Onward to Beijing

Oh, good. Word on the street is that back in the CPA days they said "real men go to Teheran." Obviously, though, the really real hawks of the world are the China hawks. Like, it seems, Christopher Hitchens:

China also maintains territorial claims against India and Vietnam (and, of course, Taiwan) and is building a vast army, as well as a huge oceangoing navy, to back up these ambitions. It seems an eon ago, because it was before Sept. 11, 2001, but we should not forget what happened when an American aircraft was involved in a midair collision over Hainan island in the early days of this administration. The Chinese acted as if the accident was deliberate, impounded the plane and the crew for several days, and mounted mass demonstrations of hysterical chauvinism. Events in the Middle East have since obscured this menacing picture, but actually it is in that region that China's cynical statecraft is most obviously on display. If Beijing had had its way, Saddam Hussein would still be in power. Iran is being supplied with Chinese Silkworm missiles. Most horribly of all, China buys most of the oil of Sudan and in return provides the weaponry—and the diplomatic cover at the United Nations—for the cleansing of Darfur.

Robert Farley notes that Hitchens seems to have decided that now would be a good time to adopt full-on crazy neoconservative opinions. He also note spoints out that China has no real territorial claims against India (if anything, it's India who's making claims about China) and this business about a "huge oceangoing navy" is just made up. Obviously, in the scheme of things the Chinese Communist Party is not the most admirable crew on the planet. But on the other hand, the humanitarian benefits to locking the US and the PRC into a cycle of mutual paranoia and hostility are really nowhere to be seen.

Comments

"He also note spoints out that China..."

I'm fascinated by this kind of typo because it's so modern.

If you think about it, this kind of "in-line editing" typo literally would have been impossible before the advent of word processors. If you were using a typewriter or longhand, you would never make this particular kind of typo.

Posted by Petey | October 2, 2007 10:26 AM

Let me get this straight, one of our war planes had an accident with one of their war planes, killing one of their airmen, in airspace quite near China and quite far from the US.

Rather than exploding into a violent confrontation, this situation was resolved through diplomacy and soon forgotten by both sides.

Hitchens finds that unnacceptable.

Hitchens is what he's always been, just a blood thirsty monster - as long as there is no chance his lust for blood could possibly risk any of his own blood being spilled.

Posted by hankest | October 2, 2007 10:32 AM

Iran manufactures its own version of the Silkworm missile now, and no longer buys them from China.

Posted by Njorl | October 2, 2007 10:32 AM

I think Hitchens is right about China's territorial claims against India.

An interesting tid-bit is that India does not build roads to make its northwest border accessible for the primary reason that it is afraid that the the roads will make it easier for the Chinese to march into the Indian territory.

Posted by gregor | October 2, 2007 10:40 AM

Hitchens should go back to chainsmoking in Oxford coffee shops with the other trust fund kids. He can write pretentiously and quote Voltaire with a British accent. BFD.

Posted by JJ | October 2, 2007 10:40 AM

At the rate they're going they'll probably be able to buy the better part of India.

That Dennis Miller fellow was funny before his moonbat years.

Hitchens was always a demagogue.

Posted by Linus | October 2, 2007 10:40 AM

a huge oceangoing navy

I prefer my navies to be land-traversing.

Posted by Kieran | October 2, 2007 10:40 AM

The spin on the aircraft shenanigans aside, I don't think the truth of Hitchens' factual claims are really in dispute. And I don't see Hitchens calling for a military response anywhere in the piece (he does call for an olympic boycott . . . i'm shivering). So what is Matt's point here?

Is telling the truth about Chinese government's behavior de facto warmongering? To maintain peace, must we pretend that these things about China just aren't so?

Posted by southpaw | October 2, 2007 10:45 AM

we should not forget what happened when an American aircraft was involved in a midair collision over Hainan island in the early days of this administration.

This brings back fond memories of that early episode, which was a transparent effort to gin up China as a rival and a threat.

This was actually quite logical from a certain perspective, once one realizes that a large military needs a perceived threat to justify its existence.

Fortunately for the militarists, 9/11 provided them with such a perceived threat.

Unfortunately for them, however, Iraq has been such a cock up that these militarists are beginning to realize that the so-called Global War on Terror is not, for them, a Good Thing.

Thus, they are beginning to respond to Iraq as they previously responded to Vietnam. That response is to conclude that The United States Military Does Not Do Guerrilla War. No, the United States military only does high tech, shock and awe, guided missile type operation.

This high tech war gratifies the militarists by substituting capital for labor, thereby advancing their broader objectives.

This high tech warfare, however, requires an organized conventional foe. Subterranean guerrilla networks will not do. China, once again, would be the obvious target. Note that we also are talking about a "New Cold War" with Russia ( which has some very good fighter planes, BTW. )

The fly in this ointment is that China, nowadays, is the United States' creditor, so ginning them up as the bogeyman essentially is the same as threatening to rob one's own bank. Whether this point would have any impact upon the militarists depends upon to what degree, if any, they are amenable to reason.

Posted by Duncan Kinder | October 2, 2007 10:48 AM

Farley is incorrect that China has no territorial claims against India. China claims the Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh. (Farley may have been thinking about Kashmir, where China controls basically all the territory it claims - some of it having been ceded to China by Pakistan - while India claims some of the Chinese-controlled Kashmir territory.)

Posted by Al | October 2, 2007 10:52 AM

"The Chinese acted as if the accident was deliberate, impounded the plane and the crew for several days"

If I recall correctly (reading in the Atlantic no less), this episode was part of a coordinated US operation to "light up the boards" in China -- in other words, to observe their air defense capabilities in action, and strayed a little farther than planned.

Posted by dukej | October 2, 2007 10:56 AM

I don't think everyone would agree with Farley's claim that China is making no territorial claims against India and it's the other way around. Arunachal Pradesh?

http://www.rediff.com/news/2006/nov/14china.htm

Posted by Justin | October 2, 2007 10:59 AM

So, Hitchens presents facts, Farley produces counterfacts ( on the India China Issue)...so instead of cross checking facts, you presume one side as correct..This is not a big deal in itself, except that it may be a 'microtrend' in you of selection bias

Posted by Spiff | October 2, 2007 11:18 AM

I suppose that technically I should have written "no territorial claims that any sane person would ever believe that the Chinese are going to act on in a military sense", but that's rather more cumbersome than the just-as-accurate "no meaningful territorial claims."

Posted by Rob Farley | October 2, 2007 11:19 AM

"...but Buddhism has a lot to answer for in, say, Sri Lanka and Cambodia, and if its fatalistic adherents want to claim credit in one case, they have also to accept responsibility in the others."

This doesn't make any sense to me. How does Buddhism have anything to answer for what happened in Cambodia? Sure, Cambodia may be a "Buddhist" country but the crimes of the Khmer Rouge (which is what I assume he's referring to) were not committed in the name of Buddhism, right?

This is an absurd statement, where Hitchens is trying to bend over backwards trying to prove that Buddhism, like all religions (in his opinion), are inherently and truly evil.

Honestly, I used to admire Hitchens, even when he supported the war because I thought he made reasonably honest and interesting arguments, but he's going off the deep end now. His tone is defensive and he's trying to validate some aspect of himself, rather than truly engage in serious analysis.

Posted by Mike | October 2, 2007 11:19 AM

I think it's fairly amusing how Hitchens says "if Beijing had had its way, Saddam Hussein would still be in power." Oh noes! We would be in a situation probably preferred by the overwhelming majority of Iraqis, Americans, and everyone except Al Qaeda, profiteers like KBR, and perhaps the most cynical of Democratic electioneers. Most people -- Slate readers included -- are likely to read about China being an impediment to the Iraq war and think, "gosh, I wish they had been more effective."

Although really, for sheer bizarreness, I liked Hitchens' rant against Buddhism, because it was just so earnest yet so transparently weak. He knows that he has to hate Buddhism, but he isn't quite sure why, so he takes conflicts or oppressive circumstances in which Buddhists were involved and then ascribes them to Buddhism because.... because there's gotta be some reason to hate Buddhists!

Posted by Julian Elson | October 2, 2007 11:25 AM

Hitchens is just singing the same song that British drunks sung in his youth:

"We don't want to fight,
but by jingo, if we do,

We've got the ships,
we've got the men,
we've got the money, too."

Posted by Don Williams | October 2, 2007 11:28 AM

we've got the money, too."

Aye, there's the rub.

Posted by Duncan Kinder | October 2, 2007 11:31 AM

I suppose that technically I should have written "no territorial claims that any sane person would ever believe that the Chinese are going to act on in a military sense", but that's rather more cumbersome than the just-as-accurate "no meaningful territorial claims."

Oh, please.

Another Sino-Indian war is no less likely than China using military force against Taiwan.

Posted by Al | October 2, 2007 11:58 AM

I think the term Hitchens was looking for is "blue water" navy.

Of course the Chinese are dangerous--just look at what they did to Jack Bauer and his girlfriend.

Posted by me2i81 | October 2, 2007 12:01 PM

Unless Matt is referring to 19th century claims made by British surveyors in extending British India into Tibet, I think he has it wrong.

Even if one does say those were illegitimate claims, those claims should go to Tibet, not China.

Funny how the Chinese invasion of Tibet is entirely ignored in Matt's analysis. Hitchens is right when he says Tibet's identity has been obliterated since the Chinese invasion, and it does not speak well for the future of Burma

Posted by harry | October 2, 2007 12:07 PM

This does, I guess, get people to pay some attention to Hitchen's absolutely awful Slate column. Slate should fire Hitch and hire Robert Novak - it would definitely be a step up the ranter scale. Even a cursory comparison of his writing for the Nation in the 80s and his writing now reveals a terrible stylistic decline. Perhaps adopting a set of malicious and self-contradictory political views wasn't such a good idea for Hitchens as a writer. Although of course it was a brilliant move in reference to the paralyzingly brain dead D.C. society of the Bush era.

Posted by roger | October 2, 2007 12:08 PM

Hitchens is a dull blowhard, but he's correct that the US should be watching China carefully, which, no doubt, it is. China is a much more realistic threat to US security than any of the Arab and Muslim "threats" that have had so many neocons quivering in fear these past 10 years.

Am I the only one who's heard speculation that our moves into Central Asia (establishing bases in the former Soviet states and taking over Afghanistan) and even our takeover of Iraq are actually part of a large, long-term strategy of containing or at least checking China in the region? The whole Muslim terrorism thing is just a feint or a bluff and that the real strategic objective of the past decade has really been China. I'm not saying it's true, but, well, it would almost be comforting to think that the Bush admin's military thinkers were capable of such long-term strategic thinking.

Posted by Rob Mac | October 2, 2007 12:31 PM

wrote:

"I suppose that technically I should have written "no territorial claims that any sane person would ever believe that the Chinese are going to act on in a military sense", but that's rather more cumbersome than the just-as-accurate "no meaningful territorial claims."

And Al wrote:

"Oh, please.

Another Sino-Indian war is no less likely than China using military force against Taiwan."

Exept that India is a great power which isn't that much weaker than China, and that the Sino-Indian border in the disputed area has been, as far as I can see, calm since 45 years. There has been a short incursion of Chinese troups in 1962, but that was before India had nuclear weapons. Taiwan, on the other hand, is much much weaker than India, does, as far as we know, not have the bomb, and has been subjected to Chinese threats of an armed invasion for decades.

Posted by Patrick | October 2, 2007 12:44 PM

Very intersting that neither MY nor Mr. Farley have anything to say about these points:

"Those who care or purport to care about human rights must start to discuss this problem in plain words. Is there an initiative to save the un-massacred remains of the people of Darfur? It will be met by a Chinese veto. Does anyone care about Robert Mugabe treating his desperate population as if it belonged to him personally? China is always ready to help him out. Are the North Koreans starved and isolated so that a demented playboy can posture with nuclear weapons? Beijing will give the demented playboy a guarantee. How long can Southeast Asia bear the shame and misery of the Burmese junta? As long as the embrace of China persists. The identity of Tibet is being obliterated by the deliberate importation of Chinese settlers. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a man who claims even to know and determine the sex lives of his serfs (by the way, the very essence of totalitarianism), is armed and financed by China. It was this way when President Bill Clinton wanted the United Nations to take on Slobodan Milosevic and was stymied (by China, among others), and it was this way when President Bush asked the United Nations to live up to its resolutions on Saddam Hussein."

Can't people raise those points while not simultaneously desiring the nuking of China?

Elites of both countries know that our economies are bound together. Either economy tanks, both will.

Do MY and Mr. Farley really think there's a posibility President Hillary will nuke China?

I guess if your country opposes the US diplomatically in most instances, it can treat its people - and people of other nations - any way it wants ... very liberal ...

Posted by Peter K. | October 2, 2007 1:34 PM

Let me just throw this out there: There is no prospect of open war with China. That would turn into a conflict far more catastrophic than any in the history of mankind. China's huge military, its substantial nuclear arsenal, and its kung-fu grip on the US economy are a sufficient deterrent to even the most addle-brained president.

Therefore, it doesn't seem necessary for voices on the left to rally behind China when someone as deeply influential as Christopher Hitchens has the temerity to criticize them. You are not preventing a war. You are, instead, pouncing on a feeble effort to reckon with the terrible human tragedies that occur as a result of China's sponsorship.

China has a seriously disastrous record on human rights, internally and externally. Hundreds of thousands of innocent people from North Korea to Burma to Darfur are dead at the hands of people who China supports and arms. If something, short of war, can be done to make China stop, it will be a victory for liberalism world-wide.

Shorter southpaw: if you want to do something about Darfur, do something about China.

Posted by southpaw | October 2, 2007 2:21 PM

Why hasn't anyone proposed a unilateral invasion of Burma to stop the human rights abuses? Seems like it would be a pushover. And they have petroleum products so its all good.

Posted by All Good | October 2, 2007 2:37 PM

Every China scholar that I've read/heard on the subject has said that China doesn't actively support the bad policies of the countries that they do business with - they just don't let them stop them from doing business with them.

In suggesting that China should have its investments guided by political agendas, are you proposing that China should use its foreign policy and investments to promote an ideological agenda?

Do you think that that agenda would be good, or bad?

And do the people who oppose Chinese investment in Iran similarly oppose US investment in Saudi Arabia (a pretty unfree society)? Should everyone stop buying oil from any country with poor human rights? If so, how much do you think a gallon of gas would cost?

Can you promote the invasion of Iraq and disparage Chinese war mongering at the same time? And when is the last time the Chinese launched an offensive war?

Posted by justaguy | October 2, 2007 2:45 PM

3 observations about China:

1. It really is, in certain senses, the worst government on the planet. They oppress 1.2 billion people, censor the Internet, commit cultural genocide against Tibet, execute political prisoners and sell their organs, suppress all dissent, refuse to sit for elections, interfere with the practice of religion, suppress unionization and utilize slave labor, tolerate massive corruption from the Beijing government on down to local officials, and demand that everyone who wants reocgnition and trade from China must mouth support for their unjustified claim of the right to eliminate the Taiwanese democracy and bring 20 million people under dictatorial rule.

2. Chinese territorial claims are real threats. The truth is that Taiwan is a separate country, a democracy with 20 million people, and China has no right to unify unless it democratizes. Yet nobody will say it, and China continues to threaten Taiwan constantly. Indeed, if it weren't for US support of Taiwan, they probably already would have invaded.

China also invaded and conquered Tibet and is ethnically cleansing it as we speak, as well as intervening to get control of Buddhism.

And China has a dispute with India as well.

Basically, the Chinese position seems to be that it has the right to control any land that China ever historically controlled. That is simply not the rules we live by and cannot be.

3. Due to the facts that China has nuclear weapons, that corporate America is so heavily invested in China, and that China is now our lender, financing our huge budget deficits, we can't do diddly about 1 or 2.

Posted by Dilan Esper | October 2, 2007 2:51 PM

justaguy - Can you promote the invasion of Iraq and disparage Chinese war mongering at the same time? And when is the last time the Chinese launched an offensive war?

1975 against Vietnam.

Before that?

1969 - China gets on offense over Sino-Soviet border, begins incursions on Russian territory. Backs off over threats by Soviets to use Red Army.

1965 using overseas Chinese in Indonesia to try and launch a commie coup. (The Indonesians massacred them in response)

1962 - Chinese attack on N India territory.

1954 - Chinese invasion and Borg-like assimilation of Tibet starts. 2002 - assimilation largely completed as Han Chinese immigrants become the majority, Tibetan beliefs and culture are made "harmonious" with Han's.. 1960-2007 - Chinese continue efforts to move Nepal and Bhutan away from Indian orbit with Maoist insurgents, terrorists.

1951 - Already supporting the offensive war by the NORKs against the South, Chinese masses invade Korea and engage US troops.

Next up?

Taiwan, after the Olympics.

Posted by Chris Ford | October 2, 2007 3:04 PM

Chris ford is a lying moron, but no surprise there. Hi there, Moron Chris.

Posted by Jennifer | October 2, 2007 3:22 PM

1 observation about China.

It is a foreign sovereign nation, and therefore none of my business. They make crap we buy crap, that should be the extent of it.

Get rid of the UN, and people like Hitchens and the NeoCons can stop using it as an excuse for the US attack nations who have never attacked us.

Switzerland has the right idea...

Posted by Hankest | October 2, 2007 3:33 PM

1975 against Vietnam.

So, where is this Chinese militarist streak, exactly?

They haven't invaded another country in over 30 years. What was the US's track record during that time?

Posted by justaguy | October 2, 2007 3:33 PM

Hey Justaguy, what you think China has changed since its 1975, Maoist, late Cult. Revolution days?

oh, i suppose they have...

Posted by Hankest | October 2, 2007 3:35 PM

"The spin on the aircraft shenanigans aside, I don't think the truth of Hitchens' factual claims are really in dispute. And I don't see Hitchens calling for a military response anywhere in the piece (he does call for an olympic boycott . . . i'm shivering). So what is Matt's point here?

Is telling the truth about Chinese government's behavior de facto warmongering? To maintain peace, must we pretend that these things about China just aren't so?

Posted by southpaw | October 2, 2007 10:45 AM"

It depends on who is saying it based on their track records and ideology. If this was a Kristof column or from Amnesty International's website, it probably wouldn't be warmongering, but would still be a drop in quality for blaming Buddhism for the Khmer Rouge. Coming from Hitchens though...

Posted by Reality Man | October 2, 2007 4:08 PM

"1975 against Vietnam.

So, where is this Chinese militarist streak, exactly?

They haven't invaded another country in over 30 years. What was the US's track record during that time?"

Wrong, China invaded northern Vietnam for 17 days in 1979. It was to "show the Vietnamese a lesson" for invading and overthrowing Pol Pot.

Posted by Mike | October 2, 2007 4:23 PM

Several points re China:
1) The US government crossed the Pacific and tried to take over parts of China in the 1800s --
China did not cross the Pacific and tried to grab parts of the USA. Anybody remember gunboat diplomacy? -- the Chinese do.
2) Similarly, the US government supported the tyrant Chiang Kai Shek in the 1940s. Ask some of the elderly Taiwanese about the benign nature of the Nationalist government.
3) It has been US policy since the 1950s to contain China via (a) a chain of offshore fortresses -- Japan, Okinawa, Taiwan, Phillipines and (b) support for Vietnam -- the cork in the bottle that blocks Chinese expansion.
4) China needs oil and that need will greatly increase as she modernizes -- as 1 Billion plus Chinese trade in their bicycles for Buicks -- or may Toyotas.
5) We are approaching Peak Oil and the battle among the major powers for oil will only increase. The Caspian Sea Oil deposits appear huge -- in spite of high sulfur and China wants them. Russia and IRan claim them.
6) The cheapest way for CHina to import Caspian Oil is via pipeline down through Iran to terminals on the Indian Ocean then tankers around India past Burma through the Malaysian Straits. Which means China needs naval bases in ,e.g., Burma, to protect that sealane. (A pipeline across Kazakhstan has also been discussed.)
7) The US government does not hesitate to use military force to protect similar interests. Witness the invasion of Grenada in the Reagan administration ( US news media didn't explain that Grenada lies at the southern entrance to the long (400 miles?) ,narrow channel that oil tankers must follow through the Caribbean reefs into the oil refining ports at Houston and on the Louisiana coast.

8) The USA is trying to shoehorn its way into the Caspian Area via alliances with some pretty unsavory regimes in Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan.
Chevron has invested over $1 Billion in the area. Chevron -- as some of you may remember -- named one of their oil tankers after our Secretary of State to show their appreciation for her services on their Board.

9) On occasion, the US has not hesitated to use the iron fist. Bush has deployed a number of military units from Germany to Central Asia. See
http://www.guardian.co.uk/oil/story/0,11319,1066600,00.html

10) As it's done in Georgia and the Ukraine, The US government poured money into Kyrgyzstan to overthrow the government in the Tulip Revolution -- thereby protecting its strategic military base at Manas Air Base. See
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/30/international/asia/30kyrgyzstan.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_Revolution
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganci_Air_Base

11) I'm not defending the Chinese regime -- but some of their actions are in response to what they see as predatory behavior by the US government.

Posted by Don Williams | October 2, 2007 4:41 PM

Wrong, China invaded northern Vietnam for 17 days in 1979. It was to "show the Vietnamese a lesson" for invading and overthrowing Pol Pot.

Well, that certainly changes the equation. That 28 year old military fiasco sure makes them seem way more expansionist. Unlike the U.S. which never unilaterally invades neighbors based on flimsy reasoning.

Posted by Col Bat Guano | October 2, 2007 5:12 PM

"if you want to do something about Darfur, do something about China.

And the 100 Million Dollar question would be: what, exactly, are we supposed to do about China?

Isolation? Economic sanctions? Air strikes? What?

The truth is: China is already so powerful and (more important) so deeply wed into the global economy and the global financial system that almost everything we could do besides trying to convince them to change their policies by persuasion would hurt the West so much that nobody in his right mind would do it.

What remains are tough words of figures like Mr. Hitchens and hand-wringing.

And with respect to Taiwan: No, a war across the Straight is not completly out of question, but seems really, really unlikely. The days of Mao are long gone. So pointing to border conflicts in the 1960' and 1970's doesn't carry much water.

Beijing today knows that it has very much to loose in the case of a war with Taiwan. And I'm not only speaking about a military conflict with the U.S., but also about the global economic desaster this would entail. And economic growth is what Beijing cares about these days, not the least because growth is the only thing that, in the long run, can prevent the social conflicts inside the country from becoming a threat for the Party.

Beijing wouldn't start a war if it didn't think it had (from it's own point of view) no choice. The surest way to trigger an invasion would be an unilateral declaration of independence by Taipeh. Short of that, the Chinese are pretty comfortable with the status quo.

Posted by Patrick | October 2, 2007 5:19 PM

The Chinese deal with some dirty actors. So does the US. It has always been thus.

I think the biggest beef to have with the Chinese is their treatment of Tibet and other non-Han Chinese elements within their empire. This is bad stuff, but unfortunately it is difficult for any large country to preach on this subject. There's hardly a nation on earth whose hands are clean on this subject, but that is, of course, no excuse, and pressure should be brought to bear on China about Tibet. Don't hold your breath, though.

I do have to illuminate something Don Williams says above.

2) Similarly, the US government supported the tyrant Chiang Kai Shek in the 1940s. Ask some of the elderly Taiwanese about the benign nature of the Nationalist government.

Chang Kai Shek was indeed a tyrant. I had the strange experience of visiting the grand monument in his honor in Taipei. I have no doubt that many elderly Taiwanese would speak ill of him. But then, probably very many of the Han Chinese who came over with the Nationalists would speak of him with great reverence. And I think it bears mentioning that the oppressive Nationalist government he established in Taiwan evolved of its own accord into the freest democracy in Asia. There was no invasion or revolution that made this happen. This doesn't excuse the tyranny, but it perhaps gives it some perspective.

The prospect of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan is beyond dim. The Taiwanese should remain vigilant, but an actual invasion is unlikely. There is the matter of the Taiwan Strait--the 131 km wide body of water that separates Taiwan from China. Launching an invasion across this strait would be a very difficult and expensive military operation. The world would immediately respond. The US would almost certainly immediately recognize Taiwan and intervene and the Chinese know this. This is simply not going to happen.

Posted by Rob Mac | October 2, 2007 5:26 PM

The prospect of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan is beyond dim. The Taiwanese should remain vigilant, but an actual invasion is unlikely. There is the matter of the Taiwan Strait--the 131 km wide body of water that separates Taiwan from China. Launching an invasion across this strait would be a very difficult and expensive military operation. The world would immediately respond. The US would almost certainly immediately recognize Taiwan and intervene and the Chinese know this. This is simply not going to happen.

I am not as confident about this, for one simple reason. The Chinese government has invested a lot of public credibility in the idea that it will reclaim the lost lands of China. They invaded Tibet, they reincorporated Hong Kong and Macau. And their rhetoric is that Taiwan is a permanent part of China, and they not only hew to this, but they spend a lot of their diplomatic capital punishing or threatening to punish anyone who doesn't espouse this.

If their intention is to just allow Taiwan its separate existence, why do they do all this? There are countries that have silly territorial claims all over the world, but they do nothing to pursue them. China, in contrast, obviously thinks the recovery of Taiwan is a very big deal, one that requires that they spend lots of diplomatic capital that they could spend on other important interests of the government. (I have a theory about this-- I think that China is extremely embarrassed by the fact that Taiwan has become such a great, free country, directly refuting all the phony arguments the dictators make about "Asian values" being incompatible with Western freedoms. They would therefore like nothing more than to get rid of the government in Taipei.)

Remember, these types of things have a history of blowing up. Think about Arab claims about Israel, which exploded in the late 1960's and again in the early 1970's, or Argentina's claims on the Falklands.

I think you can tell when a government is really not serious about territorial claims. And China looks very serious about Taiwan.

Posted by Dilan Esper | October 2, 2007 5:50 PM

Re Taiwan, the US has always used Great Britain as a springboard -- a huge floating aircraft carrier -- from which to launch invasions of Western Europe. That lesson was not lost on the Chinese government.

On the one hand, It's possible that China intends to grab Taiwan just out of spite.

On the other hand, It's possible that China will let Taiwan go its own way so long as Taiwan does not cosy up to the USA military -- e.g., does not allow the US to install nuclear ICBMS on Taiwan that could hit Beijing or Chinese ICBM sites with only a few minutes warning --in a first strike.

Maybe someone could point out to us exactly how China's treatment of Taiwan differs from the US government's treatment of Cuba??

Posted by Don Williams | October 2, 2007 6:19 PM

About Taiwanese democracy - did it evolve into a democratic state "of its own accord" or was that a reaction to the international isolation that it faced after China opened diplomatic relations with the wider world and most governments shifted their recognition from Taibei to Beijing as the capital of China?

Just a thought.

Right now Taiwan is one of the largest sources of foreign direct investment in China. The Chinese government pegs its legitimacy on the fact that it can continue to provide an increasing standard of living through economic growth. An invasion of Taiwan would undermine this - through bombing the shit out of one of its main trading partners, and alienating China from other countries that do business with them. IIRC 60% of China's economy is geared towards export. An embargo on exports and investment would not be a good thing for the PRC leadership.

The only situation that would - in my opinion- see an invasion of Taiwan would be a) a significant global economic slow down that dramatically lowered the growth of the Chinese economy. On the one hand the Chinese leadership would have less to loose, on the other they would have to compensate for the loss in economic growth by creating another source of legitimacy. I hear militarism and nationalism work well for that.
and
b) a long term US military involvement that would bog the US army down and make them unable to respond in a meaningful way.

Could an invasion of Iran do that - Iran shutting down the flow of oil through the straits of Hormuz for a long period of time, jacking up the price of oil and screwing up China's economy? The US responds with naval battles and bombardment, sending all its fleets to the Gulf.

Not saying that would definitely, or even probably happen. But just that absent something on that extreme scale I don't see China invading Taiwan any time soon.

Good thing nobody would ever be dumb enough to invade Iran....

Posted by justaguy | October 2, 2007 6:44 PM

I don't think we can say that China re-incorporated Macau and Hong Kong as if to imply that China somehow had expansionist designs on them; weren't Macau and Hong Kong all along parts of China that Western powers took over long over and hence due to "belong" to China all along?

We really owe most of the blame for building up Taiwan. They are a client state of the US military industrial complex. Would there be tension in the straits without our meddling?

I don't know.

I do know that it's none of my business.

The American military cannot even establish democracy by force in Iraq which was run by a former US-backed goon (Saddam). How in any scenario could we fight China and win over Taiwan?

And then that raises the question: Why would we want to do that?

If we really cared about democracy we would be in Burma right now with troops.

But we don't.

We care about oil.

And in Taiwan we care about someone who will buy all our military equipment AND we care about creating a reason to remain in that part of the world.

For god's sake, we have had bases in Okinawa for more than 60 years. The war ended in 1945. The Vietnam War is over. The Cold War is over. Japan is an ally.

So why do we need such a large presence in that part of the world?

The excuse we use now is Taiwan/China and perhaps terrorism in Southeast Asia.

Posted by glenn | October 2, 2007 8:04 PM

Our oil grab in the ME today is most certainly related to our fears that in 20 years it will be China doing the oil grab, and we would be in no position to do anything about it. As Bush said when he took over, they are our strategic competitor.

If the US wants to maintain it's superpower status, it has to crush China, otherwise it is inevitable that China will become the superpower of the 21st century in 30 years or less. The neocons know this.

The problem we have with China, is that unlike the last competitor we had for world domination, the Soviets, we helped create China's prosperity by investing in their economy and having normal trade relations with them. Even after 1989 Tiananmen Massacre and the fall of the Berlin Wall, when a strategic alliance was no longer as important as during the cold war, we continued this madness. They were still relatively weak economically in 1989 and could have been constrained. Not today.

Today, we have transferred our manufacturing base to them. We could not build a single computer without parts from China. They are also our banker, with more power than the Fed over interest rates and the dollars value. They are now a runaway train.

Their military has grown tremendously as well, they have capacity to take out carriers near their coast, strong air defense capability, and they have demonstrated the ability to shoot down our satellites. As late as 1997 one of their Generals was quoted as saying any move by the US to defend Taiwan would mean we would lose Los Angeles since their nuclear missiles could reach the west coast. Their military has been given the goal to build up in order to be able to defeat the US in a time of war if and when it should be necessary.

That said, China at this time does not seek to take any territory by force, they use dollar diplomacy to get what they need. They control the dollar after all.

The US is a poor nation now, so we must resort to gunboat diplomacy, which is what we are doing.

If the US attacks Iran, it is most likely after making a Stalin Pact with Russia and China. WE give them something in return for them to not react. With China, it may be we promise not to intervene over Taiwan.

Taiwan is a democratic nation of over 20 million people. After 40 years of martial law, the pressure to hold free elections grew as a result of internal pressures and the passing of the Chiang Ching Kuo. Unlike our own democracy, theirs is a functioning democracy since the politicians and corporations have not figured out a way to control the system. So when the majority of their constituents want something, the politicians fall over themselves trying to do it.

In China, almost 3 million Taiwanese live and work there. The Taiwanese are one of the leading investors in China and own many of the factories that export to the US, and this is permitted by the Taiwan government. China can not do the same, as their travel to Taiwan is restricted. So comparisons with US and Cuba are neglible.

The contrast between our treatment of Cuba and China are telling. We trade freely with China but not at all with Cuba. It is unlawful for an American to do business in Cuba.

China's claim over Taiwan is nebulous at best. It was handed over to the Japanese in the late 19th century after losing a war and governed by Japan until the end of WW II. After the Japanese left, Chiangs government sent some troops over and tried to run it, and they did so poorly, massacring ten thousand people during one protest. Most of the Taiwanese who had come over from China over the previous centuries preferred the Japanese. It was only after Chiang lost the civil war that he moved everything over to Taiwan and set up shop. The Chinese today see Taiwan as mainly those people who fled China in the civil war and feel they have unfinished business, whereas, only 20% of the population is made up of what are called "mainlanders". The 80% "Taiwanese" are ethnically Chinese, but do not consider Taiwan part of China, and the history of China on Taiwan is very nebulous. Most of Taiwans history was under foreign occupation of one form or another. They were pretty much ignored by China except for brief periods. Taiwan today is seen as a strategic and economic asset and so China wants it, and Hong Kong showed them it is possible.

Posted by PTodd | October 2, 2007 8:27 PM

The real question is, will Hitchens exchange his Kurdistan flag lapel pin for a Taiwanese one?

Posted by dday | October 2, 2007 8:38 PM

I don't think we can say that China re-incorporated Macau and Hong Kong as if to imply that China somehow had expansionist designs on them; weren't Macau and Hong Kong all along parts of China that Western powers took over long over and hence due to "belong" to China all along?

No, sorry. Territories, and the people who live on them, don't "belong" to governments, except to the extent that the governments actually control them.

That's the whole problem with the Chinese position on Taiwan as well. Just because one government or people exercises sovereignty on one place at one point in time doesn't mean that no matter what happens later, they will always have a valid calim to retake sovereignty. The Chinese aren't any more entitled to their former territories than Britain is to India or the United States.

We really owe most of the blame for building up Taiwan. They are a client state of the US military industrial complex. Would there be tension in the straits without our meddling?

Put another way, we deserve the credit for helping create a vibrant and free society for 20 million Taiwanese, and saving them from the oppression of one of the world's truly evil regime.

Posted by Dilan Esper | October 2, 2007 8:44 PM

"Well, that certainly changes the equation. That 28 year old military fiasco sure makes them seem way more expansionist. Unlike the U.S. which never unilaterally invades neighbors based on flimsy reasoning."

Settle down. All I was doing was correcting an earlier historical error.

Posted by Mike | October 2, 2007 9:55 PM

No, sorry. Territories, and the people who live on them, don't "belong" to governments, except to the extent that the governments actually control them.

That's the whole problem with the Chinese position on Taiwan as well. Just because one government or people exercises sovereignty on one place at one point in time doesn't mean that no matter what happens later, they will always have a valid calim to retake sovereignty. The Chinese aren't any more entitled to their former territories than Britain is to India or the United States.

So colonialism is no big deal, huh?
If a government only has de jure control over a territory to the extent that it has de facto control of it - why shouldn't the Chinese take over Taiwan?

Just because the Guomindang seized Taiwan a few decades ago doesn't mean that they're entitled to it. Or does it, your logic escapes me....

And if you think that China's claim to Hong Kong is the same as Brittan's claim to the US or India you don't really know that much about history.

Posted by justaguy | October 2, 2007 10:07 PM

Who cares if China seizes Taiwan?

Seriously.

Do you think they're suddenly going to cut off all our DVD drives and microchips?

Hong Kong may have some issues with the way China is running it, but the boys in China aren't stupid. They know that Taiwan is an Asian business powerhouse - and they aren't going to do anything to damage that significantly.

So is it worth going to nuclear war over Taiwan?

Hardly.

All this bullshit about China is just the same old, same old state story: We gotta have a credible enemy so we can keep scaring the population and make them hand over their tax dollars to our corporate masters who then pay campaign contributions and bribes to us so we can continue to play lord and master over the population.

It's that simple.

China is no threat to the US - not militarily, not even economically - and if in fact they are economically at some point in the future, well, welcome to the market. Get the US's educational system's head out of its ass, and maybe we can continue to compete.

There is no justification whatsoever for acting like the US is the only state on the planet that is allowed to have any power whatever.

And yet this is EXACTLY what the PNAC documents declared - that the US should be the SOLE global superpower and that NO other country should be "allowed" to achieve even REGIONAL influence, let alone global influence.

In other words - American Empire.

And for this, you clowns want to start a nuclear war and umpteen conventional wars.

This is why the US DESERVES to be destroyed.

And I say that even knowing that the rest of the world's states, including China, believe that same crap. ALL states deserve to be destroyed because all states are, by definition, imperialist. It's just that some have more imperialist capabilities than others.

But you get major wars when one or more of them decide to contest each other's imperialist capabilities.

So, make up your mind - you want war or not?

Because right now, you're all talking like you do.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | October 3, 2007 1:53 AM

I don't want war. And I don't want monks in Rangoon to have to die because they went out on the street and asked for the right to vote. Are those two desires really mutually exclusive?

Posted by southpaw | October 3, 2007 4:40 AM

So colonialism is no big deal, huh?
If a government only has de jure control over a territory to the extent that it has de facto control of it - why shouldn't the Chinese take over Taiwan?

Just because the Guomindang seized Taiwan a few decades ago doesn't mean that they're entitled to it. Or does it, your logic escapes me....

Nobody's entitled to Taiwan, except the people who live there, justaguy. They have chosen a democratic government and have chosen not to reunify with China.

That fact alone is more important than any claims of sovereignty by China.

The problem with China is that it believes governments have rights-- including to rule over any group of people it once ruled over-- and people have none.

(Oh, and I quite know about Hong Kong's history. I was there just before the handover. I don't contend that the handover was illegitimate, only that the way China approached the issue is informative along with other facts about how it views its former territories and possessions.)

Posted by Dilan Esper | October 3, 2007 4:27 PM