Let's Discuss Taiwan

[Sommerswerd]

If I remember right, you were one of the people criticizing Trump a few months ago when you thought he was risking nuclear war with North Korea, yet now you are perfectly okay with starting a nuclear war with China over Taiwan simply because Trump doesn't want to honor our agreement with them. So it seems you are just basing your opinions on various issues solely on being a contrarian to whatever Trump's stance is.

This comment implies that you are taking positions based solely on going along with whatever Trump's stance is... or from another perspective... being contrarian to whatever position Trump's critics/opponents take.

And when we are discussing taking action that would potentially start WWIII the "because we signed the treaty" excuse just isn't going to cut it.

In discussing taking action that would potentially start a second Civil War...does the "because we signed the 2nd Amendment" excuse cut it?

Anyway, this is an interesting topic that I didn't know much about and I've learned a bunch just reading this thread, so thanks Commodore for starting the discussion. How far we should go and what cost we should bear, in order to stick by our agreements is an important question, particularly in this context. I tend to share Tim's skepticism that China would invade Taiwan outright. I don't know if they would do a soft-invasion, something along the lines of what Putin did in Ukraine/Crimea.

 

[Arwon]

China wants to expand their empire. And they want to do so at the expense of other nations, a number of whom are our friends.

Has modern China even staged a coup against a foreign government yet, much less invaded anyone?

There's currently a lot of anxiety in Australia about the pernicious influence of the Chinese and the hilarious thing is I don't think a single complaint (apart from the outright racism against the Chinese community, the actual substantial ones are mostly about China cosying up to business interests, buying and investing in things, and trying to get politicians to be favourable to them) is something the United States hasn't been doing for sixty years.

About the only difference is China has a strategic interest in changing Australia's positions a bit, towards neutrality and greater amenability to their investments, whereas America has mostly just allowed Australia to do what its leaders already intended to.

 

[Cutlass]

Has modern China even staged a coup against a foreign government yet, much less invaded anyone?

There's currently a lot of anxiety in Australia about the pernicious influence of the Chinese and the hilarious thing is I don't think a single complaint (apart from the outright racism against the Chinese community, it's mostly it's about cosying up to business interests, buying and investing in things, and trying to get politicians to be favourable to them) is something the United States hasn't been doing for sixty years. About the only difference is China has a strategic interest in changing Australia's positions a bit, towards neutrality and greater amenability to their investments, whereas America has mostly just allowed Australia to do what its leaders already intended to.

China is attempting to annex the South China Sea. Nations dependent on access to areas China plans to control include the Philippians, Vietnam, and Japan.

 

[Arwon]

Yeah, they're a rival hegemon and my heart honestly bleeds for you having competition even though history ended, but honestly, meh? Local hegemonic power wants predominance in its immediately adjacent waters doesn't strike me as a radical threat? It's pretty typical big state security and economic behaviour - securing a body of water right next to them against rival hegemons. Strikes me as roughly equivalent of the US blockading Cuba for decades to maintain control in the Caribbean. The Panama Canal didn't just happen, either! Same sort of economic expansionism now being pursued with the Belt and Road strategy (hell they're literally building a canal in Thailand)..

Or, hell, locally it's probably like Australia enforcing an unfair maritime boundary treaty on East Timor to take their natural gas and using its intelligence agencies to spy for leverage in the subsequent commercial negotiations. Bigger states are generally selfish dicks. I'm not seeing evidence that China is especially so, and as I said, so far they're not even staging coups or inavding countries.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Yeah, they're a rival hegemon and my heart honestly bleeds for you having competition even though history ended, but honestly, meh? Local hegemonic power wants predominance in its immediately adjacent waters doesn't strike me as a radical threat? It's pretty typical big state security and economic behaviour - securing a body of water right next to them against rival hegemons. Strikes me as roughly equivalent of the US blockading Cuba for decades to maintain control in the Caribbean. The Panama Canal didn't just happen, either! Same sort of economic expansionism now being pursued with the Belt and Road strategy (hell they're literally building a canal in Thailand)..

Or, hell, locally it's probably like Australia enforcing an unfair maritime boundary treaty on East Timor to take their natural gas and using its intelligence agencies to spy for leverage in the subsequent commercial negotiations. Bigger states are generally selfish dicks. I'm not seeing evidence that China is especially so, and as I said, so far they're not even staging coups or inavding countries.

Pardon me, but you seem to be overlooking the obvious and important point that the US are the good guys and China are the bad guys. That's why you're confused. I'm sure it was just an oversight.

 

[Arwon]

Look only one of these two countries is building theme parks here and spending millions to sponsor a club and host an Australian Rules Football game in their country. It's pretty clear woo the better bet is

(In all seriousness it's actually fascinating how this place is now an active target of Chinese soft power diplomacy. We've always been a state that lobbies a powerful patron for favour and protection and doesn't necessarily have much to offer them in return.

So being the subject of active diplomacy by a state with a strategic interest in influencing us towards their objectives (defection from the alliance towards neutrality, continued commodities and other exports, a stable and reliable target for investment), is something I don't think a lot of Australians have got their heads around)

 

[Hrothbern]

China is attempting to annex the South China Sea. Nations dependent on access to areas China plans to control include the Philippians, Vietnam, and Japan.

Yes
This is I think much higher on the agenda than Taiwan. China wants to guarantee control over her shipping routes of the maritime Belt & Road.

Here below two graphs showing the geographical.... geopolitical influence potential & expansion plans of China: the Belt & Road intiative and on the strategic backburner making the South Chinese Sea into a Mare Nostrum (our sea).
Why risk the possible development of negative sentiments towards the immense Chinese dragon before you have build up a solid economical cooperation along the Belt & Road ?
Why risk negative sentiments in South Korea, Vietnam and the other countries there ?
Consider as well that on such a geopolitical scale religions do matter: Malaysia is 60% Islam, Indonesia around 90%, Pakistan, Iran and Turkey close to 100%. Philippines 90% Christian. India many religions, but the 20% Islam under populist pressure.
If China positions it self as indifferent to Islam, it will be favored above the West and India, that have some Islamophobic sentiments. The West having their imperial history as well.
Investments by China being done, since already some time, in the "string of pearls", the key hubs, to gain influence by economical importance.

Imagine how that all will add up in 50 years from now.... also with fossil sources out of the equation..... and then it does not really matter how fast Taiwan will be integral part of China.

 

[Hrothbern]

So being the subject of active diplomacy by a state with a strategic interest in influencing us towards their objectives (defection from the alliance towards neutrality, continued commodities and other exports, a stable and reliable target for investment), is something I don't think a lot of Australians have got their heads around)

Apllies to Greeks as well.

 

[Commodore]

a number of whom are our friends.

"Friends" isn't the word I'd use to describe them. "Dependents" is a more accurate term given the one-sided nature of our defense agreements with them. I mean, if the US were invaded, I doubt we'd be seeing any Taiwanese or South Korean troops showing up to lend us a hand. Even if they wanted to help, the vast majority of the nations we have defense agreements with simply aren't capable of "returning the favor" should we ever need help defending our homeland.

Not to mention, some of these supposed "friends" in Asia have become very antagonistic towards the US lately. Makes me think they don't appreciate our help, and if they don't appreciate our help then why should we lift a finger to save them from the Chinese? Looking at you Philippines...

If you'll allow a little tangent here, allow me to say that the recent actions and statements of Duterte, I would have absolutely no qualms about sacrificing the Philippines to China. See, I could be talked into aiding Taiwan because they actually treat us like a respected friend. I'm just wary about aiding them because of the kind of war it might spark. The Philippines though? Nah. Leave those ingrates to their fate under the Chinese. Let them get colonized like Tibet.

is that North Korea wants to be left alone. And if left alone, aren't threatening the whole region

No. North Korea wants reunification under their regime just as much as China wants to absorb Taiwan. They will always be a threat to both South Korea and Japan as long as that regime is in place.

Also I must ask Cutlass: When did you become such a nationalist? There was nothing in your posts in the past that suggested you were a fan of American hegemony. Now all of a sudden you're all about the US leading the world and protecting everyone from the big baddies Russia and China. But honestly, what would be so horrible about a multipolar world with multiple hegemonies competing with each other? That's how it was during the Cold War, and one could argue that overall, the world was much more stable politically then than it is now. Or, even further, what would be so horrible about a world dominated by Russia or China? Would it really be so different from the current US/European hegemony?

Because it seems to me like you are suggesting the Russians and Chinese are evil or immoral or something.

This comment implies that you are taking positions based solely on going along with whatever Trump's stance is... or from another perspective... being contrarian to whatever position Trump's critics/opponents take.

It doesn't imply that at all. Just pointing out that some people seem to think anti-Trumpism is more important than using logic. I say that, because in the current situation, logic would dictate that actually living up to our arrangement with Taiwan would be a bad move in the long run. Not just for the US, but for the entire world as well. I also don't think using our troops to defend Taiwan is a prudent use of our military either. Chances are, if it comes to blows, China is going to take Taiwan no matter what. All we would do is slow them down because we simply don't have the forces necessary to stop the Chinese and still keep up our defense obligations elsewhere. So in the end Taiwan would still fall and all we'd get out of the deal is another world war.

How far we should go and what cost we should bear, in order to stick by our agreements is an important question, particularly in this context

To me, it would make sense to just do a simple cost/benefit analysis. If the costs of living up to the agreement are greater than the benefits, then it becomes justifiable to go back on your word.

 

[Sommerswerd]

To me, it would make sense to just do a simple cost/benefit analysis. If the costs of living up to the agreement are greater than the benefits, then it becomes justifiable to go back on your word.

So sayeth Machiavelli. However, if you're gonna lean so hard into pure Machiavellian philosophy, you've got yo recognize that the dude's political philosophies are widely regarded as pure evil. Practical, maybe, but still pretty evil/slimy/socipathic... and probably why he never reached the heights to which he aspired, and is more of a "studied in death" kindof figure, than a "praised in life" one.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Cutlass and a few other posters here seem to think it would be morally wrong for the US to not honor its agreement to defend Taiwan in the event of a Chinese invasion and I want to hear their reasoning for that. I want to hear why the right to self-determination of 23 million Taiwanese is more important than the lives of hundreds of millions. And when we are discussing taking action that would potentially start WWIII the "because we signed the treaty" excuse just isn't going to cut it.

Well, the obvious answer to why they are saying it would be morally wrong is that it would in fact be morally wrong. "Because we signed a treaty" isn't an "excuse," it's actually an obligation. The fact that you, and Trump, can't grasp that is why I would never conduct any sort of business with either one of you.

No, it's really not. That's just your anti-American bias wishing that the US were in decline. In fact, the US is in the middle of a resurgence. This article explains the situation quite well:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...e6dd8d22d8f_story.html?utm_term=.93e305e4136b

While the article is 5 years old, a lot of the points made in it still hold true. The best point being that people like you come along every 15 to 20 years predicting the decline of the US whenever we get into a bit of a slump, and every time the US emerges from the slump stronger than ever.

Couldn't follow your link, but it appears to be an op-ed piece not an article.

The reality is that in the US "ideal world" of world wide capitalism the US is doomed, and always has been. The EU was formed because Europeans understood the reality that individually their markets were just too small to ever be anything but ancillaries to the US market by simple virtue of population size. Now, here's a fact, the Chinese are passing through their industrial revolution and the size of their market puts the US in the same relative position as Belgium. Economically, the US was doomed the minute China adopted capitalism.

And Trumpism is hastening that demise. Every trade conference that has happened since the manchild in chief took office has featured Chinese representatives in every room, participating in if not leading every seminar, making every deal and snapping up every investment. They aren't even competing with a US delegation because in most cases the US isn't even sending a delegation. The US is not just doomed, with Trump and his merry band of economic boneheads in charge we're not even putting up a fight.

And militarily we aren't doing much better. It never really made any sense that the US was grinding its gears trying to outspend the entire rest of the world combined on "defense." Playing "arms race" with a larger economy spelled mortality for the USSR, and an "us against the entire world" arms race cannot possibly be maintained. Now Trump, backed by dishonorable characters like you, is creating a diplomatic environment that actually fits the unwinnable arms race we created.

I mean, you are right. Why not just throw out all those treaties as "nothing but a bunch of paper"? Oh, yeah, because basically the entire world hates us...and as long as the deplorables are a significant voice in US politics every four years or so they are going to hate us all the more.

 

[Sommerswerd]

It doesn't imply that at all. Just pointing out that some people seem to think anti-Trumpism is more important than using logic. I say that, because in the current situation, logic would dictate that actually living up to our arrangement with Taiwan would be a bad move in the long run. Not just for the US, but for the entire world as well. I also don't think using our troops to defend Taiwan is a prudent use of our military either. Chances are, if it comes to blows, China is going to take Taiwan no matter what. All we would do is slow them down because we simply don't have the forces necessary to stop the Chinese and still keep up our defense obligations elsewhere. So in the end Taiwan would still fall and all we'd get out of the deal is another world war.

I understand the point, but you're essentially saying that folks who disagree with your Machiavellian position must be doing so solely to oppose Trump. But that doesn't follow logically. What if they simply disagree (as @Timsup2nothin and I do), with your premise, specifically that "backing Taiwan"=WW3/global-thermonuclear holocaust? Can't a person simply think on the one hand, that invading North Korea/ trolling Kim Jong Un risks nuclear attack, but committing troops to defend Taiwan doesn't?

My point is that its just as easy/straightforward for someone to say you must be taking a pro-Trump position to disagree with them, as it is for you to say they must be taking an anti-Trump position to disagree with you. The positions are identical, and have the same logical flaw... as you've already partially pointed out.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

So sayeth Machiavelli. However, if you're gonna lean so hard into pure Machiavellian philosophy, you've got yo recognize that the dude's political philosophies are widely regarded as pure evil. Practical, maybe, but still pretty evil/slimy/socipathic... and probably why he never reached the heights to which he aspired, and is more of a "studied in death" kindof figure, than a "praised in life" one.

It should also be noted that Machiavelli's "prince" was advice directed towards the potential unifier of the Italian nation state. Would anyone call that "such a great success that we want to follow that path"?

 

[Patine]

The post you quoted wasn't directed at you since you aren't one of the ones advocating we go to war with China to defend Taiwan. Cutlass and a few other posters here seem to think it would be morally wrong for the US to not honor its agreement to defend Taiwan in the event of a Chinese invasion and I want to hear their reasoning for that. I want to hear why the right to self-determination of 23 million Taiwanese is more important than the lives of hundreds of millions. And when we are discussing taking action that would potentially start WWIII the "because we signed the treaty" excuse just isn't going to cut it.

"I cannot believe we are going to war over a scrap of paper," German Chancellor Theobald von Bethmann Hollweg to the departing British Ambassador to Berlin, August 4, 1914.

 

[El_Machinae]

"Friends" isn't the word I'd use to describe them. "Dependents" is a more accurate term given the one-sided nature of our defense agreements with them. I mean, if the US were invaded, I doubt we'd be seeing any Taiwanese or South Korean troops showing up to lend us a hand. Even if they wanted to help, the vast majority of the nations we have defense agreements with simply aren't capable of "returning the favor" should we ever need help defending our homeland.

There's a bit more to a relationship than simply 'will you send troops?', isn't there? It's a mutual trade relationship, and ostensibly Taiwan 'gives' some of its sovereignty up (or doesn't, I don't know). If the US was invaded by China, there would certainly be effort spent by the invaders to restrict trade between Taiwan and the US. My local police force has a monopoly on force, but we don't call ourselves their 'dependent'. We help fund their salaries, and they use those dollars to provide a service.

Trump phrased it as outright payments to the States, because that's how he calculates such things. So, instead of seeing the wealth benefits in terms of increased levels of trade and decreased costs to economic progress, I think he'd rather Taiwan tax their economy and just pay the US government money for the service it provides.

I'm not disputing there's a service provided. I'm doubting that 'collect the income directly and then pay' is the most efficient. Right now, the US pays Americans to maintain a profitable trade relationship. The alternative would be for Taiwanese to internalize the costs, and pay Taiwanese to maintain the profitable relationship.

 

[Karpius]

Pardon me, but you seem to be overlooking the obvious and important point that the US are the good guys and China are the bad guys. That's why you're confused. I'm sure it was just an oversight.

There are no "good guys" and "bad guys" in this. There is only the flag you support and the flag you are against. Team spirit!

I think one major historical factor being overlooked here is that good ole Cold War that shaped the world stage for some fifty years, THAT is the real reason for the situation as it exists today. In the wake of World War 2 and the Soviet dominion over eastern Europe, America was looking to shore up any bastion it could against the 'Red Menace'. When American friendly (i.e., not communist) Chinese fled the mainland for Taiwan the U.S. naturally guaranteed their safety. With the spread of communism through south-east Asia as the colonial empires packed up, Taiwan became an important bulwark in the South China Sea. Yes, there was a time when I believe the U.S. would have risked even a nuclear confrontation over Taiwan. But that was then....

Today, it is much less likely that either China or America would risk war over Taiwan's status. China today is far different from Chairman Mao's China. China had a front row seat to the fall of its erstwhile communist partner (then rival) and learned from those mistakes. China has gotten a real taste for what economic success feels like and is in no hurry to squander that on territorial claims. Of course China will not abandon their claim any time soon, but they are playing the long game and generally believe in a peaceful re-unification eventually. Likewise, America has less need militarily and geographically for Taiwan as it once saw it. However, America is still stuck with that 'guarantee' though America would probably not mind overmuch if the people on Taiwan voted to re-unite with the mainland. That would make it far easier for both sides.

China is probably the most serious economic rival America has ever faced and that is because they have adopted a much more capitalist approach than socialist. It is Japan of the 1960's on a massive scale. They are far more pragmatic in world politics than the Soviet Union could have ever hoped to be which means they are not trading military might for economic power. It also means that China won't be replacing the U.S. as 'Globo-Cop' any time soon. That role will fall to the Americans for many years to come.

 

[Naskra]

The US/Taiwan defense treaty was abrogated near 40 years ago.

 

[Patine]

"Friends" isn't the word I'd use to describe them. "Dependents" is a more accurate term given the one-sided nature of our defense agreements with them. I mean, if the US were invaded, I doubt we'd be seeing any Taiwanese or South Korean troops showing up to lend us a hand. Even if they wanted to help, the vast majority of the nations we have defense agreements with simply aren't capable of "returning the favor" should we ever need help defending our homeland.

If a military threat developed out of nowhere, or under everyone's nose, or unforeseen (or from outer space) that had the military clout to seriously and directly THREATEN the American homeland - in terms of an outright invasion and a war where victory was not assured - either the U.S.' allies would have already fallen, would be being invaded at the same time, or would be next potentially on this hypothetical chopping block, so some combination thereof. I mean, honestly, think of the hypothetical scenario to fulfill these parameters here.

 

[Commodore]

I understand the point, but you're essentially saying that folks who disagree with your Machiavellian position must be doing so solely to oppose Trump.

I'm not saying everyone who disagrees with me is doing it because of anti-Trumpism, I was only saying Cutlass, specifically, is disagreeing with me because of anti-Trumpism. And I'm basing that assertion from what I've seen of his posting history here.

The US/Taiwan defense treaty was abrogated near 40 years ago.

No, it wasn't. The Sino-American Mutual Defense Treaty was abrogated 40 years ago, but it was immediately replaced with the Taiwan Relations Act, which essentially reaffirms our obligations from the expired Sino-American Mutual Defense Treaty.

"Because we signed a treaty" isn't an "excuse," it's actually an obligation.

No, it's not. For something to be an obligation there has to be something that compels all parties involved to live up to their obligations. For example: With a contract, if you don't live up to your end, the other party can get the courts involved to either force you to live up to your end or compensate the other party an appropriate monetary sum. So the threat of legal action is what compels people to live up to their end of an agreement.

With treaties though, there is no force that compels any party to live up to their end of the bargain. If, for example, Russia decides to invade the US, and we invoke the collective defense clause of the NATO treaty, but France and Germany decide to tell us to piss off and fight our own war, what could we really do to them? The worst that happens is the treaty gets nullified, but beyond that France and Germany suffer no negative consequences. If they decide not to honor their obligation to us, all we can do is complain about it loudly.

My point is, when it comes to international politics, no one can force anyone else to do anything, at least not now. This isn't the middle ages where you can declare war on a nation because their envoy farted in your presence.

There's a bit more to a relationship than simply 'will you send troops?', isn't there?

Yes, there is more to it in the broader scope of things, but I'm just referring specifically to our defense agreements with other nations. Yeah, having solid trading partners is all well and good, but it would be nice to know other nations would have our back too when the poop hits the fan. Our allies didn't even really help that much in Afghanistan either. The country was divided up into areas of responsibility and assigned to each country present, but even in the areas that weren't assigned to the US, it was mostly US troops carrying out operations because our "allies" refused to commit more troops and only did the absolute bare minimum to fulfill their obligation to us. To me, that's more insulting than if they didn't show up at all.

Oh, yeah, because basically the entire world hates us...

Again, that's your anti-US bias making you wish the whole world hated us. They don't. In fact, most nations polled have a significant percentage of their population claiming to have a favorable or somewhat favorable view of the United States in general. Also, when asked who they would prefer to have as an ally in a military conflict, the overwhelming majority of nations polled still claim to want the US as an ally (image below). So I hate to break it to you Tim, but this idea that the world hates the US is all in your head and just wishful thinking on your part.

And these are population polls, not them asking the governments before you try to say something like this doesn't represent the views of their people.

 

[El_Machinae]

It's mostly resentment. But that Chinese/Russian bloc is pretty interesting ...