Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread

[Edward Campbell]

You're still wrong, so I'll try to say this as clearly as I can.
...
1)   Historically, the island of Taiwan has NEVER been part of China.
...

I disagree.

Taiwan was an integral part of China from 1683 until the Treaty of Shimonoseki which ended the Sino-Japanese War of 1894.   At that time China ceded sovereignty over Taiwan to Japan.   China reasserted its sovereignty in 1945.

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

I think if you read what Ex-Dragoon said you'll notice he said selective conscription, which is an accurate discription of China's policy and effectively what you said. It's not a misuse of the word. If conscription is on the books (which it is) and they are selecting to only choose volunteers (which it "seems" they are largely doing publicly, at least) then they have selective conscription. Most conscription is selective, they just have different criteria. It is unusual for a military force to not enforce conscription laws, but when you have 13 million new military aged men a year, you can afford to be even more selective by signing up volunteers only. Now it does seem to be silly having a conscription law you don't need, but it's not the fault of any language barrier. It's the fault of a government that doesn't even follow it's own rules.

"Selecting to choose only volunteers" ... are you joking?  Ex-Dragoon gave an accurate description of their law: I am pointing-out that all of the information I've seen and heard shows that their policy does not reflect their law.  The United States still has Selective Service: does this mean that we can safely assume that their army is almost entirely conscripts?    Give me a break!

I'm trying to stay away from the semantic argument: does anyone have any information (other than a law that does not appear to be enforced) to support the notion that the PLA is almost entirely conscripts?  I don't know when they stopped actively conscripting soldiers (I would guess mid-80's), so I don't know if the statement is accurate.  OTOH, I would think some conscript armies (the IDF comes to mind) compare quite favourably man-for-man against 'decent' all-volunteer forces, anyway.

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

Oh boy, this is not good:

2005-03-17 13:54    * RUSSIA * CHINA * EXERCISES *

CHINA TRYING TO USE RUSSIAN ARMY FOR ITS OWN PURPOSES

MOSCOW, March 17. (RIA Novosti)-Yesterday, Chief of the Russian General Staff Yury Baluyevsky left for China to settle a scandal over the first Russian-Chinese military exercise, Commonwealth-2005, which is due to be held this fall off the Yellow Sea coast, writes Kommersant.

The initial plans were to practice operational teamwork in combating terrorism during the exercise. However, Beijing, skillfully changing the format of the exercise, has tried to re-orient the two countries' armies to practicing an invasion of Taiwan.

The choice of where the exercise will take place became a stumbling block. The Russian military selected the Xinjiang-Uigur autonomous region, basing their choice on the area's problematic nature due to Uigur separatists and its proximity to Central Asia, which has become an arena in the fight against international terrorism. However, Beijing flatly rejected the proposal. Instead, it suggested the Zhejiang province near Taiwan.

A joint exercise in this area would look too provocative and trigger a strong reaction not only from Taiwan but also America and Japan, which recently included the island in the zone of their common strategic interests.

Beijing is trying to use Russia as an additional lever of pressure on the disobedient island to show it that its policy is also causing dissatisfaction in Russia, from which the Taiwanese are expecting assistance in their dialogue with Beijing and bid to join the WTO and the UN.

On the Russian military's insistence, the exercise was shifted north to the Shangdong peninsula. However, the Chinese are trying to change the format of the exercise with proposals to enlarge the contingents with Marines and Pacific Fleet warships. Marine landings to seize the area will be practiced during the "antiterrorist" exercise.

Russia's agreement to hold the exercise will inevitably cause a furor in America, Japan and Taiwan. But a refusal will spoil relations with China, which three months ago courteously agreed to Russia's proposal to hold an exercise.


http://en.rian.ru/rian/index.cfm?prd_id=160&msg_id=5465430&startrow=1&date=2005-03-17&do_alert=0



Maybe interesting to point-out the significance of Nixon's role in perpetuating Sino-Soviet conflict ... also came-across a statistic that said there was +/- 500,000 'fierce patriotic' Taiwanese (ex-military) businessmen in Shanghai which would affect any war ...

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

I disagree.

Taiwan was an integral part of China from 1683 until the Treaty of Shimonoseki which ended the Sino-Japanese War of 1894.   At that time China ceded sovereignty over Taiwan to Japan.   China reasserted its sovereignty in 1945.

Excellent historical breakdown found here....which makes both our previous statements appear overreaching:   http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/History-of-Taiwan




Matthew.    

 

[Edward Campbell]

Excellent historical breakdown found here....which makes both our previous statements appear overreaching:   http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/History-of-Taiwan

Matthew.    

Sorry, I don't quite understand.  I'm not trying to be argumentative, but:

I said: "Taiwan was an integral part of China from 1683 until the Treaty of Shimonoseki which ended the Sino-Japanese War of 1894."

The refernce you provide said:

From 1683 the Qing Dynasty ruled Taiwan as a prefecture and in 1875 divided the island into two prefectures, north and south. In 1887 the island was made into a separate Chinese province ... As settlement for losing the Sino-Japanese War, Imperial China ceded the entire island of Taiwan to Japan in 1895.

I said: "China reasserted its sovereignty in 1945."

The reference you cited said:

From 1895, when Taiwan was ceded to Japan, to 1945, when it was returned to Chinese administration ...

How was I "overreaching"?

You said, earlier (your emphasis) "Historically, the island of Taiwan has NEVER been part of China."

Both I and the refernce you cited say you were wrong.

 

[Dare]

"Selecting to choose only volunteers" ... are you joking?  Ex-Dragoon gave an accurate description of their law: I am pointing-out that all of the information I've seen and heard shows that their policy does not reflect their law.  The United States still has Selective Service: does this mean that we can safely assume that their army is almost entirely conscripts?    Give me a break!

I'm trying to stay away from the semantic argument: does anyone have any information (other than a law that does not appear to be enforced) to support the notion that the PLA is almost entirely conscripts?  I don't know when they stopped actively conscripting soldiers (I would guess mid-80's), so I don't know if the statement is accurate.  OTOH, I would think some conscript armies (the IDF comes to mind) compare quite favourably man-for-man against 'decent' all-volunteer forces, anyway.

Sorry, I was not trying to defend the idea that all of China's army is conscripts. I don't believe that.

 

[Dare]

You're still wrong, so I'll try to say this as clearly as I can.

1)  Historically, the island of Taiwan has NEVER been part of China.
2)  Chiang Kai-Shek when he occupied and independent Taiwan created the name "Republic of China" in the hopes it would grant him the legitimacy he would need to one day be able to retake the mainland, ergo the name.
3)  The fact that Chiang Kai Shek (an authoritarian) one day made a claim on the mainland and used the name "Republic of China" to legitimize that claim has nothing to do with a reverse claim by the mainland on the island which is complete fraud.

....and if you cannot get that through your head, MENSA wouldn't want you.

M. 

I suggest you read that encyclopedia entry you quoted in your other message a little more closely. You make Chiang Kai Shek's "claim" seem like he's just one guy rather than a very large movement. The Republic of China was considered the legitimate "China" in the United Nations for a time as well. It in fact was a founding member.

Edited for bad spelling.  ;D

 

[Dare]

Oh boy, this is not good:

2005-03-17 13:54    * RUSSIA * CHINA * EXERCISES *

CHINA TRYING TO USE RUSSIAN ARMY FOR ITS OWN PURPOSES

MOSCOW, March 17. (RIA Novosti)-Yesterday, Chief of the Russian General Staff Yury Baluyevsky left for China to settle a scandal over the first Russian-Chinese military exercise, Commonwealth-2005, which is due to be held this fall off the Yellow Sea coast, writes Kommersant.

The initial plans were to practice operational teamwork in combating terrorism during the exercise. However, Beijing, skillfully changing the format of the exercise, has tried to re-orient the two countries' armies to practicing an invasion of Taiwan.

The choice of where the exercise will take place became a stumbling block. The Russian military selected the Xinjiang-Uigur autonomous region, basing their choice on the area's problematic nature due to Uigur separatists and its proximity to Central Asia, which has become an arena in the fight against international terrorism. However, Beijing flatly rejected the proposal. Instead, it suggested the Zhejiang province near Taiwan.

A joint exercise in this area would look too provocative and trigger a strong reaction not only from Taiwan but also America and Japan, which recently included the island in the zone of their common strategic interests.

Beijing is trying to use Russia as an additional lever of pressure on the disobedient island to show it that its policy is also causing dissatisfaction in Russia, from which the Taiwanese are expecting assistance in their dialogue with Beijing and bid to join the WTO and the UN.

On the Russian military's insistence, the exercise was shifted north to the Shangdong peninsula. However, the Chinese are trying to change the format of the exercise with proposals to enlarge the contingents with Marines and Pacific Fleet warships. Marine landings to seize the area will be practiced during the "antiterrorist" exercise.

Russia's agreement to hold the exercise will inevitably cause a furor in America, Japan and Taiwan. But a refusal will spoil relations with China, which three months ago courteously agreed to Russia's proposal to hold an exercise.


http://en.rian.ru/rian/index.cfm?prd_id=160&msg_id=5465430&startrow=1&date=2005-03-17&do_alert=0



Maybe interesting to point-out the significance of Nixon's role in perpetuating Sino-Soviet conflict ... also came-across a statistic that said there was +/- 500,000 'fierce patriotic' Taiwanese (ex-military) businessmen in Shanghai which would affect any war ...

Certainly a concern, this should be as well:
US perspective: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/3/18/82202.shtml
British perspective: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3512088.stm
Chinese perspective: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-03/16/content_315366.htm

 

[TCBF]

"would think some conscript armies (the IDF comes to mind) compare quite favourably man-for-man against 'decent' all-volunteer forces, anyway."

With a conscript Army, you get to pick and choose your recruits in a tight "Man Market".  All things being equal, a conscript army CAN get a more stable and intelligent cohort than a volunteer force that relies on only what walks in the door.

Bear in mind, the Officers and long service NCOs will be professional volunteers in any case, so the determinant factor is the quality of the officer and NCO corps, not the conscript/volunteer ratio.  All things being equal. 

We have a hard time seeing this in Canada, what with "The myth of the Canadian volunteer" clouding the arguments.

Tom

 

[Torlyn]

Here's an idea!  Let's stop with the semantics, agree to interpret things differently, and return to topic?  I would have thought that the joint exercises between Russia and China would have illicited much more of a response...

T

 

[a_majoor]

Interesting what you might end up reading in Mandrin:

http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/200532120.asp

Chinese Bureaucrats Getting Blogged to Death
by James Dunnigan
March 21, 2005

It's estimated that about a million Chinese are now running blogs (web logs.) This, for Chinese security officials, is worse than chat rooms and bulletin boards. The bloggers have quickly become quite good at saying what the government doesn't want said, but doing it in a way to deceive the software tools the government uses to watch for such misbehavior. Most of the blogs do not cover political issues, but the ones that do are saying things the government doesn't want Chinese people to see. The most worrisome blogging covers government corruption, which officials would rather keep in the shadows while they try to deal with it. Tales of corruption in the military are particularly embarrassing, because the government is stressing the growing power of the Chinese armed forces.

 

[a_majoor]

An interesting look at an alternative strategy:

http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/200532323.asp

The Weapon China Fears the Most
by James Dunnigan
March 23, 2005

The US trade deficit (the value of goods bought from China versus what was sold to them) reached $162 billion. That amount accounts for over twenty percent of China's GDP (total economic activity.) This has serious military implications. If China goes to war with the United States, the first impact would not be bombs, but an end to exports to the United States. Putting over a hundred million Chinese out of work would have a larger impact than any bombing campaign. Taiwanese companies also control over $50 billion of economic activity in China. Taking Taiwan, in one piece, would add about ten percent to China's GDP. But the loss of American markets would be far greater.

To put it in perspective, the job losses alone would be the same as putting 1/2 the entire population of the United States out of work. You could say there would be a comparable loss of economic activity in the United States and North America in general, but would losing the toys in our happy meals really be such an economic imposition?

But, history demonstrates that rationality is often not the motivating factor for many nations (via Instapundit

This will deter the Chinese, if they're rational.

UPDATE: Jim Bennett emails: True. plus, the more foreign oil they import, the more vulnerable they would be to the US Navy cutting off their supplies. Worked wonders on Japan in WWII. Of course, they said all of this about Germany before WWI." Yes, that's the problem with the rational-actor assumption.

 

[WATCHDOG-81]

Strategically, a conflict between the United States and China would be to no ones benefit.  Given the fact that the US has become a debtor empire, a substantial and rising share of foreign holdings of American bonds are in fact in the hands of East Asian Central banks, which have been buying up dollar assets in order to keep their own currencies from appreciating against the dollar.  Since April 2002, the central banks of China alone have bought 96 Billion dollars of U.S. government securities.  The strategic implications of this is the fact that for the U.S to remain economically stable - to be precise, for its ability to finance federal borrowing at around 4% per annum, the U.S is reliant on the central banks of China.  In much the same way that a creditor has leverage over a debtor, if China were to sell of a few Billion in U.S. bonds, this would apply pressure on the dollar and on U.S. interest rates.  Of course, this would have serious implications for China in regards to its exports, however, it goes to show just how interconnected we all are.

 

[a_majoor]

The Washington Times
www.washingtontimes.com

China, U.S. interests conflict
By Barton W. Marcois and Leland R. Miller
Published March 25, 2005

Lost amid the responses to President Bush's 2005 State of the Union speech was that of China's phlegmatic Foreign Ministry spokesman Kong Quan. Twice asked by a reporter whether China shared the president's hope that democracy would take root in the Middle East, Mr. Kong artfully evaded the question, merely hinting that the issue was not on China's agenda.

In fact, China's agenda is so different that it threatens to seriously undermine American initiatives in the Middle East.

The United States and China have never seen eye-to-eye in the region, but the reasons for this have evolved over time. China's diplomacy in the Middle East began in the 1950s as an ideologicalcrusade in support of socialist Arab leaders such as Egypt's Gamal Abdel Nasser, but by the 1970s its focus had shifted to weapon sales. By the 1990s, China was actively supplying ballistic missiles to Syria, missile technology to Libya, and sensitive missile and nuclear technology to Iran and Iraq.

In the new millennium, China's Middle Eastern strategy has shifted again, from part-time arms salesman to outright energy diplomacy. Under China's current Five-Year Plan, which publicly introduced the concept of energy security, China unveiled its "Twenty-first Century Oil Strategy" in February 2003. While this $100 billion program has a variety of domestic components, priority one is the securing of new energy sources abroad.

The urgency of this mission can hardly be overstated. Since 2000, China has accounted for nearly 40 percent of the growth in world oil demand and is now the world's No. 2 oil importer. Experts predict the Chinese demand for crude will increase annually by 12 percent until 2020 and by 2025 China's daily imports will exceed that of the entire continent of Europe. To avert this growing crisis, China is undertaking major efforts to expand its energy relationships in Central Asia, Latin America and Africa.

Yet here is where the conventional wisdom collides with the present reality. Many scholars have simply accepted that China wants to lessen its dependence on the volatile Middle East and the long, vulnerable supply lines through the Indonesian archipelago. All true. But what is actually happening right now is that China's dependence on the Middle East is increasing, not just in absolute terms but as a percentage of its oil imports. Five of its top six oil suppliers (Saudi Arabia, Iran, Oman, Yemen, and Sudan) are located in the Middle East, a region that now provides more than 60 percent of China's total crude imports. This figure may rise to 70 to 80 percent over the coming decade.

On first glance, this may seem surprising. How can China hope to compete in the crowded Middle East with other oil-hungry nations, particularly the United States?

The answer is that China plays by a different set of rules. As China's support for the rogue regimes in Iran and Sudan has made clear, moral constraints and human-rights considerations are not pillars of Beijing's foreign-policy calculus. While Tehran threatens to go nuclear and Khartoum continues its genocide in Darfur, Beijing has used its clout (and U.N. veto) to shield these regimes from international sanctions. In return, it receives entree into two important energy markets.

Furthermore, unlike private Western oil companies who are beholden to shareholders and profit margins, Chinese state-owned oil-traders have been given the mandate to secure long-term energy relationships by offering hugely discounted rates, production-sharing arrangements and technical know-how. The fact that China has overpaid for recent ventures in Oman, Sudan and elsewhere is telling. Rather than investing in money-makers, China is buying footholds throughout the Middle East.

These footholds are popping up everywhere. While China's relations with Saudia Arabia and Iran have received the most press, its dealings in countries such as Oman and Sudan are even more extraordinary. In Sudan, China is the single largest shareholder of an oil company consortium that dominates Sudan's oil industry and the chief investor in the country's largest pipeline. In Oman, a phenomenal 85 percent of the country's oil exports is currently earmarked for Beijing.

China is also ensconced elsewhere: In 2004, China inaugurated its first joint oil venture with Syria, made major inroads into Yemen, and expanded its presence in Egypt, Libya and Algeria. To safeguard these assets, China is constructing a massive harbor for oil tankers in Gwadar, Pakistan, at the tip of the Persian Gulf. This will allow it a permanent naval presence in the Arabian Sea.

From these developments, two observations can be made: First, China is now a major regional player â ” and one that clearly does not share the American vision of a free and democratic Middle East. Second, China's Middle East agenda is quickly shaping up to be a direct challenge to that of the United States'. In addition to remaining a strategic competitor for resources, China's leverage may become increasingly dependent on its ability to undercut U.S. initiatives.

If China has indeed adopted the role of spoiler, as its recent actions in Iran and Sudan seem to indicate, then Chinese intransigence â ” not Islamic extremism â ” may prove to be the X factor in the 21st century Middle East.
   
    Barton W. Marcois, a principal at RJI Capital Corp., served as principal deputy assistant secretary of Energy under President Bush. Leland R. Miller, a China specialist, is a lawyer in New York.

 

[JBP]

This clearly shows the intent of Taiwan and what it's people want. I suppose they might be willing to muster an army of about 1 million also? I damn well hope so!!! Freedom seems to always be attained through bloodshed, maybe it's thier turn?  :-


Taiwanese hold massive protest against China
One million march against law authorizing attack on islandThe Associated Press
Updated: 6:24 a.m. ET March 26, 2005TAIPEI, Taiwan - About a million Taiwanese marched through the capital on Saturday at a rally protesting a new Chinese law that authorizes an attack on the island if it moves toward formal independence.

advertisement

Hundreds of thousands assembled at 10 different areas in Taipei, with each route representing one of the articles of the anti-secession law. The marchers converged on the wide boulevard in front of the Presidential Office building.

"China is a violent country. We want nothing to do with it,â ? said protester Wu Chao-hsiung, a carpenter from Taipei. "We have to insist on the freedom to determine our own fate.â ?

Beijing is worried that self-ruled Taiwan is drifting toward independence, and China's legislature recently passed a law codifying the use of military force against Taiwan if it seeks a permanent split. A civil war split the rivals 56 years ago.

"What do we want from China? Peace,â ? lawmaker Bikhim Hsiao led the crowd in chanting.

Thousands of tour buses brought protesters to Taipei from all over the island. Police estimated the crowd at about a million.

Organizers billed the protest as a carnival for peace. A five-story-high white balloon representing peace, and an equally tall model of a red sea urchin, its needles symbolizing the missiles China is pointing at Taiwan, were erected at the protest site. The sea urchin model was deflated at the end of the rally, while protesters climbed over it, trying to tear it apart.

"Taiwan is only a small island, so we must speak out really loud to make the world hear that we are a democracy facing an evil giant,â ? said Vivian Wang, a 38-year-old restaurant worker. She had traveled by bus from the southern city of Kaohsiung - about 190 miles away.

Behind her, U.S. and Japanese flags were flying below a green protest banner. Many Taiwanese see those two countries as the island's most likely allies in any military conflict with China.

© 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Behind her, U.S. and Japanese flags were flying below a green protest banner.

...right there the Chinese "govt" would be fuming......

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Sorry for the slow response, but I had to take care of a family funeral....

RE:   "Reaching"?

Your use of the term "Integral":  

On the eve of the Sino-Japanese War about 45 percent of the island was administered under standard Chinese administration while the remaining lightly populated regions of the interior were under Aboriginal control. Only eight years after Taiwan became a province of Qing, Taiwan was ceded to Japan.

The fact they gave up their claims on the island:

As settlement for losing the Sino-Japanese War, Imperial China ceded the entire island of Taiwan to Japan in 1895.

Lastly, I find it absurd that historical colonization by royalty-based empires somehow trumps the right of self-determination.  




Matthew.      

 

[Edward Campbell]

I'm sorry for your loss.

I guess I'm still a wee bit confused.

Here was the original exchange:
------------

You're still wrong, so I'll try to say this as clearly as I can ...

1)   Historically, the island of Taiwan has NEVER been part of China ...

I disagree.

Taiwan was an integral part of China from 1683 until the Treaty of Shimonoseki which ended the Sino-Japanese War of 1894.   At that time China ceded sovereignty over Taiwan to Japan.   China reasserted its sovereignty in 1945.
----------

I don't want to belabour the exact meaning of integral (of a whole) but since Taiwan was â “ for about 200 years, part of the whole of China then, as I understand the language, it was integral â “ but I'm sure that my English is deficient.

More to the point: I understand your view that China's imperial reach should not give credence to any modern day claim.   The problem is that the Chinese do not see it that way.   Many, I will venture to say most Chinese people believe that everything which ever was China's must always be China's â “ it is an extension of the idea that each dynasty (including the modern, communistic oligarchy) has (even today, in the 21st century) a mandate from 'heaven' to rule all under heaven.   This may be 2,500 year old stuff but it resonates, today.   The Maoists did not do much to tamper with the Han people's well established sense of their place in the world â “ in the middle between 'heaven' and barbarian chaos.

This Chinese cultural attribute complicates life for everyone, including the Chinese in Taiwan and the folks in Kyrgyzstan, who are seen, by many Han Chinese, as members of an important Chinese minority.   That is one of the reasons why there is so little public comment by Chinese commentators against China's claims to Taiwan â “ most Chinese believe it is a valid claim.

The ongoing visit of Taiwanese opposition Kuomintang officials is another complication   because it reaffirms Chiang Kai-shek's original view (shared by many Taiwanese) that Taiwan was, then and now, and integral part of China.

I agree that China's claim to Taiwan flies in the face of all of our liberal-democratic values.   I am less sure that we â “ in the entire American led West â “ are willing to go to war with China over Taiwan.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Historically, the island of Taiwan has NEVER been part of China ...

My bad....I thought I wrote a retraction in the last post.   My statement was factually 100% wrong....

I had made the mistake of reading one source on Taiwan's chronology and it happened to be a pro-Taiwanese Independence site.




M.    :-[

P.S.   Thank you for the kind thoughts regarding my grandmother.

 

[Edward Campbell]

No problem, Matthew.   I think the reason I was a bit confused was that it is not like you to try to ride a dead horse (or whatever the correct aphorism might be).

Welcome back to the fray.