Invasion of Kinmen and Matsu Islands


FuManChu

Senior Member
SampanViking said:
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:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


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.
 
Last edited:

SampanViking

The Capitalist
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
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

Junior Member
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

The Capitalist
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
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

Junior Member
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

Senior Member
SampanViking said:
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.
 
Last edited:

SampanViking

The Capitalist
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
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

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

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

FuManChu

Senior Member
cabbageman said:
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

The Capitalist
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
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:
 

Top