HK Paper Says War Imminent - US Military Sees No Signs

http://www.insidechina.com/news.php3?id=85252

8-14-99

HONG KONG (Agence France Presse) - Military conflict in the Taiwan Strait could erupt at any moment, a Beijing-backed Hong Kong newspaper reported in front-page headlines Friday.

But with China's military preparations virtually impossible to verify, observers all face the same problem. The challenge is determining whether there is any truth behind the daily front page reports in Hong Kong newspapers or whether they,re part of China's psychological warfare after Taiwan's President Lee Teng-hui demanded "special state-to-state relations" with the mainland.

There have been several reports of a military buildup on the Chinese coast facing Taiwan. But the U.S. Defense department said Thursday it had no information of any concentration in Fujian province.

The Wen Wei Po newspaper on Friday had a front-page pictures of a tank on a navy landing vessel and helicopters and ships taking part in drills. But there was no explanation of where they were.

The newspaper quoted Yan Zhao, a senior researcher at China's Academy of Military Science, as saying that tension in the Taiwan Strait was "more serious" now than in 1996 when China staged military drills off Taiwan after Lee made a visit to the United States.

"It will not be the same now, since he has hit the bottom line," Yan was quoted as saying. He warned that military conflict could erupt at any time as China was well-prepared.

"Our forces in sea, on land, and air have already made good preparations," he said.

Yan also said Beijing would not stop using force even if the United States was to intervene, referring to past history when Chinese and U.S. troops fought against each other in the Korean War.

China has kept up a propaganda barrage in recent weeks to press Lee to back down from his statement that ties with the mainland are on a "state-to-state" basis.

Hong Kong newspapers have also given prominent coverage of the China-Taiwan war of nerves.

The Hong Kong Economic Times said this week the Chinese authorities have deployed more fighters and bombers in the eastern coastal region, including 27 Soviet-built Su-27 fighters.

The South China Morning Post citing a Beijing source said China's People's Liberation Army was considering the invasion and temporary occupation of an outlying island held by Taipei.

Pro-China sources believed the daily media stories of the mainland's war readiness were part of the psychological war intended to "create panic" in Taiwan.

Taiwan's defense ministry has also made similar accusations.

China has repeatedly said it might use force to stop Taiwan attempting to make a formal split with the mainland, which has considered the nationalist island a renegade province since the two split at the end of the Chinese civil war in 1949. ((c) 1999 Agence France Presse)

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), August 14, 1999

Answers

Andy:

Yesterday, my hubby swears he heard on ABC radio news that Clinton said he supports a "one China" policy.

Have you any confirmation of this? If this is anything more than a home-grown rumor, I am *beyond* very concerned.

Anita Evangelista

-- Anita Evangelista (ale@townsqr.com), August 14, 1999.

Andy,

I have the same feeling as you that Taiwan will be sacrificed. And I think the Chinese know this, or they hope they know it. After that business with Iraq, where one of "our people" told Saddam he could probably get away with taking some Kuwait oil, and then *boom*, Desert Storm, well, who could blame the Chinese for doing some shucking and jiving right now? Hard to figure those "inscrutable" Americans out.

-- Gordon (gpconnolly@aol.com), August 14, 1999.

Anita,

That's probably a correct statement because, hell, he supports a *One World* policy, so why not a one China policy for starters?

-- Gordon (gpconnolly@aol.com), August 14, 1999.

Well, Gordon, I keep thinking about those in Taiwan who still remember those "old" US pledges to protect them from the Mainland.....

Anita E.

-- Anita Evangelista (ale@townsqr.com), August 14, 1999.

Isn't it amazing how a few million bucks funneled illegally into a presidential campaign can render an entire nation deaf, dumb and blind?

Gotta love traitors.

They get us to embrace our enemies.

'Aint love grand?

-- INVAR (gundark@sw.net), August 14, 1999.

If you would read a newspaper now and then, you'd know that Clinton has repeatedly assured China that we support a "one china" policy. This has been the U.S. position for over a decade, I believe. But this has always been interpreted to mean that we will defer to China and not recognize Taiwan politcally, not that we will allow China to invade. In fact, we have a treaty with Taiwan that says we will come to their defense in that case.

I wouldn't want to be living in Taiwan if Y2K is a huge mess for the U.S. Any disruption of world trade will affect Taiwan severely, and if the U.S. military is tied in knots with its own Y2K problems, or the U.S. economy is a shambles, I would think that China might be sorely tempted to invade. We would definitely not go to war with them to reverse an invasion.

On the other hand, Taiwan does not represent a military threat to China, so there's nothing to be lost by sitting around and waiting for things to change. All they are really worried about is that the U.S. or some other major countries will start to offer Taiwan diplomatic recognition. But there's no sign of that happening.

-- You know... (argh@dontspam.me), August 14, 1999.

Anita,

Those old promises were made by a bunch of people from a time long ago, neither of which exist anymore. I'm sure you can sense the treachery and double dealing that is the core of our present system.

-- Gordon (gpconnolly@aol.com), August 14, 1999.

You Know:

You said: "...this has always been interpreted to mean that we will defer to China and not recognize Taiwan politcally, not that we will allow China to invade. **In fact, we have a treaty with Taiwan that says we will come to their defense in that case.**" (**'s added for emphasis)

And that was my point, exactly. When Our Mighty Leader says "one China", do you suppose he means that we will *repel* China if it attempts an invasion of Taiwan?

Or do you think it means the US will repudiate our past pledges and let the Mainland walk in and take Taiwan back into the "one China"?

-- Anita Evangelista (ale@townsqr.com), August 14, 1999.

Ooops, You Know:

I see that you did say "We would definitely not go to war with them to reverse an invasion."

If this turns out to be true, I guess repudiating international treaties is okay for this administration -- no matter what those old dead guys who made the agreement originally said.

Wow. That really increases my confidence in the fed gov :(

-- Anita Evangelista (ale@townsqr.com), August 14, 1999.

"You know" I have to disagfree that Taiwan does not represent a military threat to China. The Chinese do not see it that way. The existance of a "renigade" province like Taiwan may inspire others on the mainland to resist the Chinese leaders and wish to break away, a la the old Soviet Union. The leaders see any source of political power apart from their own as a source of military threat. If Klinton allows Taiwan to stand alone after our treaty promises, all hell will break loose. How would North Korea interpret this? If we don't help Taiwan, why should we help S. Korea? Simply put, we are at a dangerous cross roads and the Chinese may have bought Klintons soul for less than the price of an old fighter jet. Some bargin.

-- smfdoc (smfdoc@aol.com), August 14, 1999.

smfdoc:

That's right -- and therein lies the great question: will the US abide by its agreements? If not, well, what about the pledges to protect Japan (the ones that accompanied the demilitarization of that nation post-WWII)? Should they continue to trust the US? What might be the consequences if Japanese leaders realize their friends and business partners across the Pacific won't defend them?

This issue is much larger than the soft reporting we're seeing in the US media.

-- Anita Evangelista (ale@townsqr.com), August 15, 1999.

The U.S. put a couple of carriers in the Taiwan area last time the Chinese started making threatening noises (in '97, I think.) That was under Clinton. I assume they would do that again, or use some other way of letting the Chinese know where the line is. The U.S. doesn't want a war there, involving us or not.

The only way China is invading is if they think the U.S. is so paralyzed after Y2K that we can't or won't do anything about it. And perhaps not even then. If the Taiwan economy is a mess as well, they won't be so assertive. Plus, China will have its own Y2K problems. It easier for them to make threats and hope the next election in Taiwan goes more to their liking.

As for political separatism, I agree that's a worry, but since Taiwan has been independent for 50 years, it doesn't seem cause for an abrupt change in policy. Unless Taiwan gets recognition from other countries, the status quo looks pretty stable.

-- You know... (argh@dontspam.me), August 15, 1999.

You Know said, "Unless Taiwan gets recognition from other countries, the status quo looks pretty stable."

Hmm...apparently, you actually believe that Mainland China will make these very threatening actions -- and that represents "status quo"? I suppose that invading the Spratleys is also "status quo", and buying the Pres is also "status quo".

Maybe you're missing something here...

-- Anita Evangelista (ale@townsqr.com), August 15, 1999.

Anita,

I don't believe you can infer what the US will do based on past agreements and current statements. The motives behind our national behavior are not what the public thinks it is. The whole Gulf War was about controlling oil, but that is not the way it was presented. If the decision is made to let Taiwan fall, it will be for larger political reasons within the current power structure. No way to predict it with certainty, anymore than you could predict how the justice system would handle the OJ case. The evidence said one thing, the jury ignored that and decided based on other issues. The old saying is, don't listen to what they say, watch what they do. After Kosovo it should be obvious that you can't trust what is officially said. That is only spin, intended to distract your attention. But one thing is for sure, there is no sabre rattling or harsh warnings being made here. Look at what Russia did in Kosovo. Moved a contingent of troops onto the airport, told NATO it wasn't budging, and threatened open conflict/war if NATO attempted to remove them. The US is making no such statements about Taiwan.

-- Gordon (gpconnolly@aol.com), August 15, 1999.

On the Drudge report yeasterday I Read an admiral in the US Pacific fleet made it clear what our policy concerning Taiwan is. If China decides it wants to militarily invade Taiwan they will have to deal with the U.S. Navy. I think this statement is a clarification of what the standing orders are concerning a possible response to a mainland Chinese military invasion of Taiwan. They better think about it. Do ya feel lucky huh well do ya punk. I know I dont. I think China better back off if they dont want to see sh-t hit the fan and see a confrontation with a nuclear superpower that can give them a very bad day. Peaceful means is the only alternative.. To invade Taiwan is an act of a nation commiting military and finanical sucide. If the Chinese love their children they shouldnt test the US's resolve on this matter. Taiwan, South korea, and Japan are under the seato military agreement. That means that the U.S military can use what ever means necessary to stop a military invasion into any of these strategic Economic partners Even the first use tactical nukes if the national command authority deems them necessary. These guys are real hard ball hitters make no mistake about it. The president might be a woussy but these guys who run the NCA show got balls of steal and ice water for vains and wouldnt think twice of lighting them up if the so much as blink on one of these nations. My advice to China dont do it pleassse dont do it. Taiwan just is not worth it. Think Peace and love Asian brothers and sisters. No more Hiroshimas. If you want Taiwan you have to it with out the military and through peaceful methods. Expect resumption of underground nuke testing if this crisis is not resloved soon.

-- y2k aware mike (y2k aware mike @ conservation . com), August 15, 1999.

It doesn't matter one bit what some admiral, or general says. They don't start wars, the President does. When you hear the Prez say it, pay attention, and then watch what starts to happen. Forget it, if it's only coming from some navy source. That's spin, nothing more.

-- Gordon (gpconnolly@aol.com), August 15, 1999.

y2k aware mike wrote:

...That means that the U.S military can use what ever means necessary to stop a military invasion into any of these strategic Economic partners Even the first use tactical nukes if the national command authority deems them necessary. These guys are real hard ball hitters make no mistake about it. The president might be a woussy but these guys who run the NCA show got balls of steal and ice water for vains and wouldnt think twice of lighting them up if the so much as blink on one of these nations.

Mike, are you telling us that the "national command authority" is going to make the decision to nuke China without President Clinton's input or approval? Do you know what the French phrase "coup d'etat" means?

-- Nabi Davidson (nabi7@yahoo.com), August 15, 1999.

There are many ramifications to a conflict between Taiwan and China if it erupts into fighting. Taiwan is one of the largest Lending nations in the world. A lot of people owe Taiwan a lot of money. TBills, Stocks, and nonsuch paper. A LOT of the Silicon Valley economy is dependent on products (semiconductors and the ilk) from Taiwan.

We are not talking about some little poor country with refugees. We are talking economic POWER HOUSE. And if the power is shut off.... It will not be good for the US. This will hit each and every US citizen in the pocket book.

We should wake UP and pay attention. It is in our own self interest.

-- helium (heliumavid@yahoo.com), August 15, 1999.

"You Know" said ....The U.S. put a couple of carriers in the Taiwan area last time the Chinese started making threatening noises (in '97, I think.) That was under Clinton. I assume they would do that again, or use some other way of letting the Chinese know where the line is. The U.S. doesn't want a war there, involving us or not...." My point is that while the USA may not want a war in that area, China WILL want a war there at some point for the express purpose of pushing the controlling influence of the USA out of the pacific rim. The Chinese have the long term goal of returning to their position as the dominate culture in that part of the worls. The USA sitting with Taiwan off shore is a block to that goal as is the presence of the US Navy. China is building a deep water navy presence as we speak. They wich to expand their influence to control the oil reserves in the south china sea at the Spratley islands and to control sea lanes for the shipping of goods. This will be done only when they end the presence of the west in the pacific rim. That means the US out of Taiwan, Taiwan back into the fold and the USA out of south Korea. IMHO the only real question is when all of this will be forced as an issue as opposed to IF. While Klinton may put up the show of support over Taiwan, I can not imagine him ever starting a nuclear war over the Taiwanese people.

-- smfdoc (smfdoc@aol.com), August 15, 1999.

U.S. policy is neither determined nor stated by a (one-star) Rear Admiral.

U.S. policy on treaties and defense agreements has always been to do whatever is in the interest of the current administration, regardless of signatures on a piece of paper. For example: All treaties made with Native Americans. The treaty dividing Korea temporarily until unification referendums held (1950 - the U.S. adminstration ignored the treaty and convinced the South Korean adminstration to repudiatiate the treaty with promises of financial and military support. The U.S. then claimed the South Korean government did it, not us). The treaty dividing Vietnam temporarily for two years until a unification referendum is held (1954 - the U.S. again followed the same strategy).

The U.S. is a member of the WTO, yet refuses to allow the issue of steel trade with Japan to be brought before the WTO - knowing the recent tariffs imposed will be struck down when the facts are revealed.

Taiwan has been supported, then abandoned, then supported, then abandoned, then qusai-supported but officially ignored (the 'official' stance since the Nixon administration) in the search for a policy that benefits the U.S.

The policy of all nations (the U.S., China and the nonentity known as Taiwan included) is to do whatever is expedient and in the best interest of itself. Period.

Will China take some sort of military action? You bet they will. In the Chinese "heirarchy of importance," the statement by Taiwan's President Lee is higher on the ladder than the visit to the U.S. in 1996. Therefore a stronger response must be made by China. To do otherwise would be losing face - regardless of any consequences, and 'face' is highest on the heirachy of importance.

What will they do? I don't know, but I'll guess that a massive 'exercise' in the vicinity of Taiwan will result in the 'accidental' shoot down of a few Taiwan aircraft or the 'accidental' damaging of a ship. Remember the 'accidental' Chinese embassy bombing in the Balkans?

Everyone knows the bombing was not accidental. The targeting error argument never held water. If an old map was used, why was the U.S. bombing an empty lot? The old maps showed an empty lot and the new maps showed the Chinese embassy.

What will the U.S. do in response? I don't know. If you think China is hard to understand, try to concisely explain the Asian foreign policy of this administration. If you figure it out, please send it by fax to the buildings on 'Embassy Row' in Washington D.C. Perhaps the Secretary of State would appreciate a copy also...

-- PNG (Peter Gauthier) (png@gol.com), August 15, 1999.

Peter - thanks for an excellent insightdull analysis - agree with everything you said - I still believe taiwan will be sacrficed though... just a gut feeling, and reading between the lines...

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), August 15, 1999.

oops, insightfull... :)

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), August 15, 1999.

dangnabbit, ful...

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), August 15, 1999.

THe best site on the web that I know of about such matters is www.Stratfor.com .

FWIW they don't think an invasion very likely; they don't think the PRC has the ability to establish and maintain air and sea superiority over Taiwan let alone the USA, and without that an attempted invasion would be a debacle. The fact that their army is enormous is irrelevant; they'd have to get it across the sea, then keep it supplied.

-- Nigel Arnot (nra@maxwell.ph.kcl.ac.uk), August 16, 1999.

Try again:

www.stratfor.com.

-- Nigel Arnot (nra@maxwell.ph.kcl.ac.uk), August 16, 1999.

And again (it's a bad Monday morning!)

www.stratfor.com.

-- Nigel Arnot (nra@maxwell.ph.kcl.ac.uk), August 16, 1999.

Ha! You're a rot, Andy.

-- PNG (Peter Gauthier) (png@gol.com), August 16, 1999.

Ooops, I mean't riot.

-- PNG (Peter Gauthier) (png@gol.com), August 16, 1999.

Just for information: The president doesn't start wars (or at least, isn't supposed to.) Congress starts wars by passing Declarations of War. This is an official legal document that is to authorize our military to attack an enemy.

-- Tim the Y2K nut (tmiley@yakko.cs.wmich.edu), August 16, 1999.