PDA

View Full Version : China Threatens U.S. Alliances



Julie
25 Mar 05,, 02:53
While the Bush administration continues to push and celebrate significant successes for democracy in the Middle East, China is on an opposing mission in Asia, where it continues to block the spread of democracy.

The most recent target of Chinese diplomatic pressure is Australia, America’s most reliable ally in the Pacific — or in the world, for that matter. Less than a week after China announced its new “Anti-Secession” law, by which Beijing claims the right to attack democratic Taiwan if it sees fit, a Chinese official demanded Australia amend its 50-year-old alliance with the United States.

Australians fought beside Americans in every war of the 20th century — from World War I through World War II, Korea, Vietnam and both Gulf wars. The war in Vietnam was just as controversial in Australia as it was in the United States, but the Aussies never abandoned their friends in America.

Australia has not flinched from our alliance in the 21st century. When the Indonesian military began its scorched-earth operations against East Timor in September 1999, Australia deployed a peacekeeping force there even as the much larger Indonesian army continued to conduct its punitive operations. Because of Australia’s immediate and strong response, the United States had to deploy only a handful of technical specialists to help out in East Timor.

Canberra invoked the alliance when the United States was attacked on Sept. 11, and Australia has participated in every campaign of the war on terrorism, including Iraq and Afghanistan. The war has not been without cost to Australia: In October 2002, Al Qaeda-linked terrorists blew up a nightclub in Bali, Indonesia, killing 92 Australians. Other Australians, soldiers and civilians alike, have lost their lives fighting alongside Americans in Iraq, Afghanistan and other battlefields of the war on terrorism.

Australia also shares with the United States a critical security interest in defending democracies in Asia. In August 2001, then-deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage visited Canberra and later commented that he could not imagine Australia not supporting the U.S. in any major conflict in Asia — even in Taiwan.

Ever since, Beijing has sought to drive a wedge between Canberra and Washington. On the very day China passed its so-called “anti-secession” law, the Chinese Foreign Ministry’s top Pacific policy official, Mr. He Yafei, told an interviewer from The Australian, "If there were any move by Australia and the U.S. in terms of that alliance [ANZUS] that is detrimental to peace and stability in Asia, then it [Australia] has to be very careful," adding that this was “especially so” in the case of Taiwan.

Beijing’s message was clear: Australia had better not help the United States to defend Taiwan — or else.

Australia’s foreign ministry immediately released a statement that Australia had no intentions of amending any facet of the treaty with America and that the alliance remains strong. But there is more going on here than indirect threats from old men in China’s foreign ministry. China is one of Australia’s largest trading partners with about $20 billion dollars a year trade both ways, and Beijing has suggested a bilateral free-trade agreement was possible to further sweeten the pot.

That China would challenge an American alliance as strong as our relationship with Australia sends a clear signal that the Chinese are ready to test the extent of their new and growing power in the region and, perhaps, the resolve of the United States and Australia. In the last four years, as China has emerged as the economic superpower of the Asia-Pacific region, it increasingly has sought opportunities to challenge American power in the region and replace the United States as the dominant diplomatic presence.

The Chinese also have begun to effectively translate their trade and investment clout into political influence. China now gives military assistance to the Philippines, another long-time ally of the United States, and props up dangerous, despicable regimes in North Korea, Burma and elsewhere.

It is right that the Bush administration take pride in its accomplishments toward democratization in the Middle East. But it needs to keep an eye on China, too. It has dropped the ball in the Far East in recent weeks. The Chinese have picked up that ball and begun to run with it.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,151094,00.html

Karthik
25 Mar 05,, 03:12
China is also warming up to India. Chinese influence in Asia is not going to be as easy as it appears.

The thought that the US and Australia 'defend' democracies is, in my opinion, nothing more than a mere diplomatic euphemism, a phrase which does not reflect reality. The geopolitical landscape is bound to change because of the rise China and India.

Canberra invited Hu Jingtao to address its parliament.

P.S - Since we speak of US alliances in Asia, I dont think the US has an 'alliance' with India. The current US administration is myopic.

lwarmonger
25 Mar 05,, 04:31
China and India have far too little in common, and too much to fight over, to ever be strong allies. Same with China and Russia and China and Japan as well. Too much history, and too much mistrust. China is quite encircled diplomatically, and it will most likely take a lot of time for them to escape that.

ZFBoxcar
25 Mar 05,, 04:36
If Kyrgistan because a US ally, then China will certainly be encircled, except for the Pakistani border for course.

FlyingCaddy
25 Mar 05,, 07:34
The US has not considered an alliance with India, so far as I know, since Nehru decided to remain neutral in teh cold war, which Pakistan proudly chomped at the bit.

Bill
25 Mar 05,, 07:44
China is playing a very dangerous game with very dangerous opponents(lots of them).

They should be VERY careful they don't bite off more than they can chew.

Julie
25 Mar 05,, 19:06
China is playing a very dangerous game with very dangerous opponents(lots of them).

They should be VERY careful they don't bite off more than they can chew.They are very hungry and I think are at least debating it. Bad, bad move if it happens.

keshto patel
25 Mar 05,, 21:38
They are very hungry and I think are at least debating it. Bad, bad move if it happens.

Bad move if they take Taiwan?

Good move when US of A attacks Iraq/Panama/Hiati/grenada/nicaragua without a rhyme or a reason?

Spaghetio logic.

lwarmonger
25 Mar 05,, 21:49
Bad move if they take Taiwan?

Good move when US of A attacks Iraq/Panama/Hiati/grenada/nicaragua without a rhyme or a reason?

Spaghetio logic.

Not at all. We were able to win in every one of those situations, and there was no danger of any of those conflicts escalating into a great power conflict, much less a great power conflict that the US would lose. China could not beat Taiwan much less take it, and they would run a great risk of drawing in a number of other powers capable of crushing them (US, Japan, India, Russia).

We have the strength, and are not directly imposing on any great power's interests... China fulfills neither of those criteria. :biggrin:

keshto patel
25 Mar 05,, 22:33
Not at all. We were able to win in every one of those situations, and there was no danger of any of those conflicts escalating into a great power conflict, much less a great power conflict that the US would lose. China could not beat Taiwan much less take it, and they would run a great risk of drawing in a number of other powers capable of crushing them (US, Japan, India, Russia).

We have the strength, and are not directly imposing on any great power's interests... China fulfills neither of those criteria. :biggrin:

China is doing what *it* thinks is doing right.period

And mind you US would be a silent spectator there, just as congress pulled its forces from somalia where moghadishu warlords paradaed dead american bodies to the detriments of few senators.

Speaks volum of american bravery who rely on sophisticated gizmos missing in opponents arsenal, kinda killing those arrow holding red indians with rifles.

keshto patel
25 Mar 05,, 22:40
We have the strength, and are not directly imposing on any great power's interests... :


Last time it was Atlanta Journal Constitution which inked the threat by china who said they would not mind bringing mushrum clouds at los angles.

China is a defiant country who means what it says and state deptment knows it.

John sununu on crossfire said " dont we know that we can not antognise chinese because they are showing us middle finger" with meachal kinsly.

Here is what it is:


This statement came out in garbled form in The New York Times. It was made toward the end of a five-hour argument in October 1995, over what the probable effect would be of the military maneuvers the Central Military Commission had authorized in the Taiwan Straits. It was my position, which turned out to be correct, that if China carried through with its plans, it would get a good American military reaction. It was the position of the Chinese military officers, with whom I was speaking, that there would be no American military reaction.

At the end of the very heated argument, one of them said, "And finally, you do not have the strategic leverage that you had in the 1950's when you threatened nuclear strikes on us. You were able to do that because we could not hit back. But if you hit us now, we can hit back. So you will not make those threats. In the end you care more about Los Angeles than you do about Taipei."

ZFBoxcar
25 Mar 05,, 22:46
If mushroom clouds appear in LA, China will cease to exist.

highsea
25 Mar 05,, 22:47
Speaks volum of american bravery who rely on sophisticated gizmos missing in opponents arsenal, kinda killing those arrow holding red indians with rifles. No, it only speaks about Democratic American Presidents who don't have the guts for a fight. The American soldiers in Somalia were begging to go back in and teach the Somalis a lesson they wouldn't forget anytime soon.

I guess you haven't been watching the news lately. Like when 10 Kentucky National Guardsmen (2 of them were women) whacked 27 insurgents who ambushed them in Iraq. Watch out for American girls with guns... :biggrin:

keshto patel
25 Mar 05,, 22:50
If mushroom clouds appear in LA, China will cease to exist.



What is safer option?
To save taiwan or LA?

troung
25 Mar 05,, 22:53
"The Chinese also have begun to effectively translate their trade and investment clout into political influence. China now gives military assistance to the Philippines, another long-time ally of the United States, and props up dangerous, despicable regimes in North Korea, Burma and elsewhere."

God it took people that long to figure out.

They have supplied and are still supplying Thailand possibly our closest ally in SE Asia. Thailand did so because of the fall to Indochina to communism and needed some cheap weapons in bulk.

Becuase of the congress emposed sanctions on Indonesia China is trying to move in down there even though Indonesia has a island dispute with them (Natuna) and when ever they have internal problems they burn down the Chinese part of town :rolleyes: . Presidents since Bush Sr. have tried to get the sanctions dropped. Clinton could not get them dropped. Even with Bush Jr. trying to get them dropped he is having problems doing so.

We had also cut back aid to the Philippines so China is trying to pick up there. The Philippines are more boxed in also because of the Spartly Islands dispute with China which we are not supporting them in. Take the aid joint develop the Spartly's or fight a naval battle not a big choice these days...

So with a lot more effort they could break out of south east Asian contament even if those nations don't join a China bloc.

keshto patel
25 Mar 05,, 22:53
I guess you haven't been watching the news lately. Like when 10 Kentucky National Guardsmen (2 of them were women) whacked 27 insurgents who ambushed them in Iraq. Watch out for American girls with guns... :biggrin:

I am aware of the jessica lynch hype.

ZFBoxcar
25 Mar 05,, 23:03
What is safer option?
To save taiwan or LA?

China has about 20 ICBMs. Its reasonable to assume China will not attack Taiwan for some time now (since they are not prepared for a conventional invasion). By the time they do attack, odds are the US missile-defense system, both on land and at sea, will be functioning. That reduces the risk of defending Taiwan. Doesn't eliminate it, of course, but reduces it. And it would not be safe for the US to abandon Taiwan. I don't mean to get all "domino effect" here, but then what happens decades down the line when the Chinese navy is powerful enough to challenge Japan, or maybe the Chinese decide to unite Korea under the Northern banner? Besides, letting a democracy fall to save a city...I wouldn't want to make that decision, but if I had to I would save Taiwan (sorry Gio).

lwarmonger
25 Mar 05,, 23:05
China is doing what *it* thinks is doing right.period

And mind you US would be a silent spectator there, just as congress pulled its forces from somalia where moghadishu warlords paradaed dead american bodies to the detriments of few senators.

Speaks volum of american bravery who rely on sophisticated gizmos missing in opponents arsenal, kinda killing those arrow holding red indians with rifles.

Hmmm. Saddam bet on America being weak too during the first Gulf War, and we crushed him. We went into Iraq a second time, and smashed him again. Anyone who doubts American courage, especially under a Republican president, is going to end up a very unhappy person.

And I don't know what you're talking about when you say we rely on sophisticated gizmos. The most sophisticated gizmo I've been trained to use is my night vision and my M-4. But I will guarantee anyone who messes with the Army or the Marine Corp a short trip to hell if they think we're afraid to engage them face to face. Aimed fire is something that American soldiers are known for worldwide, and it would be best for you if you learned this before your ignorance is disproven in another, less pleasant fashion.

Besides, I didn't say it wasn't doing what it thinks is right... I'm saying that the difference is that they aren't strong enough to win. The United States is. Like it or not, we are unmatched in strength. China is matched in strength by it's smaller neighbor.

lwarmonger
25 Mar 05,, 23:10
What is safer option?
To save taiwan or LA?

We could save Taiwan without losing LA. The Chinese would use their nuclear weapons as a deterrant, but they would never hit us first. At most, they could take out two dozen American cities. We would kill the majority of their population. An American president could go to war with China without worrying about a nuclear strike. Our military can defeat theirs. Easily. Occupying China would prove to be difficult, but cutting them off from the outside world and then destroying their cities and industry through strategic bombing would not be hard for the US to accomplish. I can see how much you want the US to be "cut down to size" and I'm sorry to dissappoint you, but it isn't going to happen anytime soon.

:biggrin:

Officer of Engineers
25 Mar 05,, 23:41
Keshto,

1st, learn the context, the PLA officers were speaking of deterance, not trading LA for Taipei.

2nd, the PLA banked wrong that there would be no American reaction.

From your quote


This statement came out in garbled form in The New York Times. It was made toward the end of a five-hour argument in October 1995, over what the probable effect would be of the military maneuvers the Central Military Commission had authorized in the Taiwan Straits. It was my position, which turned out to be correct, that if China carried through with its plans, it would get a good American military reaction. It was the position of the Chinese military officers, with whom I was speaking, that there would be no American military reaction.

keshto patel
26 Mar 05,, 00:07
Keshto,

1st, learn the context, the PLA officers were speaking of deterance, not trading LA for Taipei.

2nd, the PLA banked wrong that there would be no American reaction.

From your quote


Its a vieled threat.

Officer of Engineers
26 Mar 05,, 00:22
Its a vieled threat.
From a middle ranking officer?

highsea
26 Mar 05,, 00:33
I am aware of the jessica lynch hype.
Who's talking about Jessica Lynch? Read this...

http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/showthread.php?t=5126

That's what I'm talking about. 8 guys and 2 girls wiped out 40 insurgents and captured their weapons. They killed 27 of them and captured the rest. Don't give me that crap about US bravery- these people aren't even full time soldiers. They didn't back down an inch. Put that in your hookah and smoke it. :mad:

keshto patel
26 Mar 05,, 01:12
From a middle ranking officer?

Its a diplomatic type manuver where President does not involve himself. Its the message and not the messenger which counts.

Officer of Engineers
26 Mar 05,, 01:42
Its a diplomatic type manuver where President does not involve himself. Its the message and not the messenger which counts.

Do you even read your own reference?


This statement came out in garbled form in The New York Times. It was made toward the end of a five-hour argument in October 1995, over what the probable effect would be of the military maneuvers the Central Military Commission had authorized in the Taiwan Straits. It was my position, which turned out to be correct, that if China carried through with its plans, it would get a good American military reaction. It was the position of the Chinese military officers, with whom I was speaking, that there would be no American military reaction.

At the end of the very heated argument, one of them said, "And finally, you do not have the strategic leverage that you had in the 1950's when you threatened nuclear strikes on us. You were able to do that because we could not hit back. But if you hit us now, we can hit back. So you will not make those threats. In the end you care more about Los Angeles than you do about Taipei."

keshto patel
26 Mar 05,, 03:14
Do you even read your own reference?

Yes.

Its clear cut, even a blind understands this kind of language.

Officer of Engineers
26 Mar 05,, 03:25
Yes.

Its clear cut, even a blind understands this kind of language.

You're misreading everything.

1st, this is NOT from any official Chinese release. This is a bunch of bellycrawlers in a social setting, debating without any official sanction.

2nd, READ


And finally, you do not have the strategic leverage that you had in the 1950's when you threatened nuclear strikes on us. You were able to do that because we could not hit back. But if you hit us now, we can hit back. So you will not make those threats.

In other words, the Chinese are saying that they can retalliate against an American 1st strike. NOT trade LA for Taipei.

As for this


In the end you care more about Los Angeles than you do about Taipei.

A pure statement of fact, most Americans don't even know what Taipei is, so naturally, they would care more about Los Angeles than about Taipei.

NOWHERE in all of your reference is there language by ANYONE IN AUTHORITY to threaten LA.

Selective
30 Mar 05,, 06:28
ello all.. my 1st post :cool:


That China would challenge an American alliance as strong as our relationship with Australia sends a clear signal that the Chinese are ready to test the extent of their new and growing power in the region and, perhaps, the resolve of the United States and Australia.

Australia's relationship with China is unlike what american is to chinese. Unlike america, china is in our region so we see it preferable to maintain friendly relations with china. With China's boom in demand for raw materials Australia stands to make alot of money if good relations continue to grow. As it continues to sign large contracts with other countries in the region we will see china continue to test their growing power with other powers. The flip side for australia is that this could effect our economic/political/military ties with the other powers e.g japan and u.s. I doubt it would tho as we regard it as seperate agenda's.

Australias stance on tawain is different to the u.s.. so the comments by armitage believing in australia joining forces with u.s on tawain was ill'advised. It's true that australia's alliance with the u.s is very strong and Armagitage was without doubt the closest ally of aus in the white house. So his words were more passionate than anything. Unfortunately our relationship with china and the u.s does clash over the tawain issue and most politicians here are silent about it.


Beijing’s message was clear: Australia had better not help the United States to defend Taiwan — or else.

China's ability to project its strength at australia is pratically non-existent. China's warning to australia not to invoke the anzus treaty to aid u.s and tawian in a war wont have any effect on our decision to join in if we see fit. In my opinion tho, I dont see australia joining in a arm's race to prepare for a war against china, which is what aus would need to do to fight for tawian because our government simply wont spend the money to begin with unless we a faced we a clear present danger ourselves.

essay
02 Apr 05,, 11:05
The possibility of military clash between China and USA is unpredictable,or may not happen for ever in the future,when Taiwan acclaim it,s independent statue.
So let alone Australian,s intervention.Beijing is speeding up it,s military modernization and it,s soldier,s training as a result of possible american military
intervention which may not be their major concern.Beijing leaders concerned more about domestic stability than other,s things ,because domestic stability,especially the problems of Chinese peasants who occupy nearly 75 percent of national population ,is paramount for the stability of Communists leading rule.
Under the lead of Communist party,China,s economy has experienced great achievement in the past two decades,and living standards of ordinary people has improved considerably.But , new problems have emerged out of prosperous society.Corruption,and gap between wealth and poor which greatly threaten the leadership of communist,s party and stability of society.So ,that,s why newly elected chairman,Hu jing tao,promise to eliminate corruption in his governmental speech,and as a chinese,i,m full of confidence about his determination to eliminate corruption.
So far i,m concerned,China certainly don,t initiate war against Taiwain at first,provided that taiwain leader don,t declare independence,secondly,USA is not
stupid enough to sacrifice his numerous soldier,s life and his national interests,as well as the stability of asian pacific region for the "SO CALLED DEMOCRACY OF TAWAIN".

lwarmonger
02 Apr 05,, 21:52
So far i,m concerned,China certainly don,t initiate war against Taiwain at first,provided that taiwain leader don,t declare independence,secondly,USA is not
stupid enough to sacrifice his numerous soldier,s life and his national interests,as well as the stability of asian pacific region for the "SO CALLED DEMOCRACY OF TAWAIN".

We wouldn't lose many in a war against China. Our fleet would blow China's fleet and air force away, and then selective strikes would be made against key industrial and military targets within China, while a total blockade was formed around China's coast. Minimal loss to the US, and absolutly crippling to China's ability to sustain a conflict (imported raw materials, especially oil, are essential).

No problem at all.

And it gives the US an opportunity to crush China sooner, rather than later. Regardless of whether one thinks China's economic growth will continue at the same pace or not, I think everyone can agree that it would be an easier conflict now than in the future.

Jeremy
02 Apr 05,, 23:56
I'd hate to see a war between China & the USA. The Chinese have a very big army and many would die. How would he attack China or would China attack the USA? I'm sure the US Navy has more ships even though the Chinese have more men. An attack thru North Korea & Taiwan would be the first steps.

essay
03 Apr 05,, 03:01
We wouldn't lose many in a war against China. Our fleet would blow China's fleet and air force away, and then selective strikes would be made against key industrial and military targets within China, while a total blockade was formed around China's coast. Minimal loss to the US, and absolutly crippling to China's ability to sustain a conflict (imported raw materials, especially oil, are essential).

No problem at all.

And it gives the US an opportunity to crush China sooner, rather than later. Regardless of whether one thinks China's economic growth will continue at the same pace or not, I think everyone can agree that it would be an easier conflict now than in the future.
Y ou say American can win so many war against China without lose,and please tell me the reason why they lose in korea war ,and vietnam war in which Chinese arMy directly involved.Chinese air defence system is very tough,China is the first country to shot down Jet with ground --air missile.Chinese air defence troops shot down nearly 3000 various american jets in vietnam war.
Please don,t show off the superiority of American army,it may be useful to Iraq,furthermore,it,s not easy for American army to tear chinese troops to pieces.

troung
03 Apr 05,, 04:20
"Y ou say American can win so many war against China without lose,and please tell me the reason why they lose in korea war ,and vietnam war in which Chinese arMy directly involved.Chinese air defence system is very tough"

America did not lose in Korea and Chinese units did not engage in ground combat during the 2nd Indochina War.

"China is the first country to shot down Jet with ground --air missile."

Could have sworn that was the USSR with a U-2. But China was the first nation to lose a plane at the hands of a guided infared missile...

"Chinese air defence troops shot down nearly 3000 various american jets in vietnam war."

And to think could have sworn that was done mostly by the NVA/VC and much of that in the South.

"Chinese air defence system is very tough"

:rolleyes: the USAF/USN were planning to crack a much bigger nut then that...

"The Chinese have a very big army and many would die."

Who cares? Would not make a difference if they added 3 million men to the PLA. What are they going to do swim out to CBGs? Make a human bridge to the ROC? They will be sucking their thumbs in a USAF/USN show crushing the PLAAF/PLAN.

Jeremy
03 Apr 05,, 15:52
With such a huge army the Chinese could use trench warfare to beat the US.

Bill
03 Apr 05,, 16:09
Jeremy, no offense, but you really don't have a clue what you're talking about.

If the US faces down China it will be in the Taiwan straight...a body of water.

It will be a fight of air and naval forces...their army will have nothing to do but hide in bunkers in such a scenario.

Jeremy
03 Apr 05,, 16:30
Why would China fight in a Bay when they don't have a big navy? The Chinese know they can't win at sea too. They will defend the coasts with 500,000,000 people so no D-Day invasion would work. The US would take years just to get the men overthere.

Asim Aquil
03 Apr 05,, 17:06
meeeh, neither the US nor the Chinese want a war with each other. Under that assumption, Taiwan cannot be saved! The only thing keeping a full scale attack is China's interest in economic development. A war against Taiwan can bring them back a few years.

The US would only supply weaponry. It won't commit its forces against the Chinese. It will win, no doubt about that... but the losses won't be acceptable.

ZFBoxcar
03 Apr 05,, 17:06
Why would the US fight on the Chinese mainland? China would be the invading, not the defending. If all they wanted to do was defend themselves they wouldn't be at war with the US. And if they are doing any invading the USN would destroy them.

Julie
03 Apr 05,, 17:35
I don't understand China passing it's anti-scession law of Taiwan in the first place. It is provoking, and causing other countries to stand back and re-group. The arms embargo considered being lifted by France and Germany. If this happens, the US Congress regards the lifting of the arms embargo as a little declaration of war from Europe. It will take revenge through trade.

China using aggression may never happen, but "historical experience and China's sheer future supremacy," calls for caution where other countries are concerned....and Japan will surely enter.

Bill
03 Apr 05,, 17:38
"Why would China fight in a Bay when they don't have a big navy? The Chinese know they can't win at sea too. They will defend the coasts with 500,000,000 people so no D-Day invasion would work. The US would take years just to get the men overthere."

Because they want to conquer Taiwan, and the only way to get there is to cross the Taiwan straight.

There is absolutely no reason whatsoever for the US to invade China. It would be stupid.

Asim Aquil
03 Apr 05,, 22:51
I read somewhere that it'll take about 30 days for the US carriers to arrive in Taiwan.

Would Taiwan last 30 days? I don't think the US would launch an attack once its Chinese occupied territory.

Officer of Engineers
03 Apr 05,, 22:58
I read somewhere that it'll take about 30 days for the US carriers to arrive in Taiwan.

72 hours from Okinawa if they're in port and that's even assuming that they have nothing on board and rushed to fill its stores.


Would Taiwan last 30 days? I don't think the US would launch an attack once its Chinese occupied territory.

The question is could the PLA last 30 days? They could but under the most ideal of circumstances and the most limited of goals, certainly not a complete conquest of the island.

Praxus
03 Apr 05,, 23:55
Would Taiwan last 30 days? I don't think the US would launch an attack once its Chinese occupied territory.

Why not?

lwarmonger
03 Apr 05,, 23:57
With such a huge army the Chinese could use trench warfare to beat the US.

Even if it did come down to a direct confrontation between the US army and the Chinese military (Korea is the one place I can see this happening), the Chinese would lose. Our tanks are vastly superior to theirs, and trench warfare does not work in the face of superior air power and armour. The US would never invade China, but completely cut it off from supply


Y ou say American can win so many war against China without lose,and please tell me the reason why they lose in korea war ,and vietnam war in which Chinese arMy directly involved.Chinese air defence system is very tough,China is the first country to shot down Jet with ground --air missile.Chinese air defence troops shot down nearly 3000 various american jets in vietnam war.
Please don,t show off the superiority of American army,it may be useful to Iraq,furthermore,it,s not easy for American army to tear chinese troops to pieces.

We never lost in Korea, and we chose to withdraw from Vietnam. Korea was a stalemate, and we killed over a million Chinese in exchange for some 50000 American soldiers (and that was against the North K's as well). Your air defense forces are nothing compared to what we were prepared to go up against in Central Europe, and your army is nowhere near the calibre that the Soviet army was. We would cut China off from the rest of the world with our fleet, and then pound it into the ground with our airforce and navy. The only place China could come to grips with the US would be Korea, and China's supply lines would be torn apart by American airpower, and then US armour would take care of what was left. There is nothing in the Chinese tank inventory that can match the original M-1, much less the M-1A1 or the M-1A2. Today, China has no chance at even inflicting serious losses on the US, much less winning.

lwarmonger
03 Apr 05,, 23:59
Would Taiwan last 30 days? I don't think the US would launch an attack once its Chinese occupied territory.

The Chinese couldn't occupy the whole island. Even given a full year, it simply wouldn't happen. They don't have the air forces, the naval forces, or the transport capabilities.

Officer of Engineers
04 Apr 05,, 00:27
Korea was a stalemate, and we killed over a million Chinese in exchange for some 50000 American soldiers (and that was against the North K's as well).

The DoD has since revised that figure down to 600,000. The Chinese states 362,000 casualties with about 132,000 KIA. Actual figures are hard to come by since Chinese military records of that period were not up to par (but they did the best they could) with some casualties reported as desertions.

lwarmonger
04 Apr 05,, 00:38
The DoD has since revised that figure down to 600,000. The Chinese states 362,000 casualties with about 132,000 KIA. Actual figures are hard to come by since Chinese military records of that period were not up to par (but they did the best they could) with some casualties reported as desertions.

When did that happen sir?

Parihaka
04 Apr 05,, 00:43
Just to return to the original topic, the context in which the comments were made was in reference to a free trade agreement. NZ and China are about to negotiate China's first free trade agreement and Australia both through NZ and directly to China said "what about us?" China's reply was that it was difficult to have an agreement when Australia supported the US policy toward Taiwan, much the same way as the US finds it difficult to have a free trade agreement with NZ when we have a no nukes policy. As far as I'm aware China did not suggest that Australia should drop ANZUS, which after all makes no mention of Taiwan.

Officer of Engineers
04 Apr 05,, 00:46
When did that happen sir?

Mid-late 80s, like everything else, when Chinese records became available for academic scrutiny, original estimates were put aside and each side try to match what happenned where, and how. This was especially important in trying to locate MIAs from both sides.

lwarmonger
04 Apr 05,, 01:00
Mid-late 80s, like everything else, when Chinese records became available for academic scrutiny, original estimates were put aside and each side try to match what happenned where, and how. This was especially important in trying to locate MIAs from both sides.

I guess one of the draw backs of relying on history books for my info is that they don't catch stuff like that, as most of them are written before.

Praxus
04 Apr 05,, 01:41
OOE: Why were we not able to halt the Chinese advance early enough to be able to push them back into China?

Officer of Engineers
04 Apr 05,, 02:03
OOE: Why were we not able to halt the Chinese advance early enough to be able to push them back into China?

Shock more than anything else. The People's Volunteer Army was a fresh force and fought like a fresh force. The 8th Army was tired and was reeling from shock of the encounter. All current info suggest that had the 8th Army turned and fought, it would have killed the PVA.

However, the force was weary and too tired to think of anything else but retreat. Like everything else, the retreat had a momentum all its own, and once started, it was damned hard to stop it.

And in fact, the 8th Army didn't stop. It was the Canadians at Kap'yong that finally turn the momentum around.

Selective
04 Apr 05,, 02:33
Just to return to the original topic, the context in which the comments were made was in reference to a free trade agreement. NZ and China are about to negotiate China's first free trade agreement and Australia both through NZ and directly to China said "what about us?" China's reply was that it was difficult to have an agreement when Australia supported the US policy toward Taiwan, much the same way as the US finds it difficult to have a free trade agreement with NZ when we have a no nukes policy. As far as I'm aware China did not suggest that Australia should drop ANZUS, which after all makes no mention of Taiwan.

China warned aus not to "invoke" the anzus treaty if war happens over tawain, which was timed by the chinese b4 the free trade talks between the 2 countries. But like I said b4, aus is not gonna risk sparking a regional arms race to prepare 4 a war in tawain. And if ... aus did join in , our involvement would be nothin more than naval participation in a blockade and deploying our SAS.

Selective
04 Apr 05,, 02:44
Shock more than anything else. The People's Volunteer Army was a fresh force and fought like a fresh force. The 8th Army was tired and was reeling from shock of the encounter. All current info suggest that had the 8th Army turned and fought, it would have killed the PVA.

However, the force was weary and too tired to think of anything else but retreat. Like everything else, the retreat had a momentum all its own, and once started, it was damned hard to stop it.

And in fact, the 8th Army didn't stop. It was the Canadians at Kap'yong that finally turn the momentum around.


It was the canadians that stopped them?? Im not saying the canadians didnt kick ass but to say it was them who turned the momentum around is being ignorant to the others fighting at Kap'yong. Suggest you read up on the battle again and look at 3RAR's involvement.

Officer of Engineers
04 Apr 05,, 02:50
It was the canadians that stopped them?? Im not saying the canadians didnt kick ass but to say it was them who turned the momentum around is being ignorant to the others fighting at Kap'yong. Suggest you read up on the battle again and look at 3RAR's involvement.

I know about the 3 RAR. They held. 2 PPCLI were on the verge of collapse and thus, the Chinese pour their effort through on that hill. New Zealand provided the battery that provided the fire support.

Not saying that the 3 RAR had it any easier but they were in a stronger position vis-a-vi the Chinese and thus, the Chinese went for the weaker of the 2 positions. Had 2 PPCLI collapsed (they called fire on their own positions), 3 RAR's much vaunted defence would have been for naught.

Bill
04 Apr 05,, 03:12
"OOE: Why were we not able to halt the Chinese advance early enough to be able to push them back into China?"

In addition to the explanation offered by OOE, it is important to remember that the 8th Army was in an extended exploitation campaign, and had become strung out and disorganized.

That and MacArthur totally ignored the intel reports of the impending Chinese attack.(Doh)

Officer of Engineers
04 Apr 05,, 03:23
That and MacArthur totally ignored the intel reports of the impending Chinese attack.(Doh)

And bad intel evals


Originally posted at World Affairs Board - Korea: Reluctant Dragons and Red Conspiracies (http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/showthread.php?t=2928)
General Peng Dehuai, commander of China's forces in Korea, believed that due to Communist guerrilla activity, advancing U.N. forces would be kept to only about three U.S. and three Republic of Korea (ROK) divisions. He estimated the size of each American division to be twelve thousand troops, and that of each ROK division to be six thousand soldiers. Therefore, his 180,000 troops would be fighting about fifty-four thousand U.N. troops--a better than a three-to-one advantage. On October 21, 23, and again on October 25, Mao ordered Peng to surround ROK units in order to attract American forces farther northward where they could be defeated.

Within three days, Mao's orders had been obeyed. Three ROK regiments were all but destroyed, and one U.S. regiment, the Eighth Cavalry, had been roughly handled. But the Chinese, often in the open and exposed to U.S. firepower, had suffered as well. Peng reported to Mao on November 4 that he had been forced to call off his attacks and pull back. The general said that U.N. forces had retreated in time to avoid most of his planned traps. He also stated that his troops had become very fearful of U.S. air attacks. He described his soldiers as ill-supplied, cold, fatigued, and in need of reorganization before resuming the offensive.

Documents recently released also throw light on the November Lull episode, a lull in the fighting that occurred throughout the peninsula. Reluctant Dragon historians later interpreted this pause as an unstated Chinese offer to America of a truce in exchange for a protected Communist sanctuary in the northern reaches of North Korea. We now know that the mysterious November Lull was nothing more than a case of exhausted, cold, hungry, and battered Chinese troops in need of rest, resupply, and reorganization before resuming their efforts to annihilate U.N. forces and push the Americans out of Korea.

Selective
04 Apr 05,, 07:28
I know about the 3 RAR. They held. 2 PPCLI were on the verge of collapse and thus, the Chinese pour their effort through on that hill. New Zealand provided the battery that provided the fire support.

Not saying that the 3 RAR had it any easier but they were in a stronger position vis-a-vi the Chinese and thus, the Chinese went for the weaker of the 2 positions. Had 2 PPCLI collapsed (they called fire on their own positions), 3 RAR's much vaunted defence would have been for naught.

hmm ok, lets put it into perspective..

Kapyong 23-24th april 1951.
The battle was precipitated by the communist spring offensive launched at night on the 22nd, involving some 337,000 men driving for seoul and 149,000 attacking further east in the central sector. At 8.30am the next day, the 27th British Commonwealth Brigade was ordered forward to the kapyong valley. A precautionary move incase 6rok division covering the northern approaches to Kapyong collapsed thus threating the entire central sector.

The requirement was to cover a 7 kilometer front, which was impossible with the initial 2 battalions available to 27th brigade (3rar and 2ppcli). The commander opted to use strongpoints instead of a continous line. 3RAR was deployed on the high ground to the east of the river, 2ppcli to the west. When 1st battalion of the middlesex reg (was forward with the rok division) returned, it was placed in the rear, directly beside the rivers west back. In support were the guns of 16th NZ field reg, a company of u.s heavy mortars and a company of 15 sherman tanks of the 72nd u.s tank battalion.

They spent that afternoon diging in on the hill slopes and by the evening the 6rok had been routed and were flooding sth of the bcoy positions. Chinese troops had succesfully infiltrated the fleeing korean ranks and thus had managed to surround bcoy 3rar by night fall. At 9.30pm the chinese hit the american tank platoon 1st, which had been unwisely deployed forward without infantry support. Initially beaten back , a stronger attack an hr latter forced the tanks withdrawal. During the night the U.S heavy mortar company fled leaving its weapons behind.

With the chinese main forces now arriving they began to probe and assault 'b coy' and 'a coy' .....

To go into detail about the battle from this point would be waaaaay 2 time consuming for me atm. But that sets up the situation facing the commonwealth brigade prior to the onslaught that was to be unleashed on them. The result was that although brief in duration, the battle of kapyong had been crucial in bluntng the enemy advance and preventing a breakthrough on the UN command's central front. In opposing the assaults of the chinese 60th division, 3 rar had lost 32 men killed, 59 wounded and 3 missing, the cost to the canadians was ten dead and 23 wounded. At least 500 enemy were killed.

..Officer of Engineers take a look at the positions of the companies on a map of the battle. There is no freaking way that the australians had a stronger position than the canadians. I would say the opposite is true with the rok troops flooding through their positions.

Secondly you havent corrected your statement .."And in fact, the 8th Army didn't stop. It was the Canadians at Kap'yong that finally turn the momentum around."

U also said .."Had 2 PPCLI collapsed (they called fire on their own positions), 3 RAR's much vaunted defence would have been for naught".. i agree with that, just like if 3rar collapsed then 2ppcli defence would have been for naught.

Not interested in flaming ya, and I salute the 2 PPCLI, but you shouldnt give exclusive credit to the canadians for beating the chinese offensive let alone a battle when it just aint so.

My 2 cents i guess.. :rolleyes:

Parihaka
04 Apr 05,, 07:48
Interesting piece of history, thanks for pointing it out, here's the NZ view of it

During the Korean War, New Zealand and American fire support units co-operated together on many occasions, but none was more important than the Battle of Kap'yong in late April 1951. Toiling Kiwi and Yank gunners helped stem the Chinese tide which threatened to engulf the UN positions.

The Chinese Fifth Phase Offensive, which began on 22 April, was designed to drive the UN Command into the sea. Between Hwach'on and Kaesong, some 270,000 Chinese troops were set in motion, their immediate objective to annihilate specific UN units and open up a decisive breach in the front. Other troops held back to the north would then be thrown in to complete the defeat of the UN Command.

Kap'yong, located at the mouth of a narrow valley leading north of the 38th Parallel, was well to the south of the front line on 22 April. The Commonwealth 27 Brigade had gone into reserve in its vicinity a few days before, while the South Korean 6 Division continued the advance into North Korea. The New Zealand 16 Field Regiment had remained up the valley to provide support until it found itself unable to keep within range of the infantry, as the road petered out in the mountainous reaches.

This regiment had been raised in New Zealand in 1950 following the government's decision to contribute a ground force to the UN Command. When volunteers had been called for, five men had come forward for every place available. The gunners had entered camp on 29 August, and spent next three months being trained, before leaving Wellington on 10 December. They reached Pusan on 31 December and joined 27 Brigade on 22 January 1951. A few days later their twenty-four 25-pounders were in action. During the next three months practice had greatly improved their capacity to support the infantry.

When the Chinese offensive broke the New Zealanders were already under orders to return down the valley to 27 Brigade near Kap'yong. The events at the front ensured that this move took place during the night, some hours earlier than intended. But next morning the IX Corps artillery commander ordered the regiment back up the valley to support the South Koreans, who were supposed to be making a stand after falling back a considerable distance in some disarray.

To provide additional support, the American 213 AFA Battalion, with its eighteen 105-mm self-propelled howitzers, was redeployed from the Hwach'on area. A National Guard battalion which had also been raised in the United States about the same time as the New Zealand regiment, it had enjoyed a much longer period of training and acclimatisation than had the New Zealanders, only reaching the front in April. It had fired its first shot in anger on 22 April. On the 23rd it returned to positions at Sindang-ni, on a tributary of the Kap'yong river, which it had occupied until being sent to Hwach'on three days before.

While it was hoped that the South Koreans would hold their positions up the valley, precautions were taken in case they did not. This entailed deploying 27 Brigade at the mouth of the valley, with a Canadian battalion and an Australian battalion occupying dominating hills on left and right respectively. The brigade's other battalion, the British Middlesex Regiment, had been sent up the valley to provide close protection for the New Zealand gunners. Both Canadian and Australian battalions had a company of the 2nd Chemical Mortar Battalion in support, Co A with the former, Co B with the latter. These companies had been attached to 27 Brigade for some weeks before this crisis.

These precautions were timely, for it became evident during the evening that the South Korean division had virtually disintegrated. Panic-stricken Koreans made their way down the valley. The New Zealand and American gunners both experienced a hair raising withdrawal behind the Commonwealth infantry, the American regiment losing one of its pieces when a road gave way. The New Zealanders carried out the Middlesex infantrymen on their vehicles and guns.

When the Chinese assault began on the Australians around midnight, there were six batteries of artillery and Company B's mortars within range, but coordination was lacking mainly because of poor communications. There is evidence that the New Zealanders fired defensive support missions for 3RAR's B Company, and also that the mortars were in action, though Australian veterans nowadays tend to discount this support. The Australian A Company was heavily assaulted, but held its ground. During this period the New Zealand forward observation officer with this company was killed and his party separated from their radio, effectively ending any chance of co-ordinated defensive support from the New Zealand guns.

Meanwhile other Chinese troops had circled round to attack 3RAR's battalion headquarters. This was a dangerous development, and the New Zealand and American gunners were preoccupied with dealing with this threat until they, too, were troubled by Chinese infiltrators. Around 2 am the decision was taken to withdraw the artillery units to safer positions to the south. Both regiments pulled two of their batteries back immediately, leaving the other as a rearguard. These latter followed as day was breaking. At this point the Australian headquarters was overrun. The Mortar Battalion's Company B also tried to withdraw but was halted and, leaving their vehicles, retreated through the hills, as did a Middlesex company. Company A, 800 yards to the west, was forced to withdraw at about 6 am, losing three of its mortars. (The withdrawal of Company B has been unfairly misrepresented in Australian histories as taking place about midnight, and even the US official history of Army operations in Korea has followed this line.)

With daybreak on the 24th, the artillery support became more effective as co-ordination improved. The New Zealand regiment controlled the fire from both it and 213 AFA Battalion. A battery of 17 FA Battalion's 8-inch howitzers was on call from early afternoon, and 61 FA Battalion (105-mm howitzers) became available in the evening. New Zealand officers with radios sets were sent to the American batteries to facilitate the transmission of fire orders. This fire power was vital during the afternoon of 24 April as the Australian battalion's infantry companies were successfully extricated from the virtually surrounded position they found themselves in. Gunfire not only obscured the withdrawal from the enemy but also later prevented them from closing with the retreating troops.

During the night of 24-25 April the Chinese turned their attention to the Canadian battalion. The attacks were pressed home with great determination, and at one stage the Canadians were forced to call down fire on their own positions. But the massive artillery resources now available ensured the battalion's survival, though it too was virtually surrounded. Next morning, however, the Chinese were found to have pulled back.

The Commonwealth troops, now reinforced by two battalions of the 5 Cavalry Regiment, were ordered to advance during the afternoon of the 25th. The former Australian positions were reoccupied, but developments elsewhere led to them soon being abandoned as the whole of IX Corps was ordered to pull back to positions on the Han River. The New Zealand and American gunners covered the withdrawal of the infantry battalions.

http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-nz/nz-kapyong.htm

Officer of Engineers
04 Apr 05,, 12:53
Officer of Engineers take a look at the positions of the companies on a map of the battle. There is no freaking way that the australians had a stronger position than the canadians. I would say the opposite is true with the rok troops flooding through their positions.

I said that they were in a stronger position vis-a-vi the Chinese. 3 RAR was not in a position of being overrunned.


U also said .."Had 2 PPCLI collapsed (they called fire on their own positions), 3 RAR's much vaunted defence would have been for naught".. i agree with that, just like if 3rar collapsed then 2ppcli defence would have been for naught.

The timeline is the difference. 3 RAR did their job (and extremely well) and the Chinese turned their attention towards the Canadians. Had 3 RAR collapsed, there would have been no need for the Canadians to make a stand. For whatever reasons, the final push was against the Canadians.


Not interested in flaming ya, and I salute the 2 PPCLI, but you shouldnt give exclusive credit to the canadians for beating the chinese offensive let alone a battle when it just aint so.

You're absolutely correct that I should have given more credit where credit is due but I lived and served besides those assholes most of my field career. 2 PPCLI was my battle group. Emotional blindness.

Officer of Engineers
04 Apr 05,, 13:05
Interesting piece of history, thanks for pointing it out, here's the NZ view of it.

And here is a Chinese perspective though alot of their facts contradict ours, namely we count far more bodies than a single battalion could have.


According to the Chinese account, the unit facing the Canadians and the British in this battle was not a division, but a single BATTALION.

It's the 3rd battalion, 354th regiment, 118th division. The rest of 118th div was NOT involved in the battle.

I believe I have the right battle. The date (April 23-24, 1951), the place (refered to as Jia Ping in Chinese), the enemy (described as Brit 27th Bgd and the Canadian 25th Bgd) all fit.

The 3rd btn was the vanguard unit of the 118th div. Penetrating deep behind UN lines during the 1st phase of the 5th campaign, the btn had lost contact with the main body of the PVA forces when it ran into the Brits and Canadians in Jia Ping (or KapYong). The battle is described in Chinese accounts as a valiant fight by the understrength Chinese btn (around 500 men) against superior enemy forces. The 3rd battalion did suffer heavy casualties. The chief of staff of the 354th Reg., who was with the battalion, was killed in action.

This was NOT considered an important battle in the PVA accounts.

The PVA thinks the battle which turned the tide against them was the battle of Di Ping Li (Feb 13-16, 1951) during the 4th campaign, where the US 23rd infantry Reg, 2nd Div and the French Btn, plus supporting artillery and armour units, held off repeated assaults by 4 PVA infantry regiments. It's considered the first PVA defeat of the war, and forced the PVA back on the defensive.

bull
04 Apr 05,, 13:49
I read somewhere that it'll take about 30 days for the US carriers to arrive in Taiwan.

Would Taiwan last 30 days? I don't think the US would launch an attack once its Chinese occupied territory.
There is a perception especially among asians that with the rise of chineese and indian econmy the rest of the world would be dependant on asia for existance.Except for japan there is no single economy in asia which is mature enough to create ripples around the world.China and India are future stories not present.Both are nowhere compared to developed economies of US and Germany.These 2 economies thrive on exporting cheper labour nothing more nothing less.
And i strongly believe that a primary concern before any invasion in the present scenario would be the economical impact that it would cause.And china cannot harm US economy on the other hand if conflicts happen chineese economy will take the casualities and crude prices are going to come down tumbling to USD35-40 a barrel which is good for other countries.
So dont compare US with any country around the world,they are way ahead of rest of the world militray wise and also economically.

Parihaka
04 Apr 05,, 19:35
And here is a Chinese perspective though alot of their facts contradict ours, namely we count far more bodies than a single battalion could have.
I find it remarkable that the Canadians called down fire on their own positions rather than retreat. Had they bought the land or something?

Officer of Engineers
05 Apr 05,, 00:24
I find it remarkable that the Canadians called down fire on their own positions rather than retreat. Had they bought the land or something?

Pride, stubborness, confidence, stupidity - take your pick. The bn cmdr LCol JR Stone made a big fuss of not going onto the line without intensive training for the bn, going against the expressed wishes of his American superiors. He was determined to show that the training paid off.

In retrospect, had the Canadians abandon their position, the next line of defence was Pusan.

It must be said something about the battle. The Chinese at this time had outran their own artillery and was now mainly an infantry force. Had their 4 artillery divisions somehow managed to keep up with the infantry, there would not have been a Kapyong to remember (or as a heroic last stand).

Selective
05 Apr 05,, 02:26
I said that they were in a stronger position vis-a-vi the Chinese. 3 RAR was not in a position of being overrunned.



The timeline is the difference. 3 RAR did their job (and extremely well) and the Chinese turned their attention towards the Canadians. Had 3 RAR collapsed, there would have been no need for the Canadians to make a stand. For whatever reasons, the final push was against the Canadians.



You're absolutely correct that I should have given more credit where credit is due but I lived and served besides those assholes most of my field career. 2 PPCLI was my battle group. Emotional blindness.


hehe, I can understand the "emotional blindness". Having served in 6RAR and hearing from the 3RAR boys bout kapyong each day b4 anzac day but... 6RAR got their glory in vietnam anywayz, the battle of long tan. In both battles the chinese and vietnamese learnt a valuable lesson about human waves against aussies... don't do it.

Enzo Ferrari
15 Apr 05,, 13:15
What is safer option?
To save taiwan or LA?

What is safer option?

Unification or cease to exist?

Ray
15 Apr 05,, 21:46
‘Encircling’ China

Because of China’s dependence on the US market - as well as Beijing’s desire to acquire US technology - the Hu-Wen leadership will continue to bend over backwards to avoid a direct confrontation with America.

By Willy Lam for The Jamestown Foundation (14/04/05)

One of Beijing’s worst nightmares seems to be coming true. Having apparently steadied the course in the Middle East, the George Bush administration is turning to Asia to tame its long-standing “strategic competitor”. While this particular term has been shelved since 9/11 - and Sino-US relations have improved thanks to China’s cooperation with Washington's global anti-terrorist campaign - there are signs at least from Beijing's perspective that Washington is spearheading multi-pronged tactics to contain the fast-rising Asian giant. In the eyes of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) leadership, the new doctrine of encirclement and containment was spelled out during a visit by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to Tokyo, part of a recent tour through Asia. Echoing President Bush’s State of the Union address, which pushed a foreign policy predicated upon “spreading democracy”, Rice noted in a speech at Sophia University that “even China must eventually embrace some form of open, genuinely representative government”. And she dropped hints that the US would somehow bring about a democratic China through joint actions with its Asian allies. “I really do believe the US-Japan relationship, the US-South Korea relationship, the US-India relationship - all are important in creating an environment where China is more likely to play a positive role than a negative role,” she added.
Great architect of US foreign policy

It did not help that Rice saluted in her Sophia speech the father of the anti-Soviet containment policy George Kennan - who had just passed away - as one of the “great architects of American foreign policy”. Kennan had written in a celebrated 1947 Foreign Affairs piece that “the main element of any United States policy toward the Soviet Union must be that of a long-term, patient but firm and vigilant containment of Russian expansive tendencies”. The Chinese must be very nervous about the possibility that Rice - and Bush - will simply substitute PRC for USSR. After all, it was Rice who coined the phrase “strategic competitor” in a 2000 Foreign Affairs article about the need to adequately take on a fast-emerging China. “It is important to promote China's internal transition through economic interaction while containing Chinese power and security ambitions,” she wrote.
The US-Japan statement

A Beijing source close to the Chinese foreign-policy establishment said the leadership under President Hu Jintao was not surprised by Rice’s less-than-subtle remarks about revving up the anti-PRC containment juggernaut. This was despite the fact that in an apparent goodwill gesture, the State Department had announced shortly before her arrival in Beijing that Washington would this year not sponsor a motion condemning China at the UN Subcommittee on Human Rights in Geneva. The source said the CCP leadership saw the joint US-Japan defense statement in February as a turning point in China-US relations. The US-Japan statement referred to the looming threat of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and, most irksome for Beijing, it cited for the first time the maintenance of peace in the Taiwan Strait as a “common strategic objective” of the allies. “[The] meeting may mark the end of the extended Beijing-Washington honeymoon which came about because of 9/11,” the source said. “Even now, of course, Washington requires Chinese help or acquiescence in its dealings with countries including Iran and North Korea. But Bush seems to have picked up his pre-9/11 agenda of containing China, or at least slowing down its progress toward quasi-superpower status.” And the Chinese are well aware that Rice, who had advised former president George H.W. Bush on ways to sink the Soviet Empire, was instrumental in shaping then-presidential candidate Bush’s relatively hostile posture towards China.
‘Spreading democracy’

Moreover, the explosive events in Kyrgyzstan last month have been interpreted by a number of advisers to President Hu as yet another manifestation of Bush's aggravated policy of “spreading democracy”. This is despite the fact that in official press briefings, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokespeople merely expressed the wish that stability be restored to the former Soviet state as soon as possible - and that the work of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), of which both China and Kyrgyzstan are members, will not be affected. More sophisticated observers such as National Defense University academic Jin Yinan have drawn the difference between the “Tulip revolution” in Kyrgyzstan on the one hand, and the “Rose” and “Orange” insurrections in Georgia and Ukraine. Jin told the Chinese media that should Bishkek fall under the influence of Muslim fundamentalists, “it’s the Americans who would be hurt most”. At the same time, the strategy professor pointed out that Washington's tendency to target pariah and dictatorship states had “departed from the [principle of] global democracy and engendered ill will in other [countries]”.
Killing several birds with one stone

Other commentators have noted how Washington could kill several birds with one stone should it manage to control the new Kyrgyz government. Given the 1’100-kilometer border between Kyrgyzstan and China - and Washington's already considerable foothold in nearby Uzbekistan and Tajikistan - the fall of the China-friendly government of disgraced president Askar Akaev would be no small victory for the “containment policy”. A pro-US Bishkek may be much less zealous in cooperating with the Chinese in rooting out Kyrgyz Muslim organizations that are reportedly funneling weapons and material to anti-Beijing, pro-independence elements in the Xinjiang Autonomous Region (XAR). Moreover, US preponderance in central Asia could pose a threat to the giant oil pipeline that is being built between Kazakhstan and the XAR. And last but not least, the viability of the SCO, which set up an anti-terrorism center in Bishkek not long ago, is now in doubt. In a discussion of whether the three allies cited by Rice - Japan, South Korea, and India - would play an effective role in the Washington-led anti-China game plan, a panel of People’s Daily experts and journalists expressed optimism that “the US plot to encircle China will come to no avail”. The specialists reckoned that only Japan would faithfully do Washington's bidding. Korean expert Shen Lin noted that Seoul “will not damage its ties with China because of the US”. Shen added that South Korean politicians and opinion leaders had expressed reservations about Washington’s plans to use Korean-based US military facilities to promote American interests in northeast Asia.
Strategic partnerships

New Delhi-based People’s Daily journalist Ren Yan indicated that “India will not blindly follow the lead of the US” because the strategic partnership that Washington wanted to forge with the South Asian country was “centered on American interests”. One purpose of Premier Wen Jiabao’s trip to India this month is to consolidate China-Indian cooperation through means including resolving the decades-old border dispute between the two countries. A Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman said Beijing was keen to push Sino-Indian relations to a “new high”. Analysts said despite the suspicion between the two neighbors - as well as Beijing's warm ties with Islamabad - the CCP leadership is confident that dramatic improvement in ties with India the past few years would at least persuade New Delhi not to become a pawn in America's anti-China machinations. Indeed, Beijing is upbeat that China's fast-expanding global clout - and especially the vast China market - has better enabled the country to drive a wedge between the US and quite a few of its traditional allies. Take Australia, which was one of the staunchest supporters of Washington's war against Iraq. Earlier this year, Prime Minister John Howard made it clear that Canberra would not join in the US effort to lobby the EU to persevere with its embargo on arms exports to China. And last summer, Foreign Minister Alexander Downer indicated that despite the Australia-US joint defense agreement, Canberra could remain neutral if American forces were involved in a war over the Taiwan Strait. Immediately afterwards, Singapore, another close friend of the US, made known a similar stance of neutrality regarding a possible US-China military conflict over Taiwan.
The North Korean card

In any event, Rice’s unusually candid statements in Tokyo have convinced President Hu, who is deemed within Chinese political circles as much less “pro-US” than former president Jiang Zemin, that he is right to treat Washington with extreme caution. Outwardly, of course, Hu will still cleave to late patriarch Deng Xiaoping's dictum that as far as the US is concerned, Beijing should “avoid confrontation and boost cooperation”. Because of China’s dependence on the US market - as well as Beijing’s desire to acquire US technology - the Hu-Wen leadership will continue to bend over backwards to avoid a direct confrontation with America. However, Beijing’s suspicion that Bush may adopt a harsher China policy during the rest of his presidency could predispose the Hu leadership to be even more determined to boost China’s military arsenal. Hu and his colleagues are also expected to play the "North Korean card” for whatever its worth. The Chinese president and commander-in-chief is due to visit Pyongyang next month for high-level talks with DPRK dictator Kim Jong-il. While Hu will at least go through the motions of persuading Pyongyang to return to the six-party talks, the Chinese supremo will also explore ways to use China's still-formidable clout with the Hermit Kingdom as a diplomatic weapon against the US - and Japan.
Toward a vicious cycle

Indeed, another unfortunate result of growing tension between Beijing and Washington is that Sino-Japanese relations are fast heading toward a vicious cycle. Given the intensification of the US-Japanese military alliance - as well as joint US-Japan efforts to persuade Brussels to hold on to its anti-China arms embargo - Beijing is close to giving up hope that it could turn around worsening China-Japan ties in the foreseeable future. This is despite the overture made by Prime Minister Wen last month that both sides should “enthusiastically” create conditions for the resumption of high-level exchanges. Top-level visits between the two neighbors were stopped after Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi’s first visit to the controversial Yasukuni Shrine in 2001. In the past fortnight, a campaign launched by nationalistic Chinese websites to prevent Japan from being made a permanent member of the UN Security Council has developed into a boycott of Japanese products in a number of coastal cities.

Willy Wo-Lap Lam is a Senior Fellow at The Jamestown Foundation as well as a Hong Kong-based journalist and analyst.

This article originally appeared in China Brief, published by The Jamestown Foundation in Washington, DC., at (www.Jamestown.org). The Jamestown Foundation is an independent, nonpartisan organization supported by tax-deductible contributions from corporations, foundations, and individuals.

http://www.isn.ethz.ch/news/sw/details.cfm?ID=11107

glow
16 Apr 05,, 03:21
Not at all. We were able to win in every one of those situations, and there was no danger of any of those conflicts escalating into a great power conflict, much less a great power conflict that the US would lose. China could not beat Taiwan much less take it, and they would run a great risk of drawing in a number of other powers capable of crushing them (US, Japan, India, Russia).

We have the strength, and are not directly imposing on any great power's interests... China fulfills neither of those criteria. :biggrin:

I think you are really underestimating China here. The US has lost Vietnam war, never finished the Korean war, Never finished in Afganistan and doesn't seem like Iraq just caved as easy as the US thought it would. But lets see both Korea and Vietnam were way underpowered compared to the US and still held their ground. You think China would give up so easy?

ZFBoxcar
16 Apr 05,, 03:55
In a naval war China stands NO chance against the US glow.

glow
16 Apr 05,, 04:04
In a naval war China stands NO chance against the US glow.
Thats in a naval war. What do you think it's going to do otherwise. It's not like US troops can patrol downtown Bejing like Iraq and try and get a couple billion people to bend over and just agree with what America wants. China always could point a few hundred of those missiles pointed at Taiwan offshore. If China did go to war with Taiwan I would be surprised if the US did much at all actually.

How many ships are protecting Taiwan now anyways?

ZFBoxcar
16 Apr 05,, 04:27
But the war against Taiwan would be NAVAL war. China could fire their missiles and kill some Taiwanese civillians, but their military power would not be reduced significantly unless the Chinese used nukes.

I don't know the exact number of ships defending Taiwan, but its a decent number, and the USN would be around to protect them too.

MIKEMUN
16 Apr 05,, 05:55
Thats in a naval war. What do you think it's going to do otherwise. It's not like US troops can patrol downtown Bejing like Iraq and try and get a couple billion people to bend over and just agree with what America wants. China always could point a few hundred of those missiles pointed at Taiwan offshore. If China did go to war with Taiwan I would be surprised if the US did much at all actually.

How many ships are protecting Taiwan now anyways?


The last time I checked,Beijing was in China and not in Taiwan. Read the whole discussion so that you can find out what the scenario was......You read it,didn't you?? :) :)

glow
18 Apr 05,, 21:34
The last time I checked,Beijing was in China and not in Taiwan. Read the whole discussion so that you can find out what the scenario was......You read it,didn't you?? :) :)
Yeah, did you read my response? As I am saying here it's not like the US can just go into downtown China and enforce them to not take pot shots here and there into Taiwan. It's not like China doesn't have the technology to take out the targets it wants.

ZFBoxcar
18 Apr 05,, 22:30
But the war would only be a naval war since the US has no reason to invade China. Its China that wants to conquer Taiwan. Since Taiwan is an island there would have to be a naval campaign. And Hitler had a better chance of getting into heaven than China has of winning a naval war against Taiwan and the US.

lwarmonger
18 Apr 05,, 23:15
Yeah, did you read my response? As I am saying here it's not like the US can just go into downtown China and enforce them to not take pot shots here and there into Taiwan. It's not like China doesn't have the technology to take out the targets it wants.

We aren't trying to go into downtown China. We would be destroying their ability to force project, cutting them off from the rest of the world, and then waiting for them to say uncle. They are attacking Taiwan, and our goal is to defend Taiwan, and damage the Chinese enough militarily and economically that they decide they have had enough. We are not trying to occupy China here. If we were, we would nuke their major cities (and probably a lot of minor ones too), and then occupy the rubble (much like the Soviets had planned, and prepared to execute, in the 1970's).

Bill
18 Apr 05,, 23:17
"I find it remarkable that the Canadians called down fire on their own positions rather than retreat. Had they bought the land or something?"

I find it highly worthy of praise myself.

Bill
18 Apr 05,, 23:22
"I think you are really underestimating China here. The US has lost Vietnam war,"

There was a ceasefire in place when the US left Vietnam. ARVN lost the Vietnam war AFTER the US left.

"never finished the Korean war,"

Mutually agreed upon cease-fires have that affect.

"Never finished in Afganistan"

The US is still in Afghanistan.

"and doesn't seem like Iraq just caved as easy as the US thought it would."

It caved in pretty easily nonetheless.

"But lets see both Korea and Vietnam were way underpowered compared to the US and still held their ground."

Both of those nations had more forces under arms in theater at any one time than the US ever did. And the Koreans were bolstered by a force of 300,000 Chinese.

"You think China would give up so easy?"

Not as easily as the USN and USAF would dispatch them.

troung
19 Apr 05,, 00:39
And Hitler had a better chance of getting into heaven than China has of winning a naval war against Taiwan and the US.

I like that one :biggrin:



Thats in a naval war.

It's going to be a naval and air war. To areas China cannot play in with the USAF/ROCAF and USN/ROCN.


What do you think it's going to do otherwise. It's not like US troops can patrol downtown Bejing like Iraq and try and get a couple billion people to bend over and just agree with what America wants. China always could point a few hundred of those missiles pointed at Taiwan offshore. If China did go to war with Taiwan I would be surprised if the US did much at all actually.

I have said this a hundred times if once.

The PLA can shine up all their tanks, check and re check the guns and then sit around and suck their thumbs because withot sea lift they can take no active part in the war. The USAF/USN would kill the PLAN right off and please don't think the PLAAF is large enough to first off lift divisions in a rapid fashion and second off lift divisions in the face of the ROCAF/USAF/USN-AF. They will suck their thumbs. The war is done as soon as China cannot move the PLA. They could draft until they have a billion men under arms it will not make a difference if they are shaking their fists in the direction of Taiwan because they cannot get there.


How many ships are protecting Taiwan now anyways?

As many as we need to. Remember moving carriers to protect Taiwan in the 1990s. The Pacific Fleet is the largest fleet in the USN which is the most powerful navy in the world.

Stuart Mackey
19 Apr 05,, 06:47
Yeah, did you read my response? As I am saying here it's not like the US can just go into downtown China and enforce them to not take pot shots here and there into Taiwan.

They dont have to. All the US has to do is sink their navy and cripple their missile forces in range of Taiwan, and sit back and laugh as China howls it its own impotence to do anything about it.



It's not like China doesn't have the technology to take out the targets it wants.

And its not like the US doesent have the ability to stop them, permanantly.

Enzo Ferrari
28 Apr 05,, 04:16
"I think you are really underestimating China here. The US has lost Vietnam war,"

I think you are bitter that Vietnamese are eating Big Mac and drink Coca Cola right now.

"never finished the Korean war,"

So far North Korea never "united" the South yet, doesn't she?

Hogzilla
28 Apr 05,, 05:24
Beijing’s message was clear: Australia had better not help the United States to defend Taiwan — or else.


:rolleyes: A whiff of what China's cooking.

Parihaka
29 Apr 05,, 10:50
"I find it remarkable that the Canadians called down fire on their own positions rather than retreat. Had they bought the land or something?"

I find it highly worthy of praise myself.
Agreed, just the boys to have covering your flank, it's just I always find heroism of this nature remarkable.

needy
16 May 05,, 05:41
Even if it did come down to a direct confrontation between the US army and the Chinese military (Korea is the one place I can see this happening), the Chinese would lose. Our tanks are vastly superior to theirs, and trench warfare does not work in the face of superior air power and armour. The US would never invade China, but completely cut it off from supply



We never lost in Korea, and we chose to withdraw from Vietnam. Korea was a stalemate, and we killed over a million Chinese in exchange for some 50000 American soldiers (and that was against the North K's as well). Your air defense forces are nothing compared to what we were prepared to go up against in Central Europe, and your army is nowhere near the calibre that the Soviet army was. We would cut China off from the rest of the world with our fleet, and then pound it into the ground with our airforce and navy. The only place China could come to grips with the US would be Korea, and China's supply lines would be torn apart by American airpower, and then US armour would take care of what was left. There is nothing in the Chinese tank inventory that can match the original M-1, much less the M-1A1 or the M-1A2. Today, China has no chance at even inflicting serious losses on the US, much less winning.

China will prevail by proposing the theory of "democratic peace" for the democracy in China is really ruled for the people, the majority, so this institution would no doubt enables the people in taiwan reunite with the mainland. No military action will be necessary. All you guys are talking about are nonsense. I am studying the oriental philosophy, believe me.

I found that the deeply-rooted philosophy of peaceful coexistence in oriental countries. Undoubtly, the oriental people, especially the Chinese people is the least favorite of war, or even conflict. If there are disputes to be resolved, they resolve it peacefully. You know Confucious? In his wok the Anallects, he said, "One shall not impose what he dislikes on others". That is the way the Chinese people settle their disputes. While we westerners try do do so in violence or fierece debate. I do believe that if all people in the world learn to torelant others and talk to others with different opinions, but not impose one's own opinions on the adversaries, especially by force, then this world would be a better place to be.

The core of democracy is to realize the majority's needs, but not some of them. And we should keep in mind that disputes can be solved by peaceful means, if the people hold the same belief. So the problem of democracy is not parties and partisans, but how the parties best serve the people. In our western society, the victory of one party or political coalition always mean that during their terms the interests of those who vote others are not well protected, let alone those ethnic minority groups like gypsys. So the democracical institution in China is that, while the CCP holds the major positions, it is willing to (and must) listen to parties in various fileds, like parties from the literities, the craftsmanships, the ethnic minorities, the religious groups, etc, in order to protect their interests. Once the proposals are accepted, it would be put into force in the form of law, regulations, etc. Therefore, the interests of all people are well-protected, and everyone living there can have a peace of mind without worrying the deprivation of their interests. Of course, not all things are perfect, but this institutin is the world's best.

I have been to China millions of times, and I see in my own eyes how the institution is practised. It is amazing, and just think how a country 3 times bigger in population than the U.S. is not divided as the recenty presidential-elections did, you all will understand.

-{SpoonmaN}-
16 May 05,, 06:46
The PRC isn't going to invade Taiwan unless the republic does something stupid like declare independence. If this happens the nationalistic fervour in China will probably get out of control and the government will have to gamble on taking Taiwan or losing their positions. It's really impossible to predict how this would work out because the PLA of today isn't going to resemble to PLA of tommorrow much, so their capability to take Taiwan is unknown. If China does indeed take Taiwan, my bet is that the US wouldn't be able to take it back without a monolithic war effort, so the conflict would probably settle into air strikes and Special Forces raids, while the US Navy attempts to isolate Taiwan to weaken the PLA there. My bet would be that the whole thing would be settled by an armistice, and that China would be bound to certain conditions on their governing of Taiwan, which would probably have to be kinda harsh at first, but mellow out later to try and convince the people there that mainland rule wouldn't be so bad. Nuclear weapons probably wouldn't be used because this would set off a chain reaction which would probably lead to the collapse of all nations involved in the conflict, if not the sterilisation of Earth. It would be really interesting to see how nations like Australia, Pakistan, Japan, North and South Korea, The Philipines, Thailand, Burma, Iran, the EU, Russia and the central Asian republics would react though. My bet is that both powers would be deserted by some allies.
However a real conflict is probably less likely in the near future than a continued stalemate. That's my bet anyway.

bull
16 May 05,, 06:55
The PRC isn't going to invade Taiwan unless the republic does something stupid like declare independence. If this happens the nationalistic fervour in China will probably get out of control and the government will have to gamble on taking Taiwan or losing their positions. It's really impossible to predict how this would work out because the PLA of today isn't going to resemble to PLA of tommorrow much, so their capability to take Taiwan is unknown. If China does indeed take Taiwan, my bet is that the US wouldn't be able to take it back without a monolithic war effort, so the conflict would probably settle into air strikes and Special Forces raids, while the US Navy attempts to isolate Taiwan to weaken the PLA there. My bet would be that the whole thing would be settled by an armistice, and that China would be bound to certain conditions on their governing of Taiwan, which would probably have to be kinda harsh at first, but mellow out later to try and convince the people there that mainland rule wouldn't be so bad. Nuclear weapons probably wouldn't be used because this would set off a chain reaction which would probably lead to the collapse of all nations involved in the conflict, if not the sterilisation of Earth. It would be really interesting to see how nations like Australia, Pakistan, Japan, North and South Korea, The Philipines, Thailand, Burma, Iran, the EU, Russia and the central Asian republics would react though. My bet is that both powers would be deserted by some allies.
However a real conflict is probably less likely in the near future than a continued stalemate. That's my bet anyway.

If PRC invades Taiwan then it will be at the cost of its own economic reform.

-{SpoonmaN}-
16 May 05,, 07:44
If PRC invades Taiwan then it will be at the cost of its own economic reform.

You might be right, but I'll bet that some of the PRC's larger trading partners would stay out of the conflict in order to keep their buissiness going. And I agree that the astronomical cost of the invasion is probably one of the biggest deterents to a PLA invasion of Taiwan, but there remains the possibility that the PRC could be backed into a corner where it's leaders have to decide between spending all of their money on an invasion or facing great nationalist unrest at home, and the possibility of more parts of China trying to make like Taiwan and break away. This is why one shouldn't leave an opponent with no way out unless you really can beat them.