Showing posts with label US Navy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label US Navy. Show all posts

Monday, February 04, 2013

Dachen Island Evacuation Video


A friend passed me this link. From Wiki:
Until 1955, the Dachen (Tachen) Islands were part of the Republic of China (ROC), the government of which has been based in Taiwan since the conclusion of the Chinese Civil War. As the People's Liberation Army advanced through Fujian Province in the late 1940s, the U.S.-supported Nationalist forces under Chiang Kai-Shek's Kuomintang, retreated to China's offshore Islands. On January 20, 1955, the PLA conquest of Yijiangshan led to the First Taiwan Strait Crisis. The Formosa Resolution of 1955 passed in Congress nine days later in the United States, leading to the orderly evacuation of the Dachen Islands by the United States Navy in February. At the time, they served as the capital of the Chekiang Province. The U.S. Seventh Fleet used 132 boats and 400 aircraft to move 14,500 civilians, 10,000 Republic of China servicemen and 4,000 guerrilla fighters, along with 40,000 tons of military equipment and supplies from the island. Three days after the evacuation, the islands were taken by the People's Liberation Army. Chiang Kai-shek grudgingly allowed the island to fall to the Communists so that the other offshore island groups, Kinmen and Matsu, could be successfully defended.
_______________________
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! Delenda est, baby.

Saturday, January 12, 2013

Hegemonic Warfare Watch: Magical Thinking Phase

One way to get a bike clean: wash it down at one of the ubiquitous self-service car washes.

The LA Times reports that Japanese and Chinese warplanes played footsie over the Senkakus.
Chinese and Japanese fighter planes tailed each other over a disputed cluster of uninhabited islands in the East China Sea, raising alarm that a miscalculation could set off an armed confrontation.

Chinese military authorities ordered two J-10 fighter planes to perform what China called “verification and monitoring” on Friday after a Chinese transport plane was tailed by Japanese F-15 fighter jets. The incident above the islands, known as Senkaku to the Japanese and Diaoyu to the Chinese, was the most potentially dangerous in months of escalating tensions over the islands.
This was followed by the usual warnings (same article)
"There is far more at stake here than a small cluster of islands. Crisis-mitigation mechanisms need to be urgently reinstated and communication increased between Beijing and Tokyo to reduce the risks of an accidental clash or escalation," warned Stephanie Kleine-Ahlbrandt, China and Northeast Asia project director for the International Crisis Group, in an editorial last week.
Humanity's dominant mode of response to its problems is magical thinking and in our age, the two primary theaters of operation for magical thinking are advertising and politics. Crisis mitigation mechanisms and increased communication.... It's just magical thinking. Accio....solution! Imagine this as an essay question for an exam: Please explain how crisis-mitigation mechanisms will solve this problem. Be concrete. 

Good luck with that one.

Let's be concrete. The crisis isn't caused by a lack of communication or crisis containment mechanisms. It didn't arise because of "tension" or ambiguous and conflicting claims. It is caused by China's desire to expand its territory at Japan's expense. It can only be solved when that desire ceases.

Hence "crisis-mitigation mechanisms" -- whatever they may be -- won't work because they help legitimate China's expansionist tendencies, either by treating them as a non-issue for future treatment ("Look, we've got to solve this immediate crisis. We can deal with the cause later.") or by treating the Chinese claim as morally equal to the Japanese one. Either way, China wins. They also help China by lowering the risk that war will occur before Beijing is ready, a fear which might otherwise deter China from taking risky actions. Perhaps they will help extend the era of peace by giving Beijing the idea that it might get the Senkakus via negotiations brokered by the other powers....

The Abe government in Japan also announced increased military spending this week, thanks to the threat from Beijing. This will be adduced by Beijing as further evidence of Japan's "re-militarization" (to understand that, see this good piece from CSIS on the way Beijing says it sees Japan). China is also deploying the old "creating tension" tactic it used so successfully against Taiwan during the Chen years:
China accused Japan yesterday of “creating tension,” a day after China’s air force scrambled two fighters in response to a flight by Japanese jets to intercept a Chinese military plane near Japan-controlled islands, the latest incident between the countries following months of tension over the disputed islands.
Chinese officials have also attempted to use its old trick of transferring tension from the Beijing-Taipei relationship to the Taipei-Washington relationship, in this case, attempting to move tension between Beijing and Tokyo to the Tokyo-Washington relationship.

Jens Kastner, a local freelance reporter, argued over at World Politics Review that Japan may turn to Taiwan as it confronts China. It that happens, what will the Abe government find? A President and party allied to China in its quest to expand and happily enabling that expansion by "reducing tensions" across the Taiwan Strait -- which enables China to ramp them up elsewhere. How cooperative will such a Taiwan be? Imagine if the United States had supported the DPP candidate instead of Ma Ying-jeou. Japan (and the US) would then be facing a friendly government in Taipei with no place to turn to but Tokyo and Washington.

One key piece of positive fallout from Beijing's push in the Senkakus and the South China Sea may well be its ability to paint the next DPP government as "provoking tension." China has made it blatantly obvious that Beijing itself is the source of tension....
__________________
Daily Links:
  • Criminalization of adultery? You have to be caught in the act, and satisfying the standard is really difficult. It remains a total waste of police and prosecutorial time.
  • Executions put Ma Administration on the spot. Actually, the death penalty is quite popular in Taiwan. 
  • People's Daily on how Chinese tourists in Taiwan are treated like cattle by their travel agencies.
  • If Fourth Nuclear Plant isn't completed, electricity prices will rise! Shock doctrine fallout: if the government didn't make so many empty, stupid threats in order to get people to accept nukes, people would probably trust nuclear power more. Anyone remember the brownouts in the '90s when the government was trying to get the fourth nuke plant accepted?
_______________________
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! Delenda est, baby.

Wednesday, May 09, 2012

The Peace Riser Peacefully Enhances Its Forces at Scarborough Shoal

Philippines media is reporting that Philippines navy ships have counted more than 30 Chinese vessels operating in the Scarborough Shoals area, denying access to the fishing grounds there...
Chinese maritime ships are denying Filipino fishermen access to their traditional fishing grounds in the lagoon of Panatag Shoal, a chain of reefs and rocks off Zambales province whose ownership is being disputed by China and the Philippines even as Chinese vessels were seen continuing to mass in Panatag, also known as Bajo de Masinloc and its international name, Scarborough Shoal—which China claims to own even if the shoal is 472 nautical miles from the nearest Chinese coast.

According to the local government of Masinloc, which is only 124 nautical miles from Panatag, the town’s fishermen have reported that Chinese government vessels had blocked their entry to the lagoon.

The military reported that the number of Chinese vessels in the Panatag Shoal has increased to 33, from 14 last week.

The Philippines has only two vessels in the area. These are the BRP Edsa II, a Coast Guard search-and-rescue vessel (SARV 002) and the MCS 3001, a vessel belonging to the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources.

China currently has three big ships in the area. These are the Chinese Fisheries Law Enforcement Command (FLEC) 310 which is said to be its most powerful maritime ship, and the Chinese Maritime Surveillance (CMS) ships 75 and 81.

According to the military’s Northern Luzon Command (Nolcom), seven other Chinese fishing vessels and 23 utility boats have been seen inside the lagoon.

RJ Bautista, secretary to Masinloc Mayor Desiree Edora, said the Chinese maritime ships were preventing Filipino fishermen from fishing in the lagoon.
Manila is about to get taught a lesson. The Chinese are using their vastly superior power in a completely passive way, forcing Philippines into unpalatable choices. Where is the US? What's Washington's opinion of this mess? Washington's absurd position on Taiwan -- when Chen Shui-bian was admonished for 'provoking' China by holding referendums, but the State Department makes no similar move against Manila, instead offering to mediate. Hahaha.

Note the beginnings of this incident:
The Panatag Shoal incident started last April 8 when the Philippine Navy on a routine sovereignty patrol spotted eight Chinese fishing vessels moored inside the shoal. Navy personnel boarded the vessels and discovered on board illegally obtained endangered turtles, baby sharks, giant clams and a large amount of corals.

The Navy dispatched its only warship, the BRP Gregorio del Pilar, to the area on April 10 but before the ship could tow the poachers to the nearest police station, two Chinese maritime ships arrived and blocked their arrest.
What does this tell you about the Peaceful Riser™?

The US and Manila have a mutual defense treaty.

What is augured here? A couple of years ago China passed an 'island protection law' that "protected" 16,000 islands in the South China Sea as Chinese. Multiply Scarborough by 16,000..... this is a test, it is only a test. Had it been a real conflict....

UPDATE: Manila DFA says the US will honor its promise to defend the Philippines under the 1951 Treaty.
_______________________
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! Delenda est, baby.

Saturday, April 14, 2012

Stokes and Hsaio on the US Strategy and Taiwan

Somebody is at last saying openly that Taiwan needs greater integration into the US defense screen. Stokes and Hsiao rock the conventional wisdom in explaining Why the US Military Needs Taiwan....
Addressing these challenges requires greater collaboration not only within the U.S. defense establishment, but effective leveraging of talents of allies and ad hoc coalition partners in the region. The U.S. reportedly has begun examining how to diversify defense relations with traditional allies in the region, such as Japan, South Korea, and Australia. Yet, little consideration appears to have been given to the significant role that Taiwan could play in an evolving U.S. defense strategy, including the JOAC and Air-Sea Battle. Taiwan’s future and U.S. interests in regional security are intimately related. Indeed, Taiwan is a core interest of the United States and has a pivotal role to play as an ad hoc coalition partner in Air-Sea Battle, JOAC, and the strategic rebalancing in the Asia-Pacific.

First, Taiwan should be the central guiding focus of defense planning in the Asia-Pacific region. In assessing JOAC and Air-Sea Battle-related requirements, the greatest emphasis should be placed on contingency planning for a PLA amphibious invasion of Taiwan with minimal warning. Based on a premature and faulty assumption that cross-Strait trade and investment will inevitably lead toward Taiwan’s democratic submission to Chinese Communist Party (CCP) authoritarian rule, prominent analysts have asserted that the focus of U.S. defense planning should shift toward the South China Sea and defense of the global commons.
Stokes and Hsiao call into question the inevitability thesis, that sooner or later China will absorb Taiwan as the inevitable result of increased links between the two. Like the way the US inevitably absorbed Canada... Consider also...
The fact is that no free and open society understands China as well as Taiwan. Unfortunately, few U.S. military officers conduct in-country training in Taiwan, and there are no known students attending Taiwan’s National Defense University (NDU) or other intermediate/senior service schools. More educational exchanges between the two defense establishments are warranted, particularly for junior and non-commissioned officers. Even as the Pentagon has actively pursued deeper and broader military-to-military relations with the PLA, the number of U.S.-Taiwanese conferences held on the PLA has dwindled.
Taiwan is a fabulously under-utilized platform. This piece would have been stronger if Hsiao and Stokes had explained how the US is going to get around the interpenetration of Taiwan's intelligence services by Beijing. Or how the US is going to work on deepening the alliance when a pro-China ideologue like Ma is in power. What S and H are really arguing is that the whole strategic thrust of US policy is headed down the wrong road. Those who envision standing up to Chinese expansion while handing over Taiwan to China are setting out to fight with one hand tied behind their back. This also means that the US is supporting the wrong party in Taiwan's politics; making the Chinese feel secure about Taiwan simply allows them to ramp up tensions elsewhere. But that goes without saying.

As if an ill omen of the coming hegemonic conflict in Asia, the standoff at Scarborough Shoal (the A on the map) is still ongoing as of yesterday....

Philippines has no real navy to speak of, China can simply brush it aside if it came to conflict. But the US has a security treaty with Philippines. I don't know how Washington interprets that treaty (would we go to war over some shoals in the South China Sea?). But I loved this report:
On Thursday, a Philippine Coast Guard vessel and a third Chinese ship from the Ministry of Agriculture arrived. Shortly after, BRP Gregorio del Pilar and one of the Chinese maritime surveillance ships pulled out of the area.
Does the Ministry of Agriculture in the PRC operate armed fishing vessels? It would indeed seem that way.
____________________
Daily Links:
  • Haha. Last time this ad was forwarded to me, "Amy Livingston" was in Taipei. If you run some Google searches you'll soon find that Amy is one of the great world travelers of our time, having made thousands while living in Dar es Salaam, Addis Ababa, and Goth Hashim Khan.
  • KMT wusses out, won't hold KMT-CCP forum in Taiwan. This means that the party forums are always held in China, where they can't be seen by pesky democratic eyes or protested by pesky democratic protesters. 
  • Satellite views of Taiwan
_______________________ 
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! Delenda est, baby.

Saturday, August 06, 2011

Ted Galen Carpenter ♥ Beijing and Wants to Solve Their Strategic Headaches for Them!

In 1938, at Munich, the British and French agreed to Hitler's demands on Czechoslovakia. Hitler's pretext for grabbing his neighbor's land was that ethnic Germans were being mistreated. The Franco-British capitulation on the Sudetenland stripped Czechoslovakia of its modern border defenses and left the nation defenseless. Later Hitler would swallow the rest.

Germany's acquisition of Czechoslovakia solved a number of headaches for Hitler. His generals had considered an invasion of Czechoslovakia a dubious proposition; Czech border defenses were first rate and its army modern and strong. Since Czechoslovakia had not been fought for, the occupation was uneventful and Hitler was quickly able to gain control, saving the Germans from the nastiness of a lingering post-invasion guerrilla conflict. Moreover, the bloodless invasion not only gave Hitler the massive Skoda arms works, one of Europe's largest and most modern arms makers, completely intact, but enough equipment and vehicles to outfit over three dozen divisions. During the 1939-42 period the Panzer 35 and 38 tanks were produced at Skoda (over 1400 supplied to the German war effort), and its sturdy chassis formed the basis for the notable Hetzer tank destroyer and other vehicles. Some authorities argue that Hitler probably could not have gone to war without this vast addition to his arsenal -- it also equipped Germany's Balkan allies, encouraging them to go to war as well.

Why am I telling this story? Because Ted Galen Carpenter has published another piece, another variation on his endless theme of Why The US Should Sell Out Taiwan. This variation is the claim that Taiwan is not an asset for the US. I've dealt with his misunderstanding of the problem of Taiwan before, the way he decontextualizes it (most recently) -- it is a problem of Chinese expansion that isn't going to go away if Taiwan is annexed to China -- but I just wanted to focus on another issue often ignored in discussions of Taiwan.

Taiwan isn't just a problem for the US; it is also a problem for China. Everyone focuses on how easy it would be for China to take Taiwan. Perhaps that may be true, but taking Taiwan is only half the problem -- it must be occupied and administrated as well. From that perspective Taiwan presents a vexing problem for Chinese authorities which will be neatly solved -- just as Czechoslovakia was solved for Hitler -- if China is permitted to annex Taiwan. Indeed, that is why the CCP looks to Ma Ying-jeou with such hope. The raving nationalists in China may call for the extermination of democracy supporters in Taiwan, but the people who crunch numbers and handle logistics know that is easier said than done. Yet the Sellout Crowd would solve this problem for the CCP.

Another thing that will drop into China's lap, intact, is Taiwan's massive arms manufacturing industry. The shameful embargo on arms sales by the democracies has forced Taiwan to manufacture all sorts of items it might otherwise have imported, from fighter jets to missiles to rifles. Think Beijing won't enjoy having access to all that, as well as Taiwan's computer capabilities in software, hardware, and hacking, along with the island's other hi-tech manufacturing facilities. And its weapons, tanks, aircraft, artillery, attack craft, missiles.... the list is endless.

And then there are the ports and airfields, including the base in the South China Sea. All handed over to Beijing. At no cost.

Of course, like Hitler, once the CCP is ensconced in Taiwan, it's on to the next set of projects, the Senkakus, the South China Sea, and Okinawa. Annexing Taiwan to China won't resolve those conflicts; instead Carpenter's "solution" would have the US committed to eventual conflict without the logistical, military, and moral support of an advanced economy with its own armed forces, right on China's doorstep.

Taiwan is not a security liability as Carpenter asserts. It is an asset that, properly exploited, can be helpful in the coming conflicts that Chinese expansionism is bound to provoke. At present, by offering a thorny strategic problem for Chinese analysts to solve, Taiwan serves the important role of tying up Chinese resources and attention that would be freed up to cause problems elsewhere, as well as offering a democratic alternative in the Chinese cultural sphere that is an implicit critique of CCP rule and an inspiration to its enemies.
_______________________
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! Delenda est, baby.

Thursday, June 02, 2011

Random Thoughts and Observations

Today in class I asked the students to write about three major problems for Taiwan's future. One student eventually mentioned bullying, which apparently haunts many students years into their future. Paul M Fussell once remarked that Americans spend adulthood getting revenge for what happened to them in high school, but Taiwan seems to be even worse. Do you think the Chinese leaders who bully Taiwan learned that in junior high?

Here's a headline you'll see more of: Gates to Reassure Asian Allies. As all our pomp of yesterday becomes one with Ninevah and Tyre, expect to see more headlines down the years in the generic form (HIGH RANKING PERSON) to reassure (NERVOUS ALLIES) until at last we reach Sec of Defense reassures Mayor of Honolulu....


Meanwhile Adm Willard, the US Navy's chief in the Asia-Pacific region, expresses concern about Chinese territorial expansion in the South China Sea. Not only is Taiwan linked to that increasingly tense issue by its direct claims on the area, but it also has a large military base on an important island in the South China Sea. This shows that you can't advocate quietly handing off Taiwan to China without (1) strengthening China's claims to the South China Sea via eliminating a rival claimant whose claims it now takes over and (2) handing Beijing a major military installation in the area. Beijing's territorial claims are both intertwined and self-reinforcing. What will Manila, Kuala Lumpur and Hanoi say when Chinese jets operate out of Taiwan's former base on Dongsha Island in the Spratlys?

Local politics: As we slouch toward the January election to be rebooted, KMT Vice President Siew will not seek re-election. Siew suffered a slew of health problems during his term. This leaves Ma and the KMT free to pick someone young and energetic and Taiwanese. Tell me who you think he should pick in the comments below.

Collin Spears asks whether ECFA will be the end of Ma if the Taiwanese don't choose right..... in this piece which links to me (and therefore is totally awesome, thanks Collin!) he writes:
The landmark agreement is not helping Ma in Taiwan as much as some Western critics tend to think.  Ma’s Taiwanese critics contend that the economic data he flaunts as proof of the  ECFAs success are not coming from Taiwan’s Ministry of Economic Affairs (MOEA), but China, therefore they are bias.  Further, they argue that Ma’s policies do nothing but to further hollow-out the island’s industrial base, which only benefit the wealthy while taking Taiwan from a industrial economy to a service economy which is ever increasingly dependent on the Mainland.  At the same time, Taiwan, due to Beijing’s objections, is unable to make independent trade deals with many of its neighbors (such as the ASEAN states), due to China’s diplomatic objections, which it uses as blackmail for “good behavior”.  In fact, opponents point to Tung Chen-yuan, a professor at Taipei’s National Chengchi University’s Graduate Institute of Development Studies, who claims that the ECFA has not been responsible for an increase in exports to China, because no increases occured:
The Ma Administration dug its own grave -- had they not attempted to gain public support by constantly conjuring up new, urgent, mortal threats that Taiwan could only dealing with by signing ECFA now now now, the public would not now be expecting that ECFA would bring them two chickens in every pot of san bei ji. Imagine an alternate universe where ECFA had been put forward in a low key and rationale manner, instead of being presented as a panacea for the island's economic problems.

Off to town to drink tonight at a couple of expat happy hours. Hope to see you there!
_______________________ 
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! Delenda est, baby.

Sunday, October 24, 2010

China Policy Infighting In Washington

Geertz's latest Inside the Ring at the Washington Times outlines some of what we've been hearing for the last year:
With President Obama set for a major trip to Asia next month and the Obama administration nearing the halfway point of its first term, U.S. officials tell Inside the Ring that a heated policy debate is under way over how to deal with China.

Two camps in the policy dispute involve one powerful faction that favors past policies of conciliation and concessions in relations with China — described by one official as the "kowtow" group. A second, more centrist, group is characterized as "sad and disappointed" by China's across-the-board refusal to work cooperatively with the United States for the past two years.

The policy debate is almost totally hidden from public view and only occasionally surfaces in public through statements or public speeches by faction members.

China's diplomats and intelligence officers are said to be aware of the debate and the U.S. officials said the Chinese are actively trying to influence it behind the scenes through their supporters in and out of government.
"Through their supporters in and out of government." Yeesh. Geertz adds:
The kowtow group is headed by Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg and includes White House National Security Council Asia Staff Director Jeff Bader, and his deputy, Evan Medeiros, a China military expert. Officials at the U.S. Embassy in Beijing also support continuing the current U.S. policies aimed to avoid upsetting Beijing's communist leaders.

According to the officials close to the debate, this group and its supporters in departments and agencies, including the intelligence community analysis groups, believe they must protect China from critics who they claim want to turn it into an enemy by following U.S. policies that will not upset Beijing.

.....

The centrist faction is being called the "sad and disappointed" group whose most senior members are Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and, although not technically a policy official, CIA Director Leon E. Panetta. Included among the sad and disappointed group are Kurt Campbell, assistant secretary of state for East Asia, and Wallace "Chip" Gregson, a retired Marine three-star general and assistant defense secretary for Asian and Pacific security affairs.
Bader came out of a company that does business with China (see this article) -- that complicating factor almost never appears in news reports -- but like many other areas of governance, foreign policy often represents a case of regulatory capture by the concerned private interest.

As I've noted before, advocacy of the position that "we shouldn't anger Beijing" simply gives the CCP a veto over US China policy. Not only that, but as the article notes, Adm. Willard has been sidelined for speaking out for a tougher US line -- meaning that criticizing Beijing can get you in trouble -- thus handing Beijing a veto over who gets to participate in the policymaking conversation.
_______________________
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!

Wednesday, August 25, 2010

Beijing Apologetics and Taiwan Arms Purchases

AP reports:
The United States said it will supply relatively low-grade radar equipment to Taiwan's air force, an announcement that comes less than a week after the island's president urged Washington to provide it with new F-16 fighter jets.
U.S. State Department spokesman Philip J. Crowley said Tuesday that the U.S. sale includes "defence services, technical data, and defence articles" for Taiwan's air defence system, and radar equipment for the island's Indigenous Defence Fighter jets.
Crowley did not put a monetary figure on the deal or identify the American companies involved.
The U.S. is obligated by law to provide Taiwan defensive weapons.
The US is not obligated by law to provide Taiwan with defensive weapons, but media outlets still keep repeating that claim. The sale would be in lieu of new F-16s; which the KMT Administration claims it wants (but fought against during the DPP Chen Administration). Instead, existing aircraft would get upgrades. Washington under both Obama and Bush has continued to be craven on that score.

A weakened Taiwan is an invitation to war in East Asia. Taiwan needs these fighters not merely to hold off China in an all-out, send-in-the-troops-in-fishing-boats scenario, but also in case of a limited war, such as a blockade. Taiwan's ability to break such a blockade on its own is a form of deterrence as well. Further, in the future Taiwan may have a government that actually gives a shit about the future of the island, and thus Taiwan need weapons to be a credible ally in likely future conflicts.

Note that I am not asking for the F-16s, I am merely observing. Washington has obviously lost its nerve, or else is waiting for Beijing to do something so heinous that F-16s become a rational and accepted response. Hopefully the latter, though I strongly doubt it.

Speaking of observing, one ominous trend that needs to be nipped in the bud is the rise of a more sophisticated pro-Beijing apologetics, such as that of Mark Valencia in the Taipei Times last week. I was traveling and couldn't respond but sorely wanted to. Given the startling pro-Beijing nature of the piece with its numerous omissions and distortions, I was kind of surprised to see that the Taipei Times even ran it. One thing it makes clear is that some of you edumacated types out there with Taiwan-related passions need to be submitting more commentaries!

Valencia is a scholar who has written at length on sovereignty issues involving China's claims to areas in its littoral. He writes from a pro-Beijing perspective -- for example, read this longer piece on the East China Sea disputes carefully. Note in his description of the dispute between China, Taiwan, and Japan over the Senkakus he never forthrightly states that China did not begin claiming the islands until after Japanese scientists said there might be oil nearby in 1968. I've already posted before how PRC and ROC maps pre-1968 either show the Senkakus as Japanese, or show them as next to Taiwan without being part of China. If there were any doubt on that score, I have a copy of a Renminerbao piece from 1953 that not only says the Senkakus are Japanese but also uses the Japanese names (in Chinese) to identify them. John Tkacik, who collects such things, wrote a couple of years ago:
In my collection of maps, I have a facsimile of plate 18 of the Zhonghua Renmin Gongheguo Fen Sheng Ditu (People’s Republic of China Provincial Map) of “Fujian Province, Taiwan Province” published in mimi (confidential) form by the Zhonghua Renmin Gongheguo Guojia Cehui Zongju (Headquarters, National Surveillance Bureau), Beijing, 1969, which identified the Senkaku Islands as the “Jiange Qundao” — using the Chinese characters for the Japanese name “Senkaku Island Group” — rather than the Chinese name “Diaoyu.”
In other words, until 1969 China treated the Senkakus as Japanese. Valencia's Taipei Times piece contains the same telling kinds of omissions. Observe first that China's own actions are consistently omitted or downplayed. Consider:
However, despite US arrogance, offering to “facilitate” multilateral talks on the South China Sea disputes — which is what really infuriated Beijing — it is clear that China has been its own worst enemy in this matter. It refused to file a joint claim with Malaysia and Vietnam to the continental shelf in the South China Sea. It then filed an objection to their claim, and attached a map with its nine-dash line ambiguously claiming most of the sea.

It publicly categorized the South China sea as a “core interest” akin to Tibet and Taiwan, ie something it would fight over, and allowed its Ministry of Defense spokesperson Geng Yansheng (耿雁生) to say “China has indisputable sovereignty of the South Sea and China has sufficient historical and legal backing” to underpin its claims.

These actions and accompanying large military exercises in the area provided a diplomatic opportunity for the US and pushed the ASEAN countries into the US corner.
"China has been its own worst enemy." To say someone is their own worst enemy is to accuse them of something akin to klutziness, not malice -- it downplays the intent of their actions. Valencia also accuses the US of arrogance although it is China that has claimed the entire South China Sea and refuses to negotiate and said it would go to war with anyone who objected -- what could possibly be more arrogant? Finally "observe" (you can't because they've been omitted) that the reason Vietnam and everyone else has been pushed into the US corner is because of China's military build up, threats, and recent actions, such as regularly seizing Vietnamese trawlers. All gone.

Valencia earlier had stated:
The activities of the US EP-3 planes and Navy ships, the Bowditch and the Impeccable, probably collectively, have included the active “tickling” of China’s coastal defenses to provoke and observe a response, interference with shore-to-ship and submarine communications, “preparation of the battlefield,” using legal subterfuge to evade the consent regime and tracking China’s new nuclear submarines for potential targeting as they enter and exit their base.

Few countries would tolerate such provocative activities by a potential enemy without responding in some fashion. These are not passive intelligence collection activities commonly undertaken and usually tolerated by most states, but are intrusive and controversial practices that China regards as a threat of the use of force.
Actually, these are intelligence collection activities commonly undertaken by the Powers. During the Cold War Russian and US signals intelligence constantly tested each other in just this way. In fact they still go on today (Russians buzz US carriers). Valencia elsewhere refers to Chinese vessels behaving in similar manner towards the Japanese! And recent Chinese aggressive moves against the Japanese are omitted here (it goes without saying). Who can forget the Chinese sub that surfaced inside a US carrier group? Valencia can, apparently. Because everyone knows it is arrogant, threatening, and provocative when the US does it, but it is only klutzy when China does.

BTW, which Asian nation has the largest signals intelligence fleet?

In other words, Valencia omits any information that might cast Beijing in a negative light, including the whole context of the growing regional fear of China's aims (except for a single fleeting reference about China's aggressiveness toward conflicting claims at the beginning), and then gives us a selectively Beijing-centric view of affairs, complete with the telling us again and again how Beijing feels (but not how Taiwan, Vietnam, Malaysia, or the US feel):
  • and China’s angry response
  • but are intrusive and controversial practices that China regards as a threat of the use of force
  • which is what really infuriated Beijing
  • If anything, it may have convinced Beijing that the die is cast. It could confirm its worst fears, that the US is stealthily trying to draw ASEAN or some of its members together with Australia, Japan and South Korea into a soft alliance to constrain, if not contain, China.

    Beijing’s struggle to break out of these constrants, politically and militarily, will set the stage for rivalry and tension in the years ahead.
The ending of the piece is quite sick: it would be unnecessary to "constrain" China through "soft alliances" if China were not an active and growing threat to many of its neighbors. No one talks about US "constraint" on Japan or Taiwan or Malaysia because those countries are not a problem for their neighbors the way China is. More and more China is reminding me of Japan in the 1930s, which had no trouble getting the resources it needed to continue both its economic expansion and its war in China, but nevertheless complained that it was encircled. Similarly, China has no trouble getting access to the resources it needs for growth within the current system -- just as Japan does today. There are no constraints on China's growth, as the last two decades should make clear. All this military expansion is simply unnecessary and counterproductive. In the final analysis, it is clear China does not want military expansion to grab resources; what it wants is resources to support more expansion. Just like Tokyo c. 1939.

In the Japanese case the war against the US is conventionally explained as a war for oil and other resources, in which Japan was "forced" to engage because the US cut off its oil and it couldn't leave China or end the fighting there. In 1940 after Japan moved into French Indochina the US placed its first serious sanctions on Japan, but did not cut off oil for fear of provoking Japan. In 1941 Japan further moved into the French colony, and the US responded by shutting off the oil. Conventional explanation says that Japan attacked Pearl Harbor because of the oil cut off, since it planned to Dutch Indonesia and British Malaysia to grab their oil and other resources.

However, during the debates in Japan over what to do, an often neglected event occurred. The equivalent of the minister for natural resources informed the cabinet that the oil cut off was no problem. All Japan had to do was wait a year or two, and he could have a coal-to-oil program using the plentiful supplies of Manchurian coal at Japan's disposal. Japan could have as much oil as it wanted. No war was necessary. Nobody listened.

Japan insanely attacking the US and setting its people back a generation in progress. The US insanely attacking Iraq, and persisting in its lost cause in Afghanistan, blowing up its budget and cheating its own people at a time of desperate need. China now engaged in a needless military build up to annex territories of its neighbors, reducing its ability to increase its own living standards and heading for needless war that will further impair the progress of its people.

Stop the insanity. And please, stop shilling for it too.
___________
Daily Links:
_______________________
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!

Monday, August 16, 2010

Paper on Parade: The US annexation of Formosa in the 1850s

Commodore Perry's Survey Map of Keelung
Lt. Preble's map of Keelung and its environs.

Everyone knows that the expedition of Matthew Perry and his Black Ships opened Japan. But how many of you know that Perry and his ships stopped in Keelung in 1854 on his second trip for 10 days to do a survey of the harbor and to assess its coal resources?

In the summer of 1854 Perry had just completed another voyage to Japan, and was returning home to the US a hero. In June he split up his squadron of ships, sending them on various errands. Around June 13 Perry sent Lt. George Henry Preble in Macedonian to Keelung. Preble, who kept a diary in defiance of strict orders not to, wrote in his illegal record of the voyage:
The Commodore has decided to send our ship to Keelung a port on the Northern end of the Island of Formosa. I am to survey and make a map of the Harbor. Mr. Jones the Chaplain of the Mississippi goes with us to make a geological survey of its coal mines and the Supply is to accompany us to take away a load of its coal as a specimen, provided she can get one.
Keelung was reached on July 11, 1854. Preble said:
We anchored here at 10 o'clock this morning and found to our surprise the Supply has not arrived before us. We have been regaling ourselves after our long abstinence with pine apples, egg plants, cucumbers pumpkins, pigs, poultry and eggs, not that anyone of us have eaten through the whole list, but the sight of all these attainable things is refreshing. I was on shore today for a few minutes but saw only a crowded dirty town which reminded me of a dozen similiar dirty Syrian towns in the Mediterranean.
The first western lithograph of Keeling (called Killon) was made in 1824 by Lieutenant G. Parkyn, R.N., of the British vessel Merope. Parkyn described Keelung Island, that protruding bit of the harbor's caldera, as the landmark that enabled mariners to find the harbor, a situation that would persist through the middle of the 19th century (source). Preble recorded this on the map above:
Keelung harbor or Keelung Taw (head or promontory) is situated near the North Eastern points of the Island of Formosa. The Entrance may be readily known by the high Island of Keelung, situated 3 ½ miles to the N.E. and by the high craggy land to the Westward, outlines of which are given on the Chart.
Keelung Harbor today, with Keelung Island prominent in the background.

Preble made several sketches of the harbor and described its many geological peculiarities. Here he describes the rock formations that line both sides of the harbor:
At the Western entrance of the Harbor, there is another curious and peculiar appearance. The soft yellow sand stone has been eaten into and washed away by the corrosion of the sea leaving large and dark colored boulders of a harder rock supported on pillars of the softer stone thus creating many fanciful shapes resembling at a little distance and with a slight effort of the imagination images of men, birds and beasts. I have named it in my survey Image Point.
Three sketches by Preble: (1) Keelung Island (2) Western entrance of the harbor (3) Distant outline of the land about Keelung


Rock formations on the west side of Keelung harbor

Preble described a rock formation which, in sketch 2 above, labeled Ruin Rock. He wrote:
A rock which I have taken for a signal or triangulation point, and named "Ruin Rock" is a lump of soft sand stone washed by the rains so as to present a very exact resemblance to a small gothic ruin. On its top there is a cup like pulpit about large enough for three men to stand upon. The annexed sketch shows some of its peculiarities but not all of them. One of its hollow archways has been connected into a small joss house or altar, and in it there is a quantity of bleached bones and human skulls.
This is probably the major rock formation on Heping Island. Here it is below:

The famous cave on Heping Island.

Preble goes on to say:
The dark parts are round or oval shaped rocks impregnated with iron and stuck here and there in the sand stone like plums in a pudding. The unshaded part is a light buff sandstone. Two points thus abraded by the sea extended their arms to the E 8t on the Western side of the entrance and between them is formed a beautiful natural dock large enough to hold our ship, and deep enough on one side for her to lie alongside the natural pier. Back of this dock and between these image like projections, there is a level amphitheater with the escarpment of a sand stone hill rising in terraces behind it. The level part is perhaps one hundred feet square, and its natural stone pavement is traversed by seams and cracks which give it the character of a tessalated pavement like the sketch. Dikes of different colored stone six to eight inches in width marking it all over in irregular seams. A small island in the entrance of the Harbor about a third of a mile square is another interesting feature. The whole island is based on sand stone and the northern side including nine tenths of the Island is washed by the sea in heavy gales, and resembles the natural pavement I have already described. The Southern edge of the Island has on top of the sand stone, a coral formation from six to ten feet in thickness, the top of which has decomposed and furnishes a soil for a few bushes, and some grass and weeds. The Island has evidently been elevated from beneath the sea.
Today a visitor can walk around Heping Island and see the same formations Preble did, looking much as he described them more than century ago.

Preble's maps and sketches were foundational for later Keelung Harbor maps, as Douglas Fix of Reed College observes. The British Admiralty sketches of the Harbor done in the 1858 were based on his work.

Preble's mission also went well. He noted in his diary that Supply would be able to obtain the 300 tons of coal she was ordered to obtain, and opined that Keelung might one day be an important coaling port, lying as it did on the shipping routes. Of the Keelungers he was less complimentary:
The present inhabitants are a rude thieving opium smoking sam shu drinking people. The exceedingly coarse cotton flags I put up as signals and which I punched full of holes and cut in shreds to render valueless, were stolen nightly from the poles, and had to be replaced in the morning before commencing work.
Preble noted that "the chief mandarin" was happy to see the ships, as he was preparing to fight one of the island's interminable revolts. He also assessed the city's defensibility:
The town reminds me of several Syrian towns. The streets of shops, being bazaars or under arched footpaths, and the shops very small. The filth, dogs, dark skinned inhabitants, and peculiar dress, many wearing turbans serve to increase this resemblance. A wall or moat surrounds the town, and it is defended by a miserable fort, armed with two immense guns, and three smaller ones, all rusty and cumberous, and on such rotten and silly planned carriages that I would face the guns than stand behind them in action. The towns best defenses are the paddy fields which nearly surround three sides of it and extensive mud flats in front which prevents any approach by boats, leaving only a narrow causeway and a gorge between two hills which has been walled up with a high double wall the only way for the approach of an enemy. A handful of men could defend the place from thousands.
Preble's next entry dates from 10 days later, merely noting that they had sailed from Keelung and were on their way to Manila and eventual rendezvous in Hong Kong with the rest of Perry's squadron. [UPDATE: To understand the remark about turbans, see this pic of Ketegalan aborigines]

The diary of then-midshipmen Kidder Randolph Breese, who would later go on to fame in the naval actions of the Civil War, tells some of the tale of Macedonian's days in Keelung port. He wrote that the Chinese junks refused to deliver coal by day, instead shipping over to Supply at night. He was evidently a friendly, easy-going man, and appeared to enjoy his time in Keelung very much, writing:
The streets of Keelung are a succession of arcades, with, for Chinese, very good ranges of shops on each side, and the pavements in front are covered with a busy throng vending fruits and trinkets of every description -- except the best....

...The districts in which vegetables, fish, poultry, and fruit are sold present a very goodly array of the above-mentioned provisions. The pineapples are plentiful, also mangoes of a good quality; the sweet potatos, especially the top ones, large; eggs, principally those of ducks. Bananas are scarce, the country being too hilly for them, the same may be said of coconuts. The watermelons are excellent -- not large, but with very thin rinds.

Continued our walk through the town, stopping now and then to examine the contents of the stores, or accepting the often-repeated invitation to walk in and take a pipe and cup of tea, on which occasions we would write in English for them, or draw a rough chart, showing the vessels' track and destination, with which they were very much pleased, many understanding the position of the countries, represented on the chart, very well.
Amidst all the descriptions and sketching and coaling, there was politicking going on. Returning home to the United States the following month on a British ship out of Hong Kong, Commodore Perry would recommend to his government that the United States establish a presence on Formosa, as well as on Okinawa and the Bonin Island. Perry was looking forward to the future merchant shipping as well as for refuge in future wars. Ironically despite Perry's activity and forward-looking recommendations, it was not in the north of Taiwan but in the south that the US would, for a few years in the mid-1850s, make its presence felt.

As T. R. Cox records in Harbingers of Change: American Merchants and the Formosa Annexation Scheme,* Perry's 1854 proposals were part of an emerging stream of US recognition of the importance of the Pacific trade and increasingly, of Taiwan. The California gold rush had encouraged US ships to voyage to the Pacific, where they established a flourishing trade with China that took them past the island of Taiwan. In the 1850s Taiwan was basically closed to foreign trade, and feared as a pirate haven. An officer in Perry's expedition wrote: "one could scarcely realize that a spot so lovely to the sight was the home of a lot of throat-cutting piratical Chinese refugees." But the island's coal resources were known by 1847, when they were surveyed by a British officer, and by 1850 there were regular shipments to the south China coast for coaling western vessels.

Another factor in the emergence of Taiwan at that time, according to Cox, was the Taiping Rebellion, which cut off the flow of rice from the south of China to the north. The war threatened the commerce of the ports, and Taiwan appeared a natural alternative to the anarchy of southern China. Townsend Harris, then a US businessman in China (later a diplomatic representative in Japan) suggested to the Sec of State in 1854 that the US buy it from the Manchus.

The Great Game over Formosa was commenced in 1855 when one Nathaniel Crosby decided to ship lumber out of Oregon to Japan. When Japan's abundant forests became known to him, he determined on establishing some kind of trade, and set off for Taiwan with a cargo of opium. In Tainan he was refused entry but they sent him to Kaohsiung, where he was met by a local leader, the Taotai, probably in Fengshan, who was eager to establish trade relations. Crosby was quite impressed by Taiwan:
"As far as the eye could take in, hundreds upon hundreds of acres of rice and sugar were stretched out. The people appear to have devoted their attention almost exclusively to agriculture and appeared to be happy and comfortable. Cattle too were seen in great abundance."
Sounds nice, eh? However, since Crosby described Fengshan as a gigantic walled city with a population of 300,000 to 400,000 people, his words should probably be taken as mere commercial propaganda. Crosby purchased rice and sugar cheap, and shipped it back to Oregon, where he cleaned up. Unwittingly, Crosby had established the Taiwan trade. Cox writes:
Shippers in the Far West emulated Crosby by sending cargoes of lumber from the Pacific Northwest to China. More important, Crosby's voyage stirred residents of Hong Kong to action. True, other captains visited Taiwan at about the same time as did Crosby, but it was his visit, not those of his contemporaries, that demonstrated that it was both possible and profitable to trade there for items other than coal. When this became known, traders along the South China coast quickly moved to take advantage of the information. Crosby's voyage was clearly the catalyst for the development.
Moreover, previous interest in Taiwan had all been directed at the north. Crosby showed that money could be made in the south as well.

As Cox narrates, other merchants moved in rapidly, including William Robinet and two American firms, the Nye Brothers and Williams, Anthon, and Company. Pooling their forces, they sent off five ships to Taiwan and determined that Takao (Kaohsiung) was the best place to set up trade. They met with the Taotai in Taiwan-fu (Tainan) who let them establish a trading post on Monkey Hill above the port of Takao, and granted them extensive concessions, including a monopoly on the camphor trade and a commitment to do everything in his power to discourage other traders (Crosby was thus betrayed). The Taotai had exclusive control over the island's forests so that he could supply timber for government shipping -- meaning that the camphor trade was his monopoly, from which he derived considerable income.

Of course, other American traders were moving in as well. In the north Augustine Heard had arrived and was trying to get permission to develop the coal deposits there. Though he was refused, he did gain -- you guessed it -- a camphor monopoly. When Robinet showed up he was naturally outraged by this betrayal, mounted cannon on his ships, and assembling his fleet off the coast, declared he would bombard the island if he didn't get the monopoly back, bribery and cajoling having failed. He was hastily granted a "monopoly" but Heard continued to do business in camphor.

Crosby, Cox sadly observes, returned to Taiwan to find the other traders in control, and left. He never came back to the island he had opened for business.

Meanwhile Robinet's business partners had failed and he bought them out. I'll let Cox carry the ball here:
In coming under the sole control of Robinet, the enterprise was passing into most unscrupulous hands. Robinet had been born of a British father and American mother and had lived in the United States, South America, and Hong Kong. He had served as a lieutenant in the Peruvian navy, as consul for Chile in China, and, in 1856, played an important role in the American assault on the barrier forts below Canton. Both through his official services and by marriage, he had important connections in Latin American mercantile circles. But of honesty he apparently had little. When his enterprise on Taiwan collapsed following the rejection of Peter Parker's proposal for American annexation, Robinet resorted to fraud in an attempt to stave off creditors and, when found out, pretended to commit suicide by jumping overboard at sea. Discovered in Lima, Robinet was returned to Hong Kong where he was tried, found guilty, and sentenced to prison. The trial was the sensation of the season in the British colony. At its conclusion, the China Mail commented that Robinet was "both by nature and training unfit to appreciate the duties and requirements of the commercial position to which he aspired." The judge, the paper added, had no choice but to refuse the defendant's plea for release and thus "condemn Robinet's commercial character and put a check on his singular and unprincipled career."
In 1856 things began to slide for Robinet. His business began to fail like the others. The British war with China meant that the threat of the UK seizing the island and dispossessing him of his trade became real. UK merchants were also moving into the Taiwan trade and displacing him from his camphor monopoly. The solution was obvious: if the US annexed the island, Robinet would be free to trade there without interference from the detestable British. Hence he joined forces with Gideon Nye of the Nye Brothers, and together they contacted Peter Parker, the American Commissioner in China. Their goal: to get the US government to annex Formosa.

Parker was both a US nationalist and an evangelical Christian whose heavy-handedness was a source of constant complaint among the Chinese leadership. According to Cox, he saw the opportunity both to increase the territory of the US, and to Christianize the local Chinese.

Both Robinet and Nye wrote separately to Parker, Robinet mendaciously saying that he controlled the island's trade, and Nye mendaciously claiming that among the shipwrecked souls on the island was his own dear brother Thomas. Robinet not only emphasized the possibility of missionizing the locals, but also pointed out that the US should grab Taiwan before the British did.

Parker was soon sold on the idea and forwarded Nye's letter, pointing all the advantages of annexing Taiwan to his superiors. Cox writes:
Since it appeared unlikely that Taiwan would long remain a part of the Chinese empire and there was ample justification for action by the United States, Parker argued that the United States should move quickly. "I believe Formosa and the world will be better for the former coming under a civilized power," he wrote.
Such irony! Meeting secretly, Parker also prevailed on the local US naval commander, J.D. Armstrong, to send a US naval commander to southern Taiwan, according to a US reporter with the Navy, who wrote that his orders were "to proceed to Formosa, and in the city of Fung-shan hoist the American flag and take formal possession of the island." The deviousness of Robinet, Nye, and Parker also infected Armstrong, who told his superiors that he was just sending the officer there to see about shipwrecked American sailors.

However, Nye-Robinet scheme was killed by Sec of State Marcy, part of the outgoing Pierce Administration. When Buchanan came in, he appointed William Reed in Parker's place, and instructed him that on no account was the US to annex Chinese territory.

His hopes dashed, Robinet sold his interest in Taiwan, and significant US trading interest in the island ceased for half a century. The US, which would soon be plunged into Civil War, never did get around to annexing Formosa or even establishing a presence there, as Perry had presciently recommended.

*Harbingers of Change: American Merchants and the Formosa Annexation Scheme, Thomas R. Cox, Pacific Historical Review, Vol. 42, No. 2 (May, 1973), pp. 163-184
_______________________
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!

Thursday, June 17, 2010

US Navy Comander Blasts Chinese

When, on the other hand, I look at the rest of the world I am obliged to say: They were simply asleep while this miracle was taking place. Even today they refuse to grasp it. They do not realize what we are, nor do they realize what they themselves are. They go on like a figure of 'Justice' - with blindfolded eyes. They reject what does not suit them.

A US navy commander interviewed in a Japanese newspaper took a few shots at the increasingly (and needlessly) aggressive posture of the Chinese:
Repeated Chinese navy helicopter flights close to Japan's Self-Defense Force ships in the East China Sea and the Western Pacific in April were neither professional nor responsible, says the commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, Adm. Patrick Walsh. [blogged on a few weeks ago - MT]

......

Walsh expressed concern about China's increasingly aggressive behavior in the South China Sea.

He pointed out that in 2009 alone, China detained 433 Vietnamese fishermen who were working in waters where the territorial claims of both countries overlap.

He also said that China recently started describing the South China Sea as its "core interest." It is a term that China uses to explain its positions vis-a-vis Taiwan and Tibet.

"This is an issue that has us very, very concerned because, on principle, the interference with freedom of navigation in international water is a core interest for those who use the global commons," Walsh said.

"At the same time, this economic 'carotid artery' that runs through the South China Sea ... they are willing to put at risk over rocks, reefs and disputed claims."

While the United States has been trying to maintain a mature relationship with China in the economic sphere, he said, "the military representation of the People's Republic of China is one where we just lag any kind of mature relationship, and it's just fraught with the potential for misunderstanding."

.....

In reaction to China's disturbing behavior in the South China Sea, several littoral states such as Vietnam and Singapore are now purchasing submarines "as a way of protecting sovereign rights," Walsh said.
In an interview with a Japanese paper, Walsh blasts the Chinese Navy. If you were Japanese and seeking reassurance, you just might feel you got some.

The US navy has been a consistent supporter of bettering its relationship with China. Is this a sea change? Or just one man's opinion?

Walsh mentioned later in the piece that he has been visiting countries in the waters around China and they are all interested in closer cooperation with the US.

Of note in this is Walsh's statement that China is now using the term "core interest" to refer to its expansion into the South China Sea, the same one it uses to define its attempt to annex Taiwan and its annexation of Tibet. Those of you wont to say that Taiwan is "the last piece of the puzzle" have been comprehensively proven wrong by China's desire for Arunachal Pradesh, the Senkakus, and now this. China just made "the puzzle" bigger by thousands of islands.

Observe also the progressive upgrading of claims. Just as the claim to Taiwan has fostered a claim to the Senkaku Islands, and the annexation of Tibet has led to the claim to Arunachal Pradesh, so what started as claims to some islands in the South China Sea has just become a "core interest." It's not going to stop until there's an armed confrontation somewhere.

UPDATE: See Thomas' excellent comment below.

Meanwhile, back within the Beltway, Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Diane Feinstein (D-China) claimed that US arms sales to Taiwan were hurting ties with China. She also said:
Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Dianne Feinstein told Gates that Chinese leaders had offered to reposition at least some of their military forces opposite Taiwan. An aide said she was referring to an offer that was made in the past and was no longer on the table.[UPDATE: "redeploy the missiles" appears to be confusion based on a misquote]
Feinstein's husband Richard Blum is a major investor in China. Not by coincidence, Feinstein has argued for closer connections to China. One of Blum's old business partners is Peter Kwok, who is involved with the current sale of the Nanshan unit in Taiwan. Have fun with searches on Google and see what else those names uncover.

Yes, that's right. The head of the Senate Intelligence Committee is married to a man who has extensive business interests in China. Brrrr.....
___________
Daily Links:
_______________________
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!

Friday, May 07, 2010

How to win friends and influence people, Beijing-style

Imagine it. Beijing looks out at the Pacific and what does it see? A weak US economy. A foreign policy apparatus obsessed with the Middle East to the neglect of everywhere else, including Asia. A military blunted by two unnecessary, protracted wars in -- where else? -- the Middle East. A busted US budget. What could be better?

I'll tell you what: a new government comes to power in Japan and immediately looks into the prospect of heaving US bases off Okinawa, where they have long been controversial. That new government is weakly pro-US and far more willing to be nice to China. The people of Japan are even viewing China with less suspicion. What could be better?

Now imagine that Hu Jin-tao, in a burst of imagination, appoints YOU czar of China's East Asian political and military strategy amidst this situation of great potential for China. Do you:
(a) send your businessmen on buying trips to Tokyo, purchase Japanese politicians, woo Japanese sentiment with cultural programs, reduce your military presence in Japanese waters, tone down anti-Japanese rhetoric at home, and in general, work hard on better relations with Japan to weaken its annoying attachment to the Yankee imperialists.

(b) bide your time, knowing that the Japanese will cause problems for US basing arrangements, knowing that the US presence in Asia is in long-term decline and the military and political trends favor you.

(c) immediately send a Chinese flotilla on an unnecessary voyage through Japanese waters, buzz Japanese vessels with your helicopters, and chase Japanese vessels out of disputed waters while threatening to sink them, and in general, behave like aggressive, expansionist bully.
If you answered C, there's a job in politico-military strategy in Beijing with your name on it. Because that's just what the Chinese have been doing recently. SCMP reports in an article entitled Get Used to PLA Navy on China's kindness in reminding Japanese just what Beijing's foreign policy is really all about:

China's neighbours should get used to the presence of the Chinese navy in Asian waters, a retired People's Liberation Army general said in response to Tokyo's protest over a vessel chasing one of its surveying ships out of an area under dispute - which has caused an uproar in Japan.

"China's long absence in its exclusive economic waters over the past decades was an abnormal historical accident and now it is just advancing to normal operations," Xu Guangyu said in response to Japan's protest over the latest incident earlier this week.

....................

Tokyo reacted angrily to one of its oceanographic survey vessels being chased by a Chinese vessel on Monday and lodged a formal complaint with Beijing.

The incident occurred in the East China Sea about 320 kilometres northwest of Japan's Amami Oshima Island. A Chinese vessel identified as the Haijian 51 allegedly interfered with the work of the Japanese ship the Shoyo, according to the Japanese coastguard.

Coastguard officials claimed the Chinese ship had chased the Shoyo for hours, demanding that it halt its research and leave China's exclusive economic zone.

The exact line of the maritime boundary between China and Japan is in dispute - partly because of vast deposits of natural gas that are believed to lie beneath the seabed in the region - and never before had a Chinese vessel forced a Japanese ship to leave the area.

Coming so soon after a series of incidents involving the Chinese navy and their Japanese counterparts, there is concern that Tokyo is facing a more aggressive and determined policy in the region from Beijing.

"This is a surprise," said Jun Okumura, a senior adviser with the Eurasia Group, adding that while he would have been inclined to write off incidents last month - the buzzing of a Japanese warship by Chinese navy helicopters and a fleet of 10 Chinese naval vessels found operating in international waters close to the islands of Okinawa - this latest confrontation raises the stakes.

"It is hard not to see a pattern now because this involves two different institutions of the Chinese government, the military and a civilian surveying vessel," Jun said.

"It is even more surprising given that there is such an unprovocative regime in Japan at present."

Some Japanese media outlets said the incidents "call into question the value of the diplomatic stance toward China taken by the administration of Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama".

You catch more flies with honey.... a timely reminder from Beijing on what its true goals are, and why the US blue water Navy and the presence of US bases, are so important to regional stability.

Those of you out there nursing fantasies that China will turn up sweet once ECFA is inked should study China's propensity to behave this way toward its friends and potential friends.
_______________________
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!

Friday, March 19, 2010

Naval Gazing

The Jamestown Brief, consistently useful on China, offers a piece on Taiwan's navy this week:
The outlook for ROCN sea control is worsening by the day. For one thing, in the event of an imminent conflict, Taipei must contend with the likelihood of a preemptive attack from China’s growing force of short-range ballistic missiles, which can strike at targets like ports and airfields [3]. With the ROCN fleet concentrated in a few ports like Tsoying, Suao and Keelung, this constitutes a critical vulnerability in the island’s defenses (GlobalSecurity.org). In a much-discussed 2008 article, William Murray of U.S. Naval War College opines that China “has shifted its anti-Taiwan military strategy away from coercion by punishment toward denying Taiwan the use of its air force and navy.” Neither the ROCN nor the Republic of China Air Force (ROCAF), says Murray, “is likely to survive such an attack” [4].
The meat of the piece: what do Chinese observers of the ROC Navy think?
Chinese observers by and large agree that, for a variety of reasons, the Taiwan Navy is not up to par regarding the sea-control functions outlined in the ROCN Vision. Condescension pervades Chinese analyses of the ROCN. Writing in Modern Navy, Yang Peng notes that Taiwan’s surface fleet is acutely vulnerable to guided missile-strikes. The fleet’s AAW pickets are particularly susceptible to saturation missile attacks (baohe daodan gongji) and rely excessively on the protective umbrella hoisted by tactical air power [8]. Yang forecasts that Taiwanese ships will hesitate to venture beyond the range of land-based air cover. This reticence severely constricts the Taiwanese Navy’s tactical radius. Wu Letian not only questions the Taiwan Navy’s ability to prosecute anti-submarine and minesweeping operations, but also deprecates its capacity to fight at sea for very long [9].
We're wholly reliant on the US here in Taiwan. FAS has a complete list of ROC navy ships. Note that the Taiwan navy possesses many fast attack craft which are not covered in the Jamestown brief discussion. This force could probably do useful damage and deterrence in any cross-strait invasion scenario, and should probably be expanded. There is a useful description of them at GlobalSecurity.org....
__________
Daily Links
_______________________
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!

Thursday, February 18, 2010

Of Docks and Dollars

I shot this lad collecting parking fees in the Lao capital of Vientiane. Note his vest, which says JIAOTONG, apparently Chinese. Most consumer goods in Laos come from China, as do many of the merchants.

Tom Holland in the SCMP blistered those feeling the forex fears from China after military leaders blustered earlier this month. News this week says that China has slipped to number 2 holder of US debt after dumping a bit in December. Holland, in a piece entitled Fat-headed generals wrong to see forex reserves as a weapon, argues:
Given that China's US$2.4 trillion pot of foreign reserves is by far the world's largest (see first chart), and that it is held mostly in US-dollar-denominated assets, Luo's threat sounds devastating.

Coupled with the news late on Tuesday that Beijing's direct holdings of US Treasury debt fell by US$43.5 billion over the last two months of 2009 (see second chart), his bellicose words added fuel to the fires of a dozen internet conspiracy theories.

Believe the theorists and you would have little doubt that a fatally weakened US economy now lies at the mercy of a small band of unhinged Beijing warmongers just itching for an opportunity to destroy the value of the US dollar and bankrupt the US government by abruptly selling down their holdings of Treasury bonds.

Certainly the US military establishment takes the prospect seriously. In late 2008, Colonel Jeffrey Haymond, vice-commander of the space development test wing at Kirtland Air Force Base in New Mexico, published an article in the journal of the US Air Force's research institute entitled "The economics of a Chinese currency attack".

In Haymond's scenario, Washington dispatches two aircraft carrier battle fleets to the region following a Taiwanese independence vote. Suddenly, global financial markets go haywire, with massive selling of US Treasury notes. Long-term interest rates jump by a full percentage point in a single day and the US dollar falls 5 per cent.

It becomes obvious that China is dumping its foreign exchange reserves. US stocks fall 30 per cent while the US dollar drops 20 per cent against the euro. Slammed by the volatility, banks and investment funds begin to fail and the US economy is brought to its knees. A Chinese currency attack on the US, Haymond concludes, would be "a viable tool of economic statecraft". Luo and his comrades in the PLA clearly think so, too. The trouble is that they, the internet conspiracy theorists and Haymond are all wrong. The whole idea that Beijing could use its foreign exchange reserves as an weapon against the US is nonsense. It simply wouldn't work.

To see why, just imagine what would happen if China really did try and dump its holdings of US Treasury bonds. Once word got around the market that Beijing was on the offer, every financial institution in the world would run for cover. Bids would vanish and all liquidity would evaporate. With no buyers in sight, Beijing would not be able to sell its debt.

Trying to sell the US currency in the foreign exchange market wouldn't work either. The only buyers likely to emerge would be the central banks of Europe and Japan, who could sell their own currencies in unlimited quantities in order to stabilise their exchange rates against the US dollar. As a result, the most visible consequence of the Chinese action would be that the yuan's exchange rate against other major currencies would soar, crippling China's export sector.

And contrary to common expectations, a Chinese attempt to dump Treasury bonds wouldn't ruin the US government's finances. Yields would rise initially (although Federal Reserve purchases would soon push them down again). However, it would rapidly become apparent that Washington is not reliant on Beijing to fund its budget gap. Over recent months, Chinese purchases of Treasury debt as a proportion of the federal deficit have shrunk almost to zero without precipitating a crisis.
Note how unrealistic the whole scenario above is (for starters, why on earth would Washington defend Taiwan if it voted to declare independence, when it has clearly indicated Taipei would be on its own if that occurred?). Holland could have added much more -- a rising Yuan against the dollar would dramatically spike China's imports, while a falling dollar would give fresh impetus to the ailing US export machine (and other exporting nations, like hated Taipei and distant Europe). Too, once those US securities were dumped, they would cease to be leverage over the US. That would give Washington a lot more room to manuever. Is that really what Beijing wants? To give up secure leverage for an uncertain future? Not to mention all that lovely interest from the US treasury.....

Observations on Holland:
  1. China has already stopped purchasing US treasuries in significant amounts.
  2. The amount sold in December was a tiny fraction of all Chinese holdings, around 2%. No earthquake there.
  3. While Beijing's chorus in the US blamed Taiwan, or the US military, or anything but Beijing for deciding to dump a few US treasuries -- in a permanent state of victimhood, poor Beijing is always the passive recipient of someone else's actions -- the sell-off dropped China below Japan, so that it is no longer the leading holder of US treasuries. Looks to me like the whole thing was a PR exercise -- Beijing decided to sell just enough bonds to become #2, and take some of the focus off its holdings of US debt. This may be because a stealth sell-off is in the works, or perhaps just because it didn't like everyone watching its financial arrangements.Whatever the case, congrats to the PR boys in Beijing who once again got the Usual Suspects out there flacking for it.
The media is really confusing me. Are tensions rising or falling between Beijing and Washington? Should I go with the BBC's Nimitz docks in Hong Kong despite China tensions or with the AP's U.S. Warship In Hong Kong In Sign Of Easing Tension? China hasn't really taken any of the actions it threatened to, as several reports have noted -- which also suggests that the whole We're Tough! exercise was aimed at its domestic front.

Interesting times, indeed.
________
More Daily Links:
_______________________
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!