may not even be given a choice, The US does have an established "pre-emptive habit" afterall. Further, there are still large areas of the former Eastern Bloc, now more Westward leaning but outside of the EU or NATO that Russia might like to reclaim. PLA Divisions assisting Russia in the Balkans could not be discounted.

Besides all Russia need threaten to do in Europe is turn off some pipelines.

But Russia would be seriously stupid to get directly involved in something as serious as a war with the US. Are you really telling me that the consequences of not getting fully stuck in would be worse than taking the US head on?

Much worse,and you better believe it. It varies a bit depending on whether or not China wins the contest with USA, but not as much as you may think.

But Putin is far too clever to shoot himself in the foot and get involved in a conflict he might lose.

Same point as above but worded differently - so another take on the answer

Putin is too clever to alienate himself from a powerful ally who might win.

Finally a point you as another Brit will understand. If you scale down China to the size of the UK, all the Taiwan questions are like asking, could Mainland Britain invade the Isle of Wight? You see it really is a no Brainer;)

[FuManChu]

Please remind me of the mutual defence pact which existed between these two countries

It's about acting upon interests. A treaty is a piece of paper. There are ways of not breaking them without implimenting them fully.

Real Wars, major Wars seldom just start, they escalate. Russia may not even be given a choice.

Unless Russia itself is attacked, it will always have a choice. It might feel that it has no choice, but that's just because it is in a difficult situation.

Further, there are still large areas of the former Eastern Bloc, now more Westward leaning but outside of the EU or NATO that Russia might like to reclaim. PLA Divisions assisting Russia in the Balkans could not be discounted.

:off

Then we get World War III because Croatia is about to become a member of the E.U., and many other such territories are looking to join. Even if they weren't members, action might be taken anyway to stop Russian hegemony returning to a part of Europe.

Besides all Russia need threaten to do in Europe is turn off some pipelines.

:off

Ukraine managed to get the Russians to back down all by itself, so I think that point is rather irrelevant. Besides do you think that the E.U. would set a precedent where Russia could bully it over gas supplies? That would be like a government declaring that it will always pay ransoms when its citizens are kidnapped!

Putin is too clever to alienate himself from a powerful ally who might win.

That is a fair point, but as I said I don't see him throwing himself 100% into a war which he would lose a lot from. He could "help" China by securing its territory, allowing the Chinese to take action. But if he had a choice between making China sour and starting/getting involved in World War III, he would take option #1 every time. If he took option #2 then he's a bigger fool than I believed.

Finally a point you as another Brit will understand. If you scale down China to the size of the UK, all the Taiwan questions are like asking, could Mainland Britain invade the Isle of Wight? You see it really is a no Brainer;)

:off

It doesn't work that way, because it would be easier for Taiwan to resist a Chinese invasion than the Isle of Wight a British one. There comes a point when a defence is too difficult because of the area of land in question is too small for stationing enough troops, naval equipment, etc. Plus the distance between Britain and the Isle is a lot smaller than that between Taiwan and China.

I think this is going off topic, so let's not talk about these points again.

[SampanViking]

Fu Man Chu you are not Tony Blair are you? when I read your responses all I could hear was his voice.

Look, OK, right, now I know you think you have asked me some difficult questions, but actually these are totally irrelevant to what were talking about, so I think its right we dont mention them ever again....

Well maybe I have not explained some fundamentals clearly enough, so I will try again.

China and Taiwan are recognised Internationally as One Nation. Any third party nation that intervened in a "Counter Seperatist Operation" would be attacking Chinese forces and probably violating Soveriegn Chinese Territory.

Such an attack would trigger the mutual defence provisions of the Shanghai Co-Operation Organisation.

Now this is the jist of the matter that may not be fully understood - unless any of the co-signaturies actively break their treaty commitments (usually considered an act of War by the betrayed treaty members) all Peace Treaties between the SCO members and the Intervening third party nation(s) will be cancelled and a technical State of War exist between these countries

Bearing in mind that the US certainly has bases in countries that it would be technically be war with, not to mention in one (can't remember which) has an Airbase only twenty miles from a Russian one, hostilities no matter how unplanned can very easily happen.

Remember, just because a country does not launch an attack today, does not mean they will not tomorrow - which is what I meant by escalation. This was the principle employed by the Royal Navy when it sank the General Belgrano in 82. This is what I meant by Russia maybe not having a choice.

The effects of Russia breaking its treaty committments to the one country that is primarily responsible for funding the Russian Govt sufficiently to enable it in the 90's to maintain its territorial integrity are hardly difficult to predict. Cue massive unrest and disintegration of Eastern Russia and the emergence of well funded Pro- Beijing Republics. The worst America would do is kill a lot of troops and bomb a lot of Peripheral Infrastructure.

Re the Ukarine - it was contract pressure form European countries fed by the same Pipes that supplied the Ukraine that resolved the crisis. The Ukraine was given a very severe dressing down by the EU and told to renegotiate its contracts with Russia. In a war no such niceties would apply.

Anyway I think that is enough and certainly covers the important parts.

[cabbageman]

What mutual defense treaty in Shanghai Co-Operation Organisation? I never heard of such thing.

Kosovo is part of Yugoslavia. Iraq claimed Kuwait as inseparable part of Iraq.

Taiwan has no chance to successfully defend Kimmen and Matsu, if PLA decides to attack them.

[FuManChu]

Fu Man Chu you are not Tony Blair are you? when I read your responses all I could hear was his voice.

Sticks and stones, Sampan, sticks and stones. Please step out of the sandpit and discuss things maturely.

Now this is the jist of the matter that may not be fully understood - unless any of the co-signaturies actively break their treaty commitments (usually considered an act of War by the betrayed treaty members) all Peace Treaties between the SCO members and the Intervening third party nation(s) will be cancelled and a technical State of War exist between these countries

So you're telling me that they could be definitely at war with the US, which probably would retaliate, or severely piss China off but probably not get into a fight with it, as it wouldn't want to have a multiple-fronted war going on. I think I'd take the latter option, especially if China broke the status quo across the Taiwanese Strait.

Bearing in mind that the US certainly has bases in countries that it would be technically be war with, not to mention in one (can't remember which) has an Airbase only twenty miles from a Russian one, hostilities no matter how unplanned can very easily happen.

Could happen. It doesn't mean that it would happen. And as I said, it is quite possible to offer the minimum amount of support required. As cabbage said, it would be useful if you notified us of where we could find these "defence provisions" and what they specifically say.

Personally I think Russia would try to reach an understanding with the US so that such an escalation wouldn't happen.

In any case, Russia is the only country that matters - the others are irrelevant to the Taiwan conflict.

Remember, just because a country does not launch an attack today, does not mean they will not tomorrow - which is what I meant by escalation. This was the principle employed by the Royal Navy when it sank the General Belgrano in 82. This is what I meant by Russia maybe not having a choice.

Since when was the Belgrano an escalation? We were already at war!

The effects of Russia breaking its treaty committments to the one country that is primarily responsible for funding the Russian Govt sufficiently to enable it in the 90's to maintain its territorial integrity are hardly difficult to predict. Cue massive unrest and disintegration of Eastern Russia and the emergence of well funded Pro- Beijing Republics. The worst America would do is kill a lot of troops and bomb a lot of Peripheral Infrastructure.

Could you explain to me how not backing China to the hilt would destroy its economy, yet declaring war on the most powerful country in the world wouldn't, especially given that a large number of countries back the latter? These are the current figures I have for Russia's international trade:

http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/country.cfm?id=Russia

Exports: Germany 7.8%, Netherlands 6.5%, Italy 6.3%, China 6.2%, Belarus 5.7%, US 4.6%
Imports: Germany 14.0%, Belarus 8.6%, Ukraine 7.7%, China 5.8%, US 5.2%

Are you telling me that Russia would back China up completely over circa 6% of its exports/imports, yet start a war with the European Union in another case and risk much more in trade? The E.U. may well impose sanctions on China and Russia if things got out of hand - in which case Russia loses out a lot more than if it had found a way to keep out of the conflict.

[SampanViking]

OK lets cut to the chase.

Since when was the Belgrano an escalation? We were already at war!

Now then, no off topic ploys, this is an illustration of politics and war. I assume that you are too young to actually remember the original event nor the years of really nasty argument that followed it. I remember it all like it was yesterday.

First, we were not at war with Argentina, War was never declared and no legal such state was officialy entered into. The Argentine illegally occupied British held territory. The UK Govt declared a total exclusion zone around the Islands and dispatched the Task Force to enforce the zone, which included removing any Argentine personnel stationed within it.

The Belgrano was not in the Total Exclusion Zone and indeed was steaming away from it. The decision to sink it was taken because it was considerd a serious potential threat to the task force; albeit at a future date, and so the rules of engagement were waived in the interest of prudence. That is why it was an escalation.

You can extend the same outline to a blockaded Taiwan. If a US submarine encountered say a Russian Carrier, operating simply in a remote location of the East China Sea, even if no hostilites had been exchanged on any front between US or Russian forces, the US would have to weigh the risk of the current situation changing and so decide whether to pre-empt and sink the Carrier in a fortunate opportunity, so presented.

You can also apply this criteria to a situation where US forces would suddenly find themselves deep inside enemy territory. A Mid Asian country would probably not wish to take part in any actions. But, a US force, a short distance from a Capital and technically at war, might take the opportunity to quickly remove the pro SCO regime and replace it with a Pro US one. Could the US resisit the opportunity, could the host government afford to do nothing and take the risk? Same argument most definatly applies to those two airbases. The planes could probably attack each other from the ground:rofl:

So you're telling me that they could be definitely at war with the US, which probably would retaliate, or severely piss China off but probably not get into a fight with it, as it wouldn't want to have a multiple-fronted war going on. I think I'd take the latter option, especially if China broke the status quo across the Taiwanese Strait.

Point of reality, the only person trying to break the status quo is Mr Chen, leader of the DPP and President of Taiwan.

The rest of it really comes down to honouring treaty obligations. So lets hear it from your side, under what conditions would you be prepared to dishonour the UK's obligations as part of NATO?

The final point is that China and Russia share a large border and whilst both countries exist, they always will. When they were political enemies in the 60' to the 80's a lot of damage was done to both countries. Since then, they have rebuilt their friendship and both have become strong. In the Nineties, the West hoped to break Russia up into its component republics and incorporate them peicemeal into the West. Only the political will and Investment from Beijing ensured that the Russian Govt was able to continue operating in any meaningful sense and keep the country together.

There would be no multiple fronts, but Bejing would devote a large amount of its energy towards causing uprest and disintergration in the Russian Far East and the establishment of Pro Beijing Satellites.

Re Russian Trade - Russia is an Oil & Gas economy, which is a sellers market. If Russian supplies to the West were disrupted by war, you can bet that afterwards, the Oil Men would back in even faster than CNN to get the taps re-opened.

Now if don't want to believe me on any of these facts, go and ask some of the other forum seniors.

[The_Zergling]

Good post overall, Sampan, but I kind of have to argue semantics regarding one area.

Technically both the CCP AND Chen are trying to change the status quo. On one side you have the CCP saying, "Unification (or else)" and on the other you have Chen saying, "Um... well. I'd like Taiwan to be independent... um... if it's okay with you."

Maintaining the status quo (as far as I know) refers to maintaining this murky and unclear relationship that leaves nobody happy... a situation in which Taiwan is "kind of" a country.

[SampanViking]

Hi Zergling

Sorry if my language seemed a bit loose, I meant "break" to mean "Threaten to Unilaterally Change the Status Quo"

PRC is currently not making threats, but instead is sitting two sad looking Pandas on the Fujian coastline and having them wave across the straights.

[The_Zergling]

Hmm. In my dictionary the definition of unilaterally changing the status quo would include, "Unify or else we MIGHT launch missiles at you".

But yes, the CCP's recent posture towards unification has been somewhat more promising (at least less heavy handed) than before.

The only way it's not going to be unilateral is if both sides actually are able to participate in open talks without threats of force (or independence), a table where everything's laid out in the open. Don't expect that anytime soon, but I still stand by my point that actions by both sides are unilateral.

Maybe if the CCP was willing to talk to the current ruling government party...

[FuManChu]

The Belgrano was not in the Total Exclusion Zone and indeed was steaming away from it. The decision to sink it was taken because it was considerd a serious potential threat to the task force; albeit at a future date, and so the rules of engagement were waived in the interest of prudence.

The War Cabinet was not informed that the Belgrano changed course until after it had been sunk. The decision to sink it was taken when it was still on course.

In any case, I think the technical quibbling is a bit daft. Just because we said we weren't at war didn't mean that we weren't already. But that's not really important here.

But, a US force, a short distance from a Capital and technically at war, might take the opportunity to quickly remove the pro SCO regime

You have a lot of "mights" in your theory. This is why I'm rather sceptical of it all working out that way. Also I think you mean "THE Russian carrier" as in single (there is only one).

The rest of it really comes down to honouring treaty obligations. So lets hear it from your side, under what conditions would you be prepared to dishonour the UK's obligations as part of NATO?

I can't really compare the NATO pact to the Shanghai Co-op as you haven't shown me the relevant document, as I did ask in my last post.

In the Nineties, the West hoped to break Russia up into its component republics and incorporate them peicemeal into the West.

?

Only the political will and Investment from Beijing ensured that the Russian Govt was able to continue operating in any meaningful sense and keep the country together.

Really? Your evidence for this is what - I'm serious, I'd like to know. European/Japanese/US aid/investment didn't count for much? It was all China, even before its current economic boom?

There would be no multiple fronts, but Bejing would devote a large amount of its energy towards causing uprest and disintergration in the Russian Far East and the establishment of Pro Beijing Satellites.

Wouldn't Russia just cut off China's energy supplies from Siberia? Unless a war were to happen very soon, China will be guzzling Russian gas (and potentially oil) in a while.

[SampanViking]

Declaration of Shanghai Cooperation Organization (6/15/2001)


Presidents of the Republic of Kazakhstan, the People's Republic of China, the Kyrgyz Republic, the Russian Federation, the Republic of Tajikistan and the Republic of Uzbekistan signed Friday the Declaration of Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO).
The presidents highly appraised the active role played by the " Shanghai Five" in stimulating and deepening mutual trust, good- neighborly and friendly relations among the member states, strengthening regional security and stability, and promoting common development in its five years of history, the Declaration said.

The presidents held the same view that the establishment and development of the "Shanghai Five" had conformed to the historic trend for peace and development in the human society after the Cold War and displayed the great potential of good-neighborly co- existence, unity and cooperation, through mutual respect and trust, among countries with different civilization backgrounds and traditional cultures, the Declaration said.

The presidents specially pointed out that the Treaty on Deepening Military Trust in Border Regions in 1996 in Shanghai and the Treaty on Reduction of Military Forces in Border Regions in 1997 in Moscow signed by the heads of states of Kazakhstan, China, Kyrgyzstan, Russia and Tajikistan, as well as the summary documents of the 1998 Alma-ata Summit, the 1999 Bishkek Summit and the 2000 Dushanbe Summit, have made significant contribution to regional and world peace, security and stability, greatly enriched the modern diplomatic and regional cooperation practice, and exerted an extensive and positive influence in the international community, the Declaration said.

Against the backdrop of political multi-polarization, and economic and information globalization in the 21st century, the presidents firmly believed that to transform the "Shanghai Five" mechanism into a higher level of cooperation will help member states to share opportunities and deal with new challenges and threats more effectively, according to the Declaration.

Therefore, they announced the establishment of the SCO, which aims at strengthening mutual trust and good-neighborly and friendly relations among member states, encouraging their further effective cooperation in politics, economy, science and technology, culture, education, energy, transportation, environmental protection and other fields, jointly ensuring regional peace, security and stability, and creating a new international political and economic order featuring democracy, justness and rationality, according to the Declaration.

The SCO plans to organize annual formal meeting of heads of states of member states and regular meetings of heads of governments to be hosted by its members in turn. In order to extend and strengthen cooperation in various fields, the SCO is considering, besides the existing meeting mechanism among officials of corresponding departments, to set up necessary new meeting mechanisms and establish permanent or temporary expert groups to study plans and proposals for further cooperation, the Declaration said.

The "Shanghai Spirit", featuring mutual trust and benefit, equality, consultation, mutual respect to different civilizations and common prosperity, which was developed in the course of the " Shanghai Five", is a treasure accumulated through the member states' cooperation in recent years. This spirit should be carried forward and developed into the principle for bilateral and multilateral relations of the SCO countries in the 21st century, the Declaration said.

All the SCO member states should strictly abide by the principle of the Charter of the United Nations, respect each other's independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity, not to interfere in each other's internal affairs, not to use force or threat to use force, achieve equality and mutual benefit, solve all issues through consultations, never to try to gain military superiority over neighboring countries, according to the Declaration.

On the basis of the Treaty on Deepening Military Trust in Border Regions in 1996 in Shanghai and the Treaty on Reduction of Military Forces in Border Regions in 1997 in Moscow, the SCO plans to expand cooperation among the member states in political, economic and trade, cultural, scientific and technological and other fields. The principles embodied in the above two treaties determine the basis of the relationship among the SCO member states, the Declaration said.

In pursuit of the principle of non-alignment, not targeting to the third country or region, and opening to the outside world, the SCO is willing to carry out various dialogues, exchanges and cooperation with any other country and other international or regional organizations, the Declaration said.

On the basis of unanimous agreement through consultation among the existing member states, the SCO is also willing to accept new member which agrees with the organization's aim, tasks, principle and other provisions, the Declaration said.

The SCO attaches special importance to make every effort to ensure regional security. All member states will closely cooperate with each other in implementing the Shanghai treaty on the crackdown on terrorism, separatism and extremism, including to establish the SCO anti-terrorism center in Bishkek of Kyrgyzstan. In addition, the member states will work out corresponding documents of multinational cooperation in a bid to curb illegal arms smuggling, drug trafficking, illegal migration and other criminal activities, according to the Declaration.

Making use of the great potential and extensive opportunities in trade and economic cooperation among the member states, the SCO will promote the further development of bilateral and multilateral cooperation between and among member states and the pluralism of cooperation. Within the SCO framework, the SCO will start the negotiation procedure of trade and investment facilitation, according to the Declaration.

The SCO member states will strengthen their consultation and coordination in regional and international affairs, support and cooperate with each other in major international and regional issues and promote and consolidate regional and world peace and stability, the Declaration said.

To maintain global strategic balance and stability under the international circumstances at present is of special significance, the Declaration said.

The SCO has approved to set up the Council of Coordinators of Member States to coordinate cooperation among the member states. The activities of the council are standardized by the Interim Rules of Procedure for the Council of Coordinators of SCO Member States approved by the foreign ministers of the member states, the Declaration said.

The council is ordered to draft the SCO charter on the basis of this Declaration and other documents signed by the heads of states of the "Shanghai Five" countries. The charter, which is expected to be signed by heads of the states of member states during the 2002 SCO summit, will expound the principle, purpose and tasks of the SCO future cooperation, the principle and procedure for accepting new members, the legal effect of the organization's decisions, and means of cooperation between the SCO and other international organizations, the Declaration said.

Summing up the past and looking forward to the future, the presidents believe that the establishment of the SCO marks a new development stage for cooperation among all the member states, which conforms to the trend of the times, the reality of the region and the fundamental interests of the people of all the member states, the Declaration said.

[cabbageman]

Read the document yourself, there is no "mutual defense" in it.

Russia and PRC do not have any treaty for mutual defense.

[FuManChu]

Read the document yourself, there is no "mutual defense" in it.

Russia and PRC do not have any treaty for mutual defense.

The declaration/statement that was quoted talks a lot about "cooperation" and similar things. But yeah, cabbage, you're right it doesn't specifically set out what would happen if one member became involved in a conflict. If that's it, then the agreement is vague enough that it allows the members to act at their discretion.

[SampanViking]

Well you will have to forgive them if they did not draft with the lower 6th in mind.

This is the declaration made at Inception in 2001. The part that should interest you in particular is:

The SCO attaches special importance to make every effort to ensure regional security. All member states will closely cooperate with each other in implementing the Shanghai treaty on the crackdown on terrorism, separatism and extremism,

The spirit of the declaration was enshrined in a charter in 2002, which has been progressivly modernised every year since.

But if you want to read that you will have to go the SCO Website and look for it yourself. Not that I know why I am bothering as I am quite sure you have never read the NATO treaty document either.:roll:

[cabbageman]

If it's not signed, then it's not signed for a reason. China is really Pakistan's best friend, yet did China ever attack India during any Pakistan-India conflict? Russia and China relationship is not tighter.

Russia has no vital interests in Taiwan, not even a credibility issue. It would be extremely stupid for Russia to fight US just because there are some friendly descriptions in some declaration.

[SampanViking]

If it's not signed, then it's not signed for a reason. China is really Pakistan's best friend, yet did China ever attack India during any Pakistan-India conflict? Russia and China relationship is not tighter.

What gives you the impression nothing has been signed:confused:

[Finn McCool]

I can't believe this disscussion is even going on...Every country that can, (besides MAYBE Japan) will stay away from a US-China conflict. What would any country have to gain? It is taking the risk of majorly pissing off one of the two richest and most powerful nations in the world? And for what? The chance that the one it backed will win a decisive victory? Then what? The country will get a pat on the head, that's all. Any sane person will stay out of the line of fire, and then jump on the bandwagon with the winner. Especially a country like Russia, which has so much to gain from neutrality. Russia would focus on bringing Eastern European countries back into its orbit while the US was "looking the other way". I think SampanViking is overestimating the importance of the Shanghai Cooperation Five. Russia would aid China, but not as overtly and provocatively as some have been suggesting. Look, no one wants WWIII.

[SampanViking]

Hi Finn

Your right its a largely pointless and academic arguement. I am one that believes the threat of war has now receeded and that reconcilaition is now going to be the defining character of cross straights realtions.

There is a major economic conference between CCP and KMT in China next week with big hitters on either side in attendance. Expect more of this kind of thing for the next couple of years.

My only real point, is that if I am guilty of overestimating the importance of the SCO, then it is because I feel too many in the West underestimate it.

Similar such underestimations were major contributory factors in the out break of the last two world wars and so could be again.

[The_Zergling]

Sorry for playing "The Devil's Advocate" here. I'm kind of testing the waters right now, so bear with me (or crack down if inappropriate) here.

I didn't make a new thread because I felt it might be easier to get away with something like this within an existing thread. Like I st