Tuesday, December 24, 2013

Will China Attack Taiwan? Yes, of course, if it wants to

An egret lands.

This week Beijing called for an exchange of media offices with Taipei. This means that a bunch of reporters, many pro-Beijing, will go to Beijing from Taiwan, and a bunch of espionage agents, political warfare specialists, and propaganda experts will come to Taiwan from China. The always hilarious propagandists of Beijing piously observed:
Zhang Zhijun, the director of Taiwan Affairs Office under the State Council, told a forum organized by Beijing's CCTV for Chinese and Taiwanese media that Beijing is more than willing to speed such exchanges, adding that he hopes Taipei would match Beijing's efforts.

He added that peaceful development across the Taiwan Strait needs to be consolidated, and unbiased news reports about the development of Taiwan and China, as well as reports promoting the idea of "we are a family" who are part of the same culture, will help Beijing and Taipei strengthen the bonds between them, while respecting each other's differences.
I've argued before that one of Taiwan's most important defenses against invasion from China is its democracy, which Beijing will either have to accept or crush. Not only is that a problem, but Beijing must also eradicate the Taiwan identity. One solution of the Zhongnanhai gang to both these problems is the constant assertion that Taiwan and China have the same culture (an assertion, which, not coincidentally, underpins one of its claims to annex the island). And yet...

I got to thinking about this again because Zachary Keck, who has been writing at the The Diplomat on Taiwan lately, has a piece which argues that China won't invade Taiwan for all the reasons we've heard before:
The first and least important is the dramatic impact this would have on how countries in the region and around the world would view such a move. Globally, China seizing Taiwan would result in it being permanently viewed as a malicious nation.
(1) The Chinese don't care how they are viewed and (2)  countries will view China in the way that is convenient for them irrespective of what Beijing does and (3) China is already viewed that way in the region, as the current re-arming taking place around China's borders signals. This one is a non-starter.
But the more important deterrent for China would be the uncertainty of success.
Haha. This deters leaders right up to the moment when they decide to move, then it doesn't. When they want to move, they move.
Thus, even if it quickly defeated Taiwan’s formal military forces, the PLA would continue to have to contend with the remnants of resistance for years to come.
Ah... the resistance fantasy. I think it is fanciful to imagine that the Taiwanese will engage in armed resistance -- there are no weapons available, unless the ROC disperses them before it disappears from history. And I seriously doubt that will happen; sympathy for China is widespread in the armed forces, and thousands of ROC officers have retired there.

In any case, China is already contending with "remnants of resistance" in Tibet and Xinjiang. It's not a problem for Beijing, just an annoyance, since luckily for them, the Dalai Lama keeps Tibet pacified. The solution to resistance is at hand in the form of 1.3 billion settlers, hundreds of thousands of whom will be shoehorned onto the island to occupy and loot it. But will Beijing want to risk exposing that many people to Taiwan's independent identity and democratic ways?

Pieces like Keck's fail for two broad reasons. First, they assign too much rationality to the conduct of human affairs. Leaders and peoples are not rational and especially not so about war, else there would have been no Japan-American war, no criminal and stupid invasion of Iraq by the US, no invasion of Kuwait by Iraq, no impulsive expansion like Nazi Germany's across Europe, etc. When Beijing decides to move on Taiwan the problems of defeating the forces of Japan, Taiwan, and the US as well as occupying Taiwan will be treated as problems to be solved, not insuperable obstacles, just as Tokyo did when going to war against the US colossus in 1941 (how can we maximize our advantages and minimize theirs?). Or perhaps they will simply take the US approach to occupying Iraq, and fantasize that they are loved and everything will be peachy-keen. Surely if US leaders can fool themselves into defeat in Iraq, Beijing is capable of no less.

The second issue is that such analyses almost never take into account the domestic push for action (it is entirely missing from Keck's). And yet the domestic construction of The Problem (Taiwan, oil for Japan's war effort in China, the Polish Question, the Falklands, the question of slavery and identity) is generally the dominant factor in shaping how and when the nation goes to war. Japan had many possible responses to the problem of getting oil from its main supplier, the US, besides going to war with it, and to the larger problem of colonialism, yet in the end it settled on the least rational response.  Hitler settled on war from the beginning, the diplomacy was merely a smokescreen to that end, and moved by some inner timetable of his own, not when it was conventionally wise to move. The Falklands became a war zone when the Argentine Junta decided to hit it for domestic reasons, not because the UK had made some major change in the status of the islands.

When Beijing moves, it will be driven by some domestic calculus that will not be immediately obvious to outsiders, most likely the kind of combination of medium-sized factors such as domestic unrest, economic uncertainty, and sudden billowing nationalism, the arrival of a hard-liner in a position of real power, the ascendancy of the PLA over domestic politics, and/or the appearance of a communicator who can argue internally and credibly that Taiwan is ripe for the plucking and the US won't move. Nations fool themselves into going to war -- the Junta had persuaded itself the UK would not defend the Falklands. That's why the prompt US response to the ADIZ, flying B-52s through it, was exactly the right move.

It's impossible to say that Beijing won't move against Taiwan. All previous history -- the seizure of islands from Vietnam, the invasions of Tibet, Xinjiang, and Vietnam, the war with India, and so forth, suggest that Beijing is interested in territorial expansion and sees violence as a key tool for achieving that goal. And that is why, ultimately, even our crazy democracy won't be enough to deter them, if they want to come over....
_______________________
Don't miss the comments below! And check out my blog and its sidebars for events, links to previous posts and picture posts, and scores of links to other Taiwan blogs and forums!

40 comments:

Mike Fagan said...

Agreed, which is why as I've said before and intend to keep saying whenever there is opportunity, what would be ideal for Taiwan would be an alternative, non-military form of deterrence: progressively withdrawing as many functions and responsibilities ascribed to the State as possible. This would substantially raise the costs to the Chinese of establishing control.

As things stand, a prospective Chinese annexation can already look forward to a pre-established State education system, police force, central banking, largely State controlled energy and water and so on. Were they to annex Taiwan tommorow, almost all of the tools they could want for "re-engineering" the population will be handed to them in a neat and relatively well organized central toolbox in Taipei. And it's not all the KMT's fault - the Lefties get to take a bow here for failing to be anything other than a lighter shade of shit; I will note as just one prominent example of that, that the left-wing Taiwan Rural Front, for instance, are not, in fact, calling for the repeal of the "Land Expropriation Act", but only for its amendment.

All that being said, there is absolutely no prospect of honestly reforming State Sprawl from within; the people and institutions it comprises are not only well-incentivized and well-equipped to ensure they continue in something like the manner to which they have become accustomed, but the cognitive meta-context for most Taiwanese people still features State Sprawl as the unquestioned premise for how things like education and health services can be delivered.

Short of a military coup the only "quick" way the State could be depoliticized would be deliberate political sabotage, or a clusterfcuk of errors on the part of the ruling administration. At the same time, demands for reduced political controls would have to emerge from a civil society already using its own shadow institutions as alternatives (e.g. homeschooling). Yet the cognitive meta-context necessary for that to happen does not appear to be very strong.

John Herodotus said...

Agreed. Keck's calculations are way too neat. All the things he mentions in the article as reasons for China not to invade may raise the cost of invasion itself, but if attack were their last hope of unification, and they had a not unreasonable chance of success, why wouldn't they? Failure might be catastrophic for them, but if invasion were their last best hope, things would have already moved so far from their current course that they would already be desperate enough to go for broke. An invasion is not inevitable and I regard it as unlikely, but there are so many plausible scenarios that end up with an invasion, I can't see the point in musing on why it won't happen.

Anonymous said...

Excellent!

Ma keeps trying to whittle away Taiwan's best defenses against a successful Chinese invasion.

1. He is undermining Taiwan's democracy through a) Party to Party contact with the PRC and executive fiat, b) economic reliance on the PRC, c) cultural programs that seek to portray Taiwan as one locality of a diverse China, and d) allowing China state media to play on Taiwan's stations thereby integrating China into Taiwan.

Anonymous said...

The main reasons that China would not invade Taiwan are IMHO:

1) Economic:a regional war would kick world markets in the pants and have a big effect on Chinese exports and inbound FDI. China is not ready to handle that ... yet.

2) Military: in a real shooting match with a determined USA, the PLA would quite likely look very weak.

Either of the two above factors would harm the legitimacy of the leaders who started military action against Taiwan.

Shauming said...

I basiucly agree with you that democracy and Taiwanese identity are two major weapons against China's invasion. But I like to add some extension to them. The power of Taiwan's democracy can be made even bigger if Taiwanese can communicate the success/failure experience and the will to defend it to the political dissidents in China, in a loving, patient, and hopeful manner. This does not mean we have to compromise our stance on independence but those Chinese dissidents are the most lonely and miserable creatures on earth now. They can use some guidance and encouragement. (The Catholic Archbishop in China is sent to be 're-educated' by Chinese Communist Party this week, right before the eve of the birth of the Baby.)

As for the Taiwanese identity, it should be extended to form the will and action to take back the Sovereignty of Taiwan, which has been suspended in San Francisco Treaty.

Nathan W. Novak (李漢聲) said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Readin said...

A nitpick in an otherwise excellent article. The American invasion of Iraq was legal. It was approved by Congress as required by the American Constitution, making it legal.

I suppose if you want to argue it was illegal under Iraqi law you would be correct, but that doesn't make sense given that you didn't refer to any of the other invasions (the Falklands, Tibet, Poland, etc.) as illegal which surely they were as well according to local law.

Readin said...

You mention the B-52 flight as being the correct response and you're right. However the impact was very much weakened by the failure to order American airlines to disobey China's command as Korea and Japan did. America's record further weakens the effect as one considers the failure to provide money and supplies to S. Vietnam after pulling out, the abandonment of Lebanon and Somalia, the way the pull-out of Iraq and Afghanistan was handled and is being handled, the dropping of eastern European countries from ABM. Basically a small single flight doesn't make difference when we've shown over and over that when it comes to the big stuff we can't be relied on. We haven't been very wise about making commitments.

Readin said...

Mike Fagan makes a good point about reducing government. With a pervasive government, culture becomes shadow of government. If you want to change the culture, just control the government.

But if culture exists largely independent of government because government plays only a small role in people's lives, then you have room for the cultural differences that distinguish Taiwan from China to become more important and more pronounced, and you also have a society that, if invaded, is able to function without relying on the favors of an occupying army.

Michael Turton said...

The American invasion of Iraq was legal. It was approved by Congress as required by the American Constitution, making it legal.

It was illegal under international law.

Michael

Michael Turton said...

Either of the two above factors would harm the legitimacy of the leaders who started military action against Taiwan.

I agree. And yet, the number of nations that have stupidly attacked or followed policies resulting in war with larger powers is rather astonishing. Certainly WWII Japan tops the list (pursuing policies that would have, and eventually did, bring it into war with the world's six largest powers all at the same time -- Russia, China, France, UK, US, and Netherlands), but anyone who followed Poland's between-wars foreign policy would have to wonder what Polish politicians were smoking. Italy's siding with Hitler also leaps to mind. Any number of local kingdoms in India who warred with the UK. Mexico's war with the US looks pretty stupid in hindsight -- though a lot of European observers thought the Mexicans would hand the US its head. Note how few of those nations were democracies of any kind....

Michael

yankdownunder said...

bring it into war with the world's six largest powers all at the same time -- Russia, China, France, UK, US, and Netherlands

Russia?
- acted in violation of the still valid Soviet–Japanese Neutrality Pact signed on April 13, 1941.
- was a scavenger picking off pieces
of America's kill

China?
which China

yankdownunder said...

"Japan had many possible responses to the problem of getting oil from its main supplier, the US, besides going to war with it,"

solar panels, wind mills, biofuel.

any others?

Mike Fagan said...

"I've argued before that one of Taiwan's most important defenses against invasion from China is its democracy, which Beijing will either have to accept or crush."

The idea of the Chinese "accepting" Taiwan's democracy following an armed invasion of Taiwan is a bit odd to begin with isn't it? Why wouldn't they just crush it while they'd have forces on hand to suppress dissent?

And after all, how difficult would it actually be to crush Taiwan's democracy? None of the cabinet departments or State owned companies that do any actual work would have to be abolished, or even significantly reformed. The risk of wholesale legal chaos resulting from large numbers of conflicting laws would be minimized by introducing new laws in a piecemeal fashion - via a legislature stuffed with appointees. Replacing the judiciary might be more of a problem (?), but protestors could be disappeared in various ways: a list of names will already exist and will get longer. Web censorship would be implemented fairly quickly. And so on.

Michael Turton said...

"Japan had many possible responses to the problem of getting oil from its main supplier, the US, besides going to war with it,"

solar panels, wind mills, biofuel.

any others?


The Minister of Ag and Natural resources proposed making oil from Manchurian coal. He said he could supply all Japan's needs if they just laid low for a couple of years.

Japan could simply have done nothing and let things simmer down. The oil companies would have missed their profits. The taps would have been turned back on.

Japan could have apologized and withdrawn from French Vietnam. The oil would have gone back on.

Etc.

Inability to admit error and grasp alternatives. All domestic. Japan was in no way compelled to attack Pearl Harbor. Its internal calculus had narrowed so completely than no other options were envisionable. The moderates had been killed in the government by assassination period....

Michael

Michael Turton said...

Russia?
- acted in violation of the still valid Soviet–Japanese Neutrality Pact signed on April 13, 1941.
- was a scavenger picking off pieces
of America's kill


Yes, but the policies Japan was pursuing with the Army pushing the Russian War and the Navy pushing a drive south, were bringing it into conflict all the powers that had colonies in the Pacific.

Michael

Thoth Harris said...

Will China invade Taiwan? I suspect it's quite unlikely, because it is already by Taiwan piece-by-piece, either through friends in the Taiwan government (with some of the trade pacts that give a bit too much to China), through Chinese citizens buying up property as a result of the relaxation of the Taiwese government's policies, etc. They don't need to invade Taiwan, unless a very stupid Secretary General (which the current guy is NOT, I think) were to do so, despite all good reasons not to.

It is more advantageous to trade with Taiwan, and to see Taiwan have a trade deficit with China, so that Taiwanese people will feel compelled to "unite" with the "mainland," so to speak. And I see this happening very soon. It might reap short term benefits for rich and poor alike (or not). But, ultimately, in the end, it will be disastrous. Has China done many great things for its trade-based allies, South Korea, North Korea, Vietnam, etc.? I wonder.

yankdownunder said...

"Japan could have apologized and withdrawn from French Vietnam."

France could have apologized and withdrawn from Vietnam.

Shauming said...

combination of medium-sized factors such as domestic unrest, economic uncertainty, and sudden billowing nationalism, the arrival of a hard-liner in a position of real power, the ascendancy of the PLA over domestic politics, and/or the appearance of a communicator who can argue internally and credibly that Taiwan is ripe for the plucking and the US won't move.

It seems that China already got every ingredient you mentioned. Perhaps Chinese leaders already made the decision to attack. Okinawa might be the first target, Clark Air Base the second, and Taiwan the third in line. The activities of PLA's air carrier fleet in East and South China seas are very likely the exercises for the future attacks.

Bruce Shapiro said...

Taiwan is a democracy in name only. The people of Taiwan are not democratic and the differences between the Taiwanese and Chinese are by-and-large superficial. Taiwanese society is corrupt in precisely the same way as Chinese society. Their attitudes to humanistic issues are the same. Their mechanisms of government are different, but the results are largely the same in that the personalities of their leaders are more alike than different, particularly with respect to how the government treats the people, the Land Expropriation Act being but one example. The majority of young people in Taiwan have no sense of world history and no sense of contemporary history. They do not regard artistry as political and regard political activism as boring. They are uneducated about democratic principles and are far more likely to go with the flow than to make political waves. Taiwan has the same environmental attitude as China and is, therefore, albeit on a smaller scale, just as polluted. Taiwan does not have a more permissive society than China and the prevailing affects in both societies are depression and disgust. The people are concerned more or less with survival and tradition rather than change, not the pursuit of happiness. They are not fond of the foreigners they meet, most of whom are English teachers. If they feel reasonably sure a foreigner does not speak Chinese or Taiwanese, they will entertain one another with derogatory comments, things about on par with racist jokes in the US. In short, there is no reason for China to attack Taiwan for the purpose of making it a part of China; speaking metaphorically, Taiwan's software is different but it operates on the same firmware; that is, it is just a different program running on the same computer. China's real goal and most difficult task is to incorporate the divisions of the ROC military into the PRC military as soon as it can. That will be the last really important step in the annexation process. Ultimately, everything else is beside the point. United States business interests view China now as many international industrialists viewed Germany before WWII. The prospects for war are largely the same, but the outcome may very well be different if the hostilities cross the Pacific. Thus, China probably won't attack Taiwan before the United States does....

Michael Turton said...

France could have apologized and withdrawn from Vietnam.

Sure. But wouldn't have helped the Japanese oil situation much. :)

Marc said...

Rebuttal to Shapiro from Elie Wiesel:

“We must not see any person as an abstraction. Instead, we must see in every person a universe with its own secrets, with its own treasures, with its own sources of anguish, and with some measure of triumph.”

Anonymous said...

Bruce, well said....

I couldn't agree more, however, I don't believe PLA needs to assimilated ROC military into their arm force.

as ROC military is slowly disintergrating away....

Readin said...

Again, you didn't refer to any of the other invasions (the Falklands, Tibet, Poland, etc.) as illegal, so your statement that you mean the American invasion of Iraq "under international law" doesn't fit with your failure to describe any of those other invasions as illegal. Do you think the invasion of Poland was on more solid international legal ground? Do you simply dislike Bush more than you dislike Hitler, Mao and the Argentine junta?

In any case, it is surprising to here someone so devoted to Taiwan's sovereignty appealing to "international law". Taiwan isn't allowed to join the UN. It it excluded from most international organizations that require sovereignty for membership (American policy supports that exclusion). Hardly anyone recognizes Taiwan's sovereignty. Indeed a good international lawyer could credibly argue that NO STATE recognizes Taiwan's sovereignty - the closest they come to doing so is recognizing that the government of China, but not the PRC, has sovereignty over Taiwan because Taiwan is part of China.

Given that the standard international law criterion for sovereignty these days is international recognition, or even UN membership, Taiwan isn't a nation. And as such not only is China perfectly ok under international law, any American president sending aid to defend Taiwan would be just as guilty of breaking international law as you claim Bush is.

Readin said...

As an American, surely you are familiar with the words, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

Do we have an international government from which law springs? The closest we have is the UN. Can it be said to have legitimacy based on the "just consent of the governed". Yet most nations that comprise the UN are not representative democracies! How can they claim to be legitimate? And if they are not legitimate, how can the international laws they claim to be making be legitimate?

On the other hand, if there is no government, how can there be law?

Or, to get to the heart of the matter, how can their be law without law enforcement? People agree to laws because they believe the laws will provide justice. If the police won't protect people from the thieves and murderers, people will ignore the law and do what it takes to protect themselves. In fact how can you say that, in the absence of law enforcement, one is obligated to follow laws when others are breaking those same laws?

Iraq was in violation of the terms of the cease-fire that ended the first gulf war because they weren't allowing verification that they had rid themselves of weapons of mass destruction. Iraq had also committed an act of war against American when Iraq attempted to assassinate President Bush I. So even by the terms of international so-called "law", the invasions was not clearly illegal.

But more importantly, the concept of "international law" is weak indeed when there is no law enforcement. What international police could America go to to complain about Iraq's behavior. Could America get a restraining order and expect it to be enforced?

In the absence of international government and international law, in the primitive state of international relations, Bush II did what he thought was best for the community to protect both us and the community from a rogue nation. You can disagree with his decision. You can think it was stupid and even immoral (I think it was at least stupid in the way it was done). But calling it "illegal" is nonsense.

Michael Turton said...

Again, you didn't refer to any of the other invasions (the Falklands, Tibet, Poland, etc.) as illegal, so your statement that you mean the American invasion of Iraq "under international law" doesn't fit with your failure to describe any of those other invasions as illegal.

Oh please. I shouldn't have to. Those are obvious. There is a minority of Americans who imagine that Bush's fossil fuel- and defense manufacturer-driven invasion of Iraq was legal, but few in other countries do.

In the absence of international government and international law, in the primitive state of international relations, Bush II did what he thought was best for the community to protect both us and the community from a rogue nation. You can disagree with his decision. You can think it was stupid and even immoral (I think it was at least stupid in the way it was done). But calling it "illegal" is nonsense.

You are entitled to your opinion. History has already decided and won't support you.

Michael

Readin said...

"You are entitled to your opinion. "

That much is obvious to most Americans. Thank you for sharing my opinion on your blog since I'm not entitled to that.

"History has already decided and won't support you. "

Funny. It seems the PRC government statements you read to stay informed of enemy thinking are starting to takes its toll on you.

Michael Turton said...

Funny. It seems the PRC government statements you read to stay informed of enemy thinking are starting to takes its toll on you.

Dont assert when you haven't a leg to stand on, and I won't respond that way. The US admitted its attack was illegal when it sought a specific resolution. No one but US officials and a few supporters claims the invasion was legal. Kofi Annan said it was illegal, as does the UN charter.

Wiki has a good review.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Iraq_War

As I said, the only disputants on this one are a bunch of in-the-tank Americans. The rest of the world understands perfectly well how wrong we were, as does/will history.

Michael

Michael Turton said...

And as such not only is China perfectly ok under international law, any American president sending aid to defend Taiwan would be just as guilty of breaking international law as you claim Bush is.

Under international law Taiwan is a territory whose final status has yet to be determined, and should be via vote of the populace

Michael

A nanotizen said...

"Under international law Taiwan is a territory whose final status has yet to be determined, and should be via vote of the populace "

I have no idea until I read this, any reading about this predicament?

Michael Turton said...

Nanotizen, under the SF Peace Treaty Japan gave up its sovereignty over Taiwan. Sovereignty recipient was not named, because the Powers did not want either corrupt authoritarian Chinese government to take over Taiwan. Under the UN and postwar agreements, as well as international law prior to WWII, decolonized territories are supposed to get a vote of the people to determine their status.

Michael

Shauming said...

Under the UN and postwar agreements, as well as international law prior to WWII, decolonized territories are supposed to get a vote of the people to determine their status.

That's basically correct. However 'the people' needs to be better defined. I think only people that were born in Taiwan and Penghu have the right to vote in sovereign decision. Sharing sovereignty is part of birth right. Immigrants (including refuges, occupation force,...etc) don't have such right. Immigrants can obtain the citizenship of a nation after it is created but not before.

Zi Shuin said...

Bruce Shapiro said...

"The people are concerned more or less with survival and tradition rather than change, not the pursuit of happiness."

I can assure you that the pursuit of happiness is quite an important part of my life. If not, the most important.

"Taiwanese society is corrupt in precisely the same way as Chinese society. Their attitudes to humanistic issues are the same."

In the news, An 8 year old girl in a street in China gets ran over 3 times and nobody helps her. Is on Youtube, you can look for the footage. That will rarely happen in Taiwan.

Oh! I forgot to I mention that Youtube is censored in China but not in my country (yep, Taiwan).

"The majority of young people in Taiwan have no sense of world history and no sense of contemporary history. "

Well, history... not my favorite subject. But, I know that Chiang Kai-Shek killed many Taiwanese to establish the Republic Of China in Taiwan. Many of the classmates of my grandad were killed.

And I am still surprised that citizens in China will still think of Mao Zedong as a hero considering he killed more people than Hitler and Stalin together.

"They are not fond of the foreigners they meet, most of whom are English teachers."

Many of my friends who are not Taiwanese but live in Taipei say they are very comfortable here. I am Taiwanese and I don't make fun or derogatory comments on people who are not Taiwanese.

Still generalizing a whole society based on your experience (or lack of) will not create an accurate depiction of the Taiwanese people or its society.

Readin said...

I've been meaning to get back to this for a while.

Just to be clear, I wasn't suggesting that you had been persuaded by any PRC arguments, I was noting that you were making an argument that sounds a lot like a PRC argument. "History has decided..." Really?

Readin said...

The arguments in the Wikipedia article you mentioned do strongly support the idea that Taiwan is not sovereign and that Taiwan belongs to China. I'll toss you a couple good examples. "The United Nations Charter is the foundation of modern international law". The UN Charter's principle purpose was to found the UN. The UN is set up to run the international courts established under the UN and to make UN rules. The UN has refused to admit Taiwan to any of its parts as anything other than a possession of China.

On the other hand, the UN has not taken any action against Bush the Younger or America as a result of the invasion of Iraq.

The second sentence in the Wikipedia article has:
The then United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan said in September 2004 that: "From our point of view and the UN Charter point of view, it [the war] was illegal.

If that is a good argument for the invasion being illegal, then what of Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon's comment that Taiwan is part of China? He may have stopped saying it, but did he ever retract it?

Readin said...

In any case, as an American are you more concerned about laws made by a democratically elected government or about laws made by a conglomeration of the world's most successful criminal organizations?

Michael Turton said...

If that is a good argument for the invasion being illegal, then what of Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon's comment that Taiwan is part of China? He may have stopped saying it, but did he ever retract it?

Annan was right, based on international law, Ban was wrong, based on international law.

If the UN doesn't obey its own rules, it's not my fault. But it doesn't change Taiwan's status under international law.

Michael Turton said...

n any case, as an American are you more concerned about laws made by a democratically elected government or about laws made by a conglomeration of the world's most successful criminal organizations?

The basic law of the democratic government of the US is that its signed treaties are the law of the land. Again, if Congress wishes to violate that law, it doesn't make them right.

Michael

Anonymous said...

At this point in time there's no need for China to attack unless there is an outright declaration of independence very unlikely but possible if supported by the US.
Taiwan has been protected by the US since 1950. The thing is all good things must come to an end,inevitably.As China gets more powerful in the coming years,the US will have to decide whether it's worth its prestige and treasure to have a war with China over the island.The US will prevail but at great cost unless China attacks the US mainland.
The problem is the US think China must defer to them. Maybe when China was weak and had no nw.
You hardly see the Pentagon announce they will use nw to defend Taiwan like they did in the 50s up to 1996.
IF the US were that dumb to use nw to prevail over China,it will be at great cost which aint worth it.That's why a face saving way has to be found for the US to fade away from Taiwan scenario. It could take some 20 years or more or when China has amassed so much military to destroy 50% of the US .That will clinch it.

Anonymous said...

dumbfuck china wont attack taiwan
you fucking taiwanwibo.

if China attacked Taiwan, US will surely help. AND China knows about this. So China won't attack. And if Taiwan started the attack, US won't help. It's a win-win situation for both.