Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

China's reaction to US-Taiwan Arms Sales

Rate this topic


2046

Recommended Posts

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8488765.stm

China has announced a series of moves against the US in retaliation for a proposed weapons sale to Taiwan worth $6.4bn (£4bn).

Beijing said it would suspend military exchanges with the US, review co-operation on major issues and impose sanctions on companies selling arms.

Ties are already strained by rows over trade and internet censorship.

Taiwan's president welcomed the sale, saying it would make his country "more confident and secure".

The US State Department also defended the move on Saturday, saying the arms sales contributed to security and stability between Taiwan and China, Reuters reported.

Beijing has hundreds of missiles pointed at the island and has threatened to use force to bring it under its control if Taiwan moved towards formal independence.

Taiwan and China have been ruled by separate governments since the end of a civil war in 1949.

China's Xinhua state news agency quoted the defence ministry as saying: "Considering the severe harm and odious effect of US arms sales to Taiwan, the Chinese side has decided to suspend planned mutual military visits."

"We strongly demand that the US respect the Chinese side's interests", it added, calling for the sale to be stopped.

The foreign ministry, meanwhile, said it would impose sanctions on US companies selling weapons to Taiwan, and that co-operation on major international issues would be affected.

But the US, like the EU, has banned its companies selling arms to China since the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre, so it was not clear what effect the Chinese move would have.

Xinhua also said the US defence attache had been summoned.

Defence ties between the two countries have been difficult for several years because of differences over Taiwan, but the two countries' leaders pledged to improve them in 2009.

'More confident'

The moves came after Mr He said the arms deal would have "repercussions that neither side wishes to see".

"The United States' announcement of the planned weapons sales to Taiwan will have a seriously negative impact on many important areas of exchanges and co-operation between the two countries," Mr He said in a statement published on the foreign ministry website.

Earlier China summoned US Ambassador Jon Huntsman to give a warning about the consequences of the deal and to urge its immediate cancellation.

Taiwan, meanwhile, welcomed the US move.

"It will let Taiwan feel more confident and secure so we can have more interactions with China," the Central News Agency quoted President Ma Ying-jeou as saying.

The Pentagon earlier notified the US Congress of the proposed arms sale, which forms part of a package first pledged by the Bush administration.

PROPOSED ARMS SALE

114 Patriot missiles ($2.81bn)

60 Black Hawk helicopters ($3.1bn)

Communication equipment ($340m)

2 Osprey mine-hunting ships ($105m)

12 Harpoon missiles ($37m)

Source: Defense Security Co-operation Agency

Friday's notification to Congress by the Defense Security Co-operation Agency (DSCA) was required by law. It does not mean the sale has been concluded.

US lawmakers have 30 days to comment on the proposed sale, Associated Press reported. If there are no objections, it would proceed.

The arms package includes 114 Patriot missiles, 60 Black Hawk helicopters and communications equipment for Taiwan's F-16 fleet, the agency said in a statement.

It does not include F-16 fighter jets, which Taiwan's military has been seeking.

Our correspondent says the deal has been in the pipeline for a long time and is nearing its conclusion, but China does want to stop it.

Beijing has previously warned the US not to go ahead with arms sales to Taiwan.

TAIWAN-CHINA RELATIONS

Ruled by separate governments since end of Chinese civil war in 1949

China considers the island part of its territory

China has offered a "one country, two systems" solution, like Hong Kong

Most people in Taiwan support status quo

Last week US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton angered Beijing with a call to China to investigate cyber attacks on search giant Google, after the company said email accounts of human rights activists had been hacked.

The DSCA said the proposed sale would support Taiwan's "continuing efforts to modernise its armed forces and enhance its defensive capability."

It added: "The proposed sale will help improve the security of the recipient and assist in maintaining political stability, military balance, and economic progress in the region."

The US is the leading arms supplier to Taiwan, despite switching diplomatic recognition from Taipei to Beijing in 1979.

Washington regards it as an obligation to provide Taiwan with defensive arms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan_Relations_Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Assurances

ANALYSIS

Damian Grammaticas, BBC News, Beijing

You would expect China to react angrily to any proposed arms sale to Taiwan, but this time it seems to be going further than before.

Suspending military exchanges is a classic reply from Beijing and it may not even concern the US too much.

China's threat to impose sanctions on US firms supplying arms to Taiwan is interesting if perplexing.

It's unclear what "sanctions" would involve in practice, since US firms aren't allowed to sell arms to China

China's threat to withdraw co-operation on key international and regional issues is the most serious one. Here China can make life difficult for Washington.

It can complicate US attempts to deal with nuclear programmes in Iran and North Korea, it can refuse to help in currency and trade issues.

But what is China trying to achieve by sounding so furious? Maybe Beijing's real aim is to try to deter America from future arms sales - for example the fighter jets and submarines which Taiwan really wants.

Okay Objectivists, what is the proper course of action?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay Objectivists, what is the proper course of action?

For one, not allowing China to have any influence over US defense policy. It's not that hard to do, it simply requires a couple of things:

1. Ignoring everything they have to say, unless it concerns Chinese US relations directly. If they threaten to tie Chinese-US issues (such as free trade, military relationships, anti terror efforts) to US relations with other countries, refuse to accommodate their concerns unless they are valid (a country is threatening China or Chinese property or something like that).

2. Not allowing any authority to the UN Security Council over American defense policy (since China has too much influence over the decisions of that council). This is also simple, since they wouldn't have any such authority, if the US chose to not participate in or pay attention to their resolutions. (or, I guess, simply send a fella' to cast a veto on every single one of them, until arrangements can be made to dissolve the council)

One thing is right already, so Obama hopefully won't change it, and that is the official US stance on Taiwan: it is not part of China, nor is it a threat to China, and it is an important US ally in the region.

Edited by Jake_Ellison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Will the Dragon Wake

From the article:

"To put the issue in proper perspective: Imagine if Texas governor Rick Perry carried out his half-serious suggestion that Texas secede from the Union, and China opted to sell the Republic of Texas $6 billion worth of Patriot missiles, Blackhawk helicopters, and sophisticated detection systems – for "defensive" purposes only, of course. Washington would rightly consider this very close to an act of war."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The article doesn't come up,

...but to put it in even more "proper perspective" imagine that a group of communist thugs overthrowing the elected government by force, caused the elected government, along with over 2 million intellectuals and the entire gold reserve to flee to Texas to avoid the inevitable oppression and eventual murder of 50 million people who remained in the main part of the country. Now imagine that those 2 million people establish a hyper productive, largely rights respecting capitalist nation, which outperforms the communist shit hole that the rest of the US became on every per capita standard despite being constantly threatened by the giant murderous horde. That another rights respecting country should back the republic of Texas and enable it to defend itself against that horde is wholly unsurprising.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"To put the issue in proper perspective: Imagine if Texas governor Rick Perry carried out his half-serious suggestion that Texas secede from the Union, and China opted to sell the Republic of Texas $6 billion worth of Patriot missiles, Blackhawk helicopters, and sophisticated detection systems – for "defensive" purposes only, of course. Washington would rightly consider this very close to an act of war."

What if a civil war erupted in the US, the US government lost 49 of the states in favor of the Communist Party of America, and was confined to only Texas? Would China, which in this story is the freest nation in the World, still be wrong to support Texas (governed by its WW2 ally, the democratically elected United States government) over a Washington ruled by hardcore Communists seeking to enslave the last remnant of a free United States, Texas?

Because that's exactly what fucking happened, except with the Republic of China and the island of Formosa + the surrounding islands (today known by their collective name of Taiwan), instead the United States of America and the state of Texas.

Edited by Jake_Ellison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, I have a question, of what moral and what practical importance is it for the United States to provide Taiwan with defensive arms? Is Taiwan not capable of purchasing these kinds of arms privately, so that the US government itself wouldn't have to be involved? Or is the nature of these types of weapons such that the government must either regulate or directly oversee the production and transaction of these types of heavy munitions, even under laissez-faire?

Secondly, a lot of time has passed between World War 2, Chiang Kai-shek and his administration is long gone, the Republic of China is a fairly statist nation itself, and the fact of China and the US having already open trade relationship, what interest is it for the US to support Taiwan with arms anymore? What harm would it do to the US if China invaded Taiwan? Why should the US get involved anymore? Why should the US intervene militarily if there were a conflict between the two Chinas? Why should Americans die for Taipei? Isn't that altruism?

Third, Why should the US recognize a "one China" policy, when there are obviously two Chinas? In accordance with the "Six Assurances":

The United States acknowledges that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China. The United States Government does not challenge that position

How is this not a primacy of consciousness viewpoint? Why shouldn't the US just say that it recognizes the reality, there is a ROC and a PROC, and it recognizes both as independent governments and separate countries, and condemn the communist system, but demand a peaceful co-existence with open immigration and free trade, while encouraging the PROC (and ROC) to internally become more free?

Edited by 2046
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Secondly, a lot of time has passed between World War 2, Chiang Kai-shek and his administration is long gone, the Republic of China is a fairly statist nation itself

It's a democratic, prosperous and peaceful republic. I don't see the point of the fairly adjective, it's the most subjective word you could've picked, and I'd have to try and guess what you consider fair. We should support Taiwan because it's not a relatively statist nation, compared to others in the region.

, and the fact of China and the US having already open trade relationship, what interest is it for the US to support Taiwan with arms anymore? What harm would it do to the US if China invaded Taiwan? Why should the US get involved anymore? Why should the US intervene militarily if there were a conflict between the two Chinas? Why should Americans die for Taipei? Isn't that altruism?

No. It's a principled foreign policy. Just as not stealing a bag of money someone left on their porch (or reporting the thief who took it) is a principled act of selfishness.

There are of course problems with the methods being used, both on the diplomatic front and militarily. I'll cover the first next, as for the second, we've been selling small chunks of weaponry to Taiwan for 50 years now, but they are still dependent on US intervention if attacked. Which is fine, we should stay allied to them, but they should be allowed to buy as many US weapons as they can afford, not as many as the Chinese allow without throwing a fit, and then the issue of a Chinese attack would not have come up. In the past, Taiwan could've easily won an arms race with China (up until the late 90s, China was one of the poorest nations in the world, while Taiwan was a capitalist haven), and forced their hand in backing off and allowing them to declare independence.

Third, Why should the US recognize a "one China" policy, when there are obviously two Chinas? In accordance with the "Six Assurances":

The United States acknowledges that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China. The United States Government does not challenge that position

How is this not a primacy of consciousness viewpoint?

Countries are not metaphysically given. Also, this is not a statement of fact, merely a coded language aiming very clearly to be interpreted as "we don't want Taiwan to declare its official independence, we discourage that and don't plan on recognizing it, if they do". The US should absolutely and explicitly support the right to self determination of the people living on those islands. It does so in practice, the only reason that government is still there is because of American support, but this one condition, that they don't declare independence, is a partial capitulation to the Communists' threats.

I don't know how this should be fixed now (I can't imagine it's a good idea for the US to change its mind suddenly and say that it will accept Taiwan's independence). All I know is that the line should've been drawn on the other side of this condition, in which case it's pretty clear that Taiwan would've declared independence by now (I remember a few years ago a hawkish party barely losing the elections because of US pressure against a declaration of independence they ran on), and this issue would've been a lot closer to being closed once and for all. This mess is the result of that unprincipled decision, in the past.

On the others hand, whatever ambitions Taiwan has of retaking China (and I doubt they have any left, as far as the vast majority is concerned), that is not for the US to support. That's why an independent Taiwan would be such a good solution, because it would take away the excuse Communist demagogues have, that Taiwan is a threat to the mainland. In reality, the driving force against a two state solution is Communist China, not the people of Taiwan. The majority of the people of Taiwan could care less about reunification, they just want freedom and peace for Taiwan.

Edited by Jake_Ellison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting article from Time's Online regarding US-China relations. Didn't feel like making a new thread for it, so I'll just post it here:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...icle7017951.ece

China’s hawks demand cold war on the US

MORE than half of Chinese people questioned in a poll believe China and America are heading for a new “cold war”.

The finding came after battles over Taiwan, Tibet, trade, climate change, internet freedom and human rights which have poisoned relations in the three months since President Barack Obama made a fruitless visit to Beijing.

According to diplomatic sources, a rancorous postmortem examination is under way inside the US government, led by officials who think the president was badly advised and was made to appear weak.

In China’s eyes, the American response — which includes a pledge by Obama to get tougher on trade — is a reaction against its rising power.

Now almost 55% of those questioned for Global Times, a state-run newspaper, agree that “a cold war will break out between the US and China”.

An independent survey of Chinese-language media for The Sunday Times has found army and navy officers predicting a military showdown and political leaders calling for China to sell more arms to America’s foes. The trigger for their fury was Obama’s decision to sell $6.4 billion (£4 billion) worth of weapons to Taiwan, the thriving democratic island that has ruled itself since 1949.

“We should retaliate with an eye for an eye and sell arms to Iran, North Korea, Syria, Cuba and Venezuela,” declared Liu Menxiong, a member of the Chinese people’s political consultative conference.

He added: “We have nothing to be afraid of. The North Koreans have stood up to America and has anything happened to them? No. Iran stands up to America and does disaster befall it? No.”

Officially, China has reacted by threatening sanctions against American companies selling arms to Taiwan and cancelling military visits.

But Chinese analysts think the leadership, riding a wave of patriotism as the year of the tiger dawns, may go further.

“This time China must punish the US,” said Major-General Yang Yi, a naval officer. “We must make them hurt.” A major-general in the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), Luo Yuan, told a television audience that more missiles would be deployed against Taiwan. And a PLA strategist, Colonel Meng Xianging, said China would “qualitatively upgrade” its military over the next 10 years to force a showdown “when we’re strong enough for a hand-to-hand fight with the US”.

Chinese indignation was compounded when the White House said Obama would meet the Dalai Lama, the exiled spiritual leader of Tibet, in the next few weeks.

“When someone spits on you, you have to get back,” said Huang Xiangyang, a commentator in the China Daily newspaper, usually seen as a showcase for moderate opinion.

An internal publication at the elite Qinghua University last week predicted the strains would get worse because “core interests” were at risk. It said battles over exports, technology transfer, copyright piracy and the value of China’s currency, the yuan, would be fierce.

As a crescendo of strident nationalistic rhetoric swirls through the Chinese media and blogosphere, American officials seem baffled by what has gone wrong and how fast it has happened.

During Obama’s visit, the US ambassador to China, Jon Huntsman, claimed relations were “really at an all-time high in terms of the bilateral atmosphere ... a cruising altitude that is higher than any other time in recent memory”, according to an official transcript.

The ambassador must have been the only person at his embassy to think so, said a diplomat close to the talks.

“The truth was that the atmosphere was cold and intransigent when the president went to Beijing yet his China team went on pretending that everything was fine,” the diplomat said.

In reality, Chinese officials argued over every item of protocol, rigged a town hall meeting with a pre-selected audience, censored the only interview Obama gave to a Chinese newspaper and forbade the Americans to use their own helicopters to fly him to the Great Wall.

President Hu Jintao refused to give an inch on Obama’s plea to raise the value of the Chinese currency, while his vague promises of co-operation on climate change led the Americans to blunder into a fiasco at the Copenhagen summit three weeks later.

Diplomats say they have been told that there was “frigid” personal chemistry between Obama and the Chinese president, with none of the superficial friendship struck up by previous leaders of the two nations.

Yet after their meeting Obama’s China adviser, Jeff Bader, said: “It’s been highly successful in setting out and accomplishing the objectives we set ourselves.”

Then came Copenhagen, where Obama virtually had to force his way with his bodyguards into a conference room where the urbane Chinese premier, Wen Jiabao, was trying to strike a deal behind his back.

The Americans were also livid at what they saw as deliberate Chinese attempts to humiliate the president by sending lower-level officials to deal with him.

“They thought Obama was weak and they were testing him,” said a European diplomat based in China.

In Beijing, some diplomats even claim to detect a condescending attitude towards Obama, noting that Yang Jiechi, the foreign minister, prides himself on knowing the Bush dynasty and others among America’s traditional white, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant elite.

But there are a few voices urging caution on Chinese public opinion. “China will look unreal if it behaves aggressively and competes for global leadership,” wrote Wang Yusheng, a retired diplomat, in the China Daily.

He warned that China was not as rich or as powerful as America or Japan and therefore such a move could be “hazardous”.

It is not clear whether anyone in Beijing is listening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...