|
Alfred -> RE: OT - Naval Deployment In the South China Sea (10/17/2021 9:49:48 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tolsdorff
1. Seeing that the U.S. controls about 99 % of the pacific, I am very unsure how China could ever be accused of having a threatening posture.
2. With regards to Taiwan. China reacts like the U.S. reacted when the Soviets were active in Cuba. Both rightfully so.
3. And most importantly. Taiwan and China are still the same country. Taiwan has been Chinesified the last 60 years after the nationalists fell back on it. Over 97 % of Taiwan is Chinese. So it is still their Chinese civil war. Let them fight it.
What would you feel if some stronger power started protecting the South after 1964? That would not have made any sense and most of all, it would not have made a structural change. Just a temporal imbalance which would have lead to much more bloodshed in the long run.
Whether anyone likes it or not, Taiwan and China are still on the path to reunite, sooner or later.
My guess is that the U.S. does not care so much about the freedom of the Taiwanese.
The U.S.
- 1. just do not want to lose a major economic and military asset in that region AND
- 2. they do not want to give the PRC a foothold for a future pacific power struggle.
On the other hand, one could have said the same thing about Israel in the 60's and 70's, but it is still there and stronger than ever.
A full response would inevitably stray into the political domain and result in the thread being locked by Matrix. Nonetheless, a few direct observations can be made.
1. There is no logical basis for claiming the USA "controls" 99% of the Pacific. Not under international law, not in military capabilities, not in cultural terms. Were any country truly in control of 99%, it could literally do whatever it wanted such as force all countries to adopt laws solely drafted in Washington, demand unfettered economic and military access of any littoral state, demand unconditional support in every international forum, (such as the UN, the WHO) from every single littoral state.
2. Actually the characteristics of a 99% control mentioned above are constantly being exercised by China from what effectively are its vassal states.
3. Comparing Taiwan to Cuba is a very superficial assessment.
Firstly, other than a few voices in the C19th, the USA policy towards Cuba was never one based on annexation whereas the PRC has always been one of annexing Taiwan (see point 4 below).
Secondly, the Monroe Doctrine has never been discarded. The arrival of Soviet strategic offensive nuclear weapons and personnel to operate the infrastructure, together with the economic, cultural and political ties between the USSR and Cuba, represented a C20th recolonisation of the Western Hemisphere which fully triggered the conditions of the Monroe Doctrine. Taiwan is simply not comparable, no strategic offensive weapons aimed at the PRC are based on Taiwan, the Taiwanese military infrastructure is run by the locals themselves, not foreigners. Nor is Taiwan tied economically, culturally or politically to the USA. In fact if anything it is economically tied to the PRC and considering it is barred from just about any international forum it can't be seriously seen as a mouthpiece for Washington.
Thirdly, the Monroe Doctrine was, and remains effectively, a collective defense posture to deter the Europeans, primarily the British, Spanish and French from attempting to return and recapture their former colonies which had only recently achieved independence. It was essentially an early iteration of NATO's article 5. At the time even the USA was not in a strong position to meet on its own a determined European return, hence a common collective defensive doctrine made strategic sense. It was never an offensive doctrine; it did not attempt to eject European countries (Britain, Spain, the Netnerlands, Denmark, Russia, France) from their existing colonies.
4. The claim that Taiwan has always been Chinese territory is only marginally more soundly based than the 9 Dashes, the latter which is a totally post 1945 fictional construct. Anyone who claims Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan should also logically claim sovereignty over Okinawa (and the whole of the Ryukyu Islands) and both North and South Korea as those territories, up until about 500 years ago formally acknowledged themselves to be vassal states and regularly paid tribute to Peking.
The island of Taiwan was more akin to the Barbary coast, effectively under the control of pirates until the end of the C17th. It then became Japanese territory after the First Sino-Japanese war, hence it has never been a de jure part of the Chinese Republic, it being occupied by KMT units pending the peace treaty to end WWII.
Look at the people themselves. The locals far outnumber those who fled the mainland. Poll after poll confirms an overwhelming belief amongst the population that they are Taiwanese, not Chinese, with their own separate institutions. to deny them their own perspective is akin to demanding that the Chinese diaspora throughout Asia (Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia to name only the most prominent) trumps those territories separation from the motherland.
In short, just as with your 99% American control of the Pacific, your 97& of Taiwanese are Chinese, is just a figure plucked out of thin air.
5. Chinese military academies teach the First, Second and Third Island Chain doctrine as the long term strategy. That is an out and out offensive doctrine. Were it truly a defensive focus, they would stop at the First Island Chain. It is impossible to see why occupation of the Hawaiian islands (amongst other) which is the Third Island Chain, is necessary in order to defend China from invasion.
Anyone who knows anything about military capabilities, is well aware that the First Island Chain is very much a contested area where neither side can be certain of winning a military fight. Certainly no one should anticipate a Desert Storm or 6-Day War procession for the Americans. So much for America controlling 99% of the Pacific.
It just isn't the offensive strategic military doctrines which form the Chinese military curriculum, the weapon systems which are currently being produced are all of an offensive nature, to be used well beyond the First Island Chain. Combine with the economic actions of stopping Vietnam from drilling for oil in its Economic Zone, or poor Filipino fishermen from fishing their traditional fishing grounds, there is only one possible conclusion. One should not wait until the fait accompli is presented before opposing it. Would WWII have been prevented if people had bothered to take seriously Mein Kampf? May be, may be not, but often the best place to hide a secret or one's ultimate goals, is in plain sight.
The bottom line is that China, as a Great Power, has never operated in a multi polar world. It has no doctrinal, institutional or cultural history background to inform its decision making in a multipolar world of Great Powers. It is used to having weak neighbours who kowtow to it. It recent international behaviour, it's wolf diplomacy, is just a return to its SOP which was so rudely interrupted between 1840 and 1940. Not being top dog, with everyone kowtowing to it, is simply unacceptable to them.
Alfred
|
|
|
|
