China and Taiwan: Attack, attack, attack!

How many stories can come out in one week about the possibility of China invading Taiwan? It seems like they’re everywhere. Every possible scenario has been described and every opinion expressed.

So, at the risk of boring everyone, I’ll cite the latest from the Straits Times, an opinion piece that suggests the US is consciously and irresponsibly fanning the flames of war. It’s by David Lampton, director of China Studies at Johns Hopkins University and he things Bush is so preoccupied with Iraq he’s letting his policy toward Taiwan and China zigzag and contradict itself.

In its late May ‘Report to Congress on PRC Military Power’, the DoD [Defense Department] seemingly endorses the view that the island should present ‘credible threats to China’s urban population or high-value targets, such as the Three Gorges Dam’, to deter Chinese military coercion against the island. At another point, the report says: ‘Asymmetric capabilities that Taiwan possesses or is acquiring could deter a Chinese attack by making it unacceptably costly.’

Offensive deterrence is a terrible idea for Taiwan. Were Taipei to launch such an attack on the mainland it almost assuredly would lead to the destruction of the island as we know it. Moreover, this approach is entirely inconsistent with the rest of the Bush administration’s effort to de-escalate cross-Strait tensions….

Beyond Pentagon encouragement, why is Taiwan moving in such a dangerous direction? It is doing so because China is building the capacity to deliver a quick military stroke to the island before the US could respond effectively; Taiwan’s land army still inappropriately dominates the island’s defence in a naval, air force and missile age; its military services are poorly coordinated with one another; and its citizens and leaders do not wish to spend the necessary resources on their own defence, while at the same time they refuse to accept Beijing’s ‘one-China principle’ as a basis for negotiation.

In short, those advocating offensive deterrence are seeking the cheap way to seem to be doing something while avoiding making hard budgetary or political decisions. They jeopardise the island’s survival and increase the odds of conflict that could embroil America. Indeed, in moving in offensive directions, Taipei could well provide Beijing a pretext for preemption.

As you can probably see, Lampton is pretty outspoken. He sees the Defense Department policy as out of control, and Bush unable to rein it in — a recipe that might make war more likely. I’d say he has a good point.

The Discussion: 23 Comments

I disagree with Lampton about developing Taiwan’s offensive capabilities. He’s worried that it’ll bring all-out destruction, but the PLA is going to bring it no matter whether the ROC army strikes Pudong or just concentrates on repelling the amphibious units landing on their shores. The PLA cannot afford a protracted battle, so if they attack, it’s not going to be half-assed.

The only way Taiwan avoids complete destruction is if the PLA makes a surprise lightning strike and the ROC surrenders before a US aircraft carrier could even leave port. My own gut feeling is that the Taiwanese would indeed roll up the white flags as soon as any actual fighting breaks out, but I still doubt that the PLA could reasonably get their forces ready for a surprise attack without it showing up on US spy satellites.

But I wholeheartedly agree with him when he says that the Taiwanese are living in a fantasy world. None of the politicians and few of the people here are willing to face up to the serious costs and preparations that are necessary if they don’t want to live under One China.

July 22, 2004 @ 8:47 pm | Comment

Richard,

I don’t know if you’ve had a chance to read the white-paper I linked to in the post: “Some Hard Truths on Potential War Across the Taiwan Strait.” It is the most difinitive piece I’ve yet read on the military aspects of a cross-Strait war. It is from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

It is eye-opening. It is also long. But it can be downloaded in PDF quickly. Please read it and link to it if you find it as revealing as I did.

All the best,

Joseph

July 22, 2004 @ 9:10 pm | Comment

Wayne, those 500-plus missiles in Fujian are there precisely to start the surprise attack before anybody sees any preparation, and China’s adding more and more of them. Makes perfect sense, really, and considering Taiwan’s recent show of Mirages landing and taking off from a highway, they realise it: Take out Taiwan’s defence infrastructure before anybody anywhere can respond, and Taiwan is China’s for the taking.

July 22, 2004 @ 9:28 pm | Comment

500 missiles, or even 10 times that number, are a pure terror weapon. I doubt very much that many (any) of them have sufficient accuracy to do anything more than fall in the general direction of their target. The chances of them being capable of closing a port? Small. The chances of them being capable of closing an airfield? Quite good, but only if quite a few were assigned to each target. The number of missiles might sound a lot, but in reality it’s far too few. The idea that this kind of bombardment would render Taiwan incapable of defending themselves against an invasion is militarily insane … which makes me think that it isn’t intended as a military weapon at all, but rather, as some have suggested, as a means of getting the Taiwanese to roll over without a real fight. I think it’s probably right that a lot of Taiwanese are living in a fantasy world, but that would disappear the moment the bombs started falling, and frankly I think their reaction would be “fight to the last man” rather than capitulate to China, knowing full well what it would mean.

As for blaming it all on Bush and USA? What a load of total ****. The last thing the US wants is a conflict like that … it would be a nightmare any which way you look at it. The US is continuing to play the only game in town (and it’s nothing new under Bush) … try to be as vague as you can about what you’d actually do … try to make China think you’d fight for Taiwan if they attacked it and that the price would be too high, and try to make Taiwan think that it would be too risky to provoke China too much in case US support wasn’t forthcoming. US policy is clearly aimed at trying to keep the two parties from getting into a nasty conflict which would then drag the US in. Beijing and Taipei are filled with enough people hell-bent on confrontation to make it laughable to suggest that the US is behind it all.

Final point: virtually every attack I’ve heard on the idea of Taiwan planning for offensive operations against China has totally missed the point of the original policy advice. No one suggested that Taiwan should attack China first. The “offensive strike” option is: “you attack me, I’ll hit you back”. It’s aimed at precisely the US policy I mentioned above … to convince Beijing that the price of starting a conflict would be too high. And frankly, I don’t know why everyone is wetting their pants about it now … I’ve assumed all along that in the event of China attempting an invasion of Taiwan that the Taiwanese would strike as hard as they could against every mainland target within range, and most especially every port capable of launching a troop ship. This isn’t insanity … it’s the only strategy Taiwan could adopt if they hoped to successfully defend their island. Now I don’t assume for a moment that ROC and PRC lack capable generals. Both sides must have come to the same conclusion. So I think the only purpose of the US memo was as a cautionary statement to China, to “cool it”.

July 22, 2004 @ 9:55 pm | Comment

In response to Filthy Stinking No. 9. I think you should alter your “fight to the last man” statement to “fight to the last American G.I.”. It is reasonable to assume that the PRC will not strike Taiwan unless independence is declared. The statuos quo as it stands now is just as preferrable for the PRC as it is for the U.S. The PRC can continue its development in peace, and can rattle a sabre at Taiwan every now and then to rally its citizens. The U.S. has just as much invested in the economic developement of the mainland and would certainly not want to start up another military endeavour so soon after Iraq. The problem is, one which I have reiterated often, is that U.S. policy vis-a-vis China and Taiwan is just too ambiguous for comfort. The DPP (and I suppose I should include the TSU)however do not appear to be satisified with their de-facto independence but rather are willing to risk it and pushing two other major nations possibly to war over a name. The whole agenda of the Taidu crowd is this, declared independence and hope to God that the U.S. intervenes quickly enough. They have no other plan besides this, they know that without the manna of U.S. intervention hanging over their heads, they wouldn’t be able to bait Beijing as far as they have already. It is this near fatalistic belief in an uncertain factor that gives the DPP the cajones. Indeed the current U.S. Taiwan policy cannot stand forever, and it would be better for it to be distinct rather than nebulous. As I’ve proposed already, a clear Taiwan policy should b e hammered out that would be a unilateral pledge to defend Taiwan in the face of PRC aggression hedged in by the very BIG exemption that if Taiwan were to declare independence first, no such aid will be given.

July 23, 2004 @ 12:42 am | Comment

I don’t see how the US can be claimed to be destabalizing the situation. It’s not as if they’re proposing to sell these offensive weapons to Taiwan – they’re simply analyzing how Taiwan should defend itself. It can also be seen as a warning to China on the possible consequences of war.

As for Taiwan, while I can see arguments for and against an ‘offensive defense’, they would be insane not to at least be considering all the possibilities.

I also find it a bit odd that whenever Taiwan or the US say something mild (e.g. the US saying Taiwan should consider how to defend itself, or Taiwan saying they’re a bit upset about all the missiles pointing at them), then there are accusations of dangerous brinkmanship destabilizing the situation, but when the one country that might actually start a war installs another hundred missiles, or calls the other side ‘the scum of the earth’ there is little or no reaction.

July 23, 2004 @ 12:46 am | Comment

Jing – I think you mischaracterise the mainstream opinion in Taiwan. Apart from a few extremists, there is no talk of a ‘declaration of independence’ – and so a clearcut US policy around this is pointless.

What there is talk about is a series of smaller steps (e.g. changing the constitution, changing the name of the country) – whether you consider this a ‘declaration of independence’ depends on your viewpoint.

Also, the vagueness of the US position also acts as some sort of brake on Taiwans movement away from China … if the US set out clear terms as to when Taiwan could rely on US intervention, then Taiwan would immediately do everything they could within this limitation.

Personally, I think the US policy is pretty reasonable – try to get everyone talking, while making it clear that an unprovoked attack will not be tolerated. Definition of ‘unprovoked’ left up to the US administration …

July 23, 2004 @ 12:55 am | Comment

“Strategic ambiguity” causes both sides to pause and hesitate before they do anything too rash … any clear statement of US intentions would just invite people to walk even closer to the line they are already.

July 23, 2004 @ 1:07 am | Comment

The whole argument is based on the premise that mainland China has a sinister intention to attack Taiwan.

Why would she? China is just building up her economy through trade, and beginning to enjoy these fruits, small and limited as they may be at this stage. She sees the potential for going beyond what she is currently capable of.

In recent times, she has made a more lasting peace with India, by settling outstanding border problems with her equally big neighbour. The former PM of India even spoke glowingly of the pragmatic Chinese leadership.

She has reached an accomodation with the littoral States of the South China Sea over some disputed islands.

She is looked at by the US, Japan and South Korea as a principal, and perhaps key player in stabilizing the Korean Peninsula and keeping a leash on the loose cannonball there. Her diplomatic and trade relations with S Korea is excellent.

In general the PRC has gone out of her way to make friends with the States of the region. She wants trade, friends, and respect. The US and Japan are her biggest trading partners. Does she want to upset them?

Is this the bellicose nation that some right wing organizations or the DPP have been, and would like to continue painting her as?

The consequence of a war would be devastating for her plans for the development of the nation. She will face economic ruin and political/diplomatic ostracization, as she once was.

If she rattles her sabre occasionally, it’s just for the effect rather than a signal of her intentions, as a reminder to the people across the Straits not to get big ideas and embarrass her (to lose face).

The best weapon that the US can supply Taiwan is a strong paper clip for President Chen’s lips. Chen is deliberately pushing the issue to the edge, and trying to set the agenda for an US involvement. He is playing an extremely dangerous game, and some people in the US DoD are abetting him for their own agenda, naturally.

He should get on with the task of making Taiwan a more prosperous and more democratic country without raising the independence issue – in other words, play the game of ‘One China’ like the KMT party, while organizing the continuing prosperity of his countrymen. The PRC will be more than happy to accommodate this status quo.

Only crazy people, or those with ulterior motives, would want to hand the hands of Ares.

July 23, 2004 @ 3:03 am | Comment

typo in last sentence – should be:

….. want to hold the hands of Ares.

July 23, 2004 @ 3:06 am | Comment

Richard:

Blame the US (or, to be more accurate, blame Bush). Good Lord. If war breaks out between Taiwan and China you can rest assured, the party who shoots first is not going to be the United States.

If China attacks Taiwan, which is the only way that a war will commence, now pay close attention here, it will be China’s fault. Those who start a war are responsible for the war.

If Taiwan declares independance and China responds by attacking Taiwan, it’s China’s fault.

If China kills Taiwanese, on whatever pretext, it’s China’s goddam responsibility. Not Taiwanss and damned sure not the United States.

July 23, 2004 @ 4:33 am | Comment

Jacky … are you insane? I mean really? You ask why people think China might attack Taiwan? And then you discount out of hand the way China keeps saying repeatedly that they’re ready to attack at a moment’s notice, if the other side doesn’t do what they’re told? And at the same time continues a military buildup aimed at giving China better capability to match deeds to threats? And then you ask why anyone should believe the plain words China uses? Come on … !!!

July 23, 2004 @ 6:26 am | Comment

Conrad, how is it China’s fault if it responds to an independence declaration by Taiwan. It will be Taiwan who has breached the status quo. Taiwan who has purposefully given the PLA the pretext to attack, Taiwan who has put its de facto autonomy at risk. All for what? The change of a name from the Republic of China to the Republic of Taiwan and possible admitance into the U.N. (an organization you despise no less).

July 23, 2004 @ 1:08 pm | Comment

Conrad, the writer is a conservative Republican and he’s certainly not saying the entire mess is Bush’s fault. He is saying, however, that the way the Defense Department has handled things has been irresponsible or at least perplexing, and I have to agree with that. He’s also saying Bush has so many other things to worry about (i.e., Iraq) that he hasn’t held things in check, so it’s hard to say where the US actually stands.

I found one commenter’s theory that this is an intentional ploy on the part of the US to be quite interesting. I’m just not convinced our government — especially under bush — has the finesse and creativity to pull off something so innovative and complex. I think it’s more a case of the left hand having no idea what the right hand’s doing.

July 23, 2004 @ 1:33 pm | Comment

Filthy,

With your response (not entirely unpredicted) I cannot help but say, I rest my case.

Let us face it – there are actually people who love to have China attack Taiwan, and then for war to occur where the US would then be forced to intervene, etc. I have just visited a site (through another site recommended by Richard) called American Digest (or something sounding like so) where I found the American cousins of Attila the Hun.

Firstly, to answer your queries on China rattling her sabre, you obviously haven’t examined my posting – I did suggest (admittedly only my opinion) that China would prefer to leave things as they are, but would occasionally bluster and threaten Taiwan as a reminder for her people not to listen to Chen’s “secession” intentions. [quotation marks on ‘secession’ to emphasize that the word is from the PRC’s point of view, but also accepted by the US in her recognition and regular affirmation of the ‘One China’ policy]

Call it if you like, a poker bluff where of course continuously upping the ante may take it beyond a limit, that would bring about the undesired but nasty consequence. The art of brinksmanship is actively pursued by Chen as he seeks a larger role for Taiwan beyond its current diplomatic isolation.

Is China’s military build up abnormal and a definite indication of direct threat to Taiwan? What does one mean by ‘build up’? Modernization of weapons to replace archaic ones? Equipping an under-equipped military in step with her improved economy and updated or revised doctrine? (human wave attack are rather out of fashion these days).

What about other countrys’ military buildup? Do they too indicate warlike intentions against a SPECIFIC target? Does the development of aircraft like the F-22, J-35, Ospreys, new air tankers, super aircraft carriers, super drones like the Predators, naval stealth cruisers and destroyers, space based weaponry, tactical nuclear devices, a revamped and richly equipped Special Forces (Rumsfeld’s blue-eyed boys nowadays) fall into this sinister category?

The PRC, through her size and economic potential, is a luscious fruit lusted by the merchants of the West and Japan – the old “if we can sell a bottle of oil to each and every Chinaman”. She knows that she can use this enticement to isolate Taiwan diplomatically – the belligerent alternative is crude, unnecessarily expensive (ask Gen Myers re the recent US revised budget for its ops in Afghanistan and Iraq) and competely counter-productive.

To dice with war against a militarily superior US bespeaks an idiocy that is not representative of the current Chinese leadership as they seek international recognition for China’s “rightful” position among the world’s community. [quotation marks on ‘righful’ to emphasize that the word is from the PRC’s point of view, though in this case, shared by many countries]. Then there is the factor of mutual benefits of trade.

This is not to say that the undesired war won’t happen, but that has to be the ultimate/final resort where provocation has reached such a degree that commonsense had by then retreated into the murky background.

Chen is pushing the issue, just a tad too vigorously, while China is responding with Taiwanese thinking in mind. It’s all Chinese opera for a Chinese sudience, at its nastiest and, if not careful, deadliest. Westeners must look at this for what its is – Da Ker telling Didi not to annoy him or little bloke will get a cuff on his ear, or maybe worse. The trick is not to encourage the provocator.

Over the other side of the pond, some are cheering Chen on, suggesting idiotic but nonetheless frightening strategies like preemptive strikes against China.

[China is not the Arab world, while Taiwan isn’t exactly Israel – and the US is hardly likely to commit her total support to Taiwan as she has to Israel – Reminder: the US diplomatically recognizes the PRC as she does Israel, but not Taiwan. The US accepts the ‘One China’ policy]

Returning to the US again, what is the current US official thinking via a vis the Taiwan Straits imbroglio? I really don’t know other than to hazard a guess that some [officials] may have wished that during the eve of the last Taiwanese presidential election, the ‘assassin’ had not missed. I say this not as a disrespect to President Chen but to encapsulate a possible US line of thinking on just how troublesome Chen has been.

Finally, an invasion and occupation of a place like Taiwan requires extraordinary military powers, namely a powerful armada with amphibious capability, and staggering logistic capacity to sustain occupation (otherwise, what would be the point of attacking and invading Taiwan if not to occupy it?). These are all quite beyond the PRC for the time being.

There is only one nation on this globe that possesses that type of power projection (even during the height of the former USSR naval might). I give you one guess who she is!

July 23, 2004 @ 9:07 pm | Comment

Richard – don’t you think a finessed and subtle foreign policy is *more* likely without the intervention of the White House? I suspect there are a bunch of career diplomats in the US that are rather relieved that attention is elsewhere, so the politicians aren’t getting too involved ๐Ÿ™‚

Jacky – I’m guessing you’re not a big fan of Chen ShuiBian. If China is only engaging in ‘harmless sabre-rattling’ and ‘miltary upgrades'(!), then what has Chen (who’s sabre rattling is an order of magnitude less, and who arguably isn’t doing enough military upgrades) done?

Incidentally, wishing that the assassination was successful is seriously stupid … there really would have been a sympathy vote after that, and we’d all have Annette Lu as the president of Taiwan. Now, that’s something that would make everyone realise that Chen’s been a moderate during his presidency ๐Ÿ™‚

July 24, 2004 @ 4:16 am | Comment

David,

The amazing thing is many blokes here on this blog are far too serious (serious is OK, but far too …..??? Nope), and see things in just black and white.

When I mentioned the assassin’s aim, I said so with tongue in cheek, but I did explain what I had meant by that in that same sentence.

So, to use an American phrase, lighten up!

I neither like or dislike Chen – I just say it as I see or opine as such. That’s the purpose of airing our opinions on blogs.

Likewise too, I regard those PRC leaders in the same neutral manner. As an overseas Chinese, I hope for the well being of both PRC and Taiwan. I have no intention or inclination to take sides. I am still learning from opinions and views of others.

July 24, 2004 @ 6:20 am | Comment

Jacky, no problem – just expressing my opinion too :). I’ve no problem with you discussing hypotheticals of what would happen if Chen was ‘out of the picture’, I was just pointing out that the result would almost certainly have been the opposite to what you were suggesting (i.e. the replacement for Chen would be a disaster for cross-strait relations).

July 24, 2004 @ 8:14 am | Comment

Good on you, David ๐Ÿ˜‰

July 24, 2004 @ 9:07 am | Comment

Jacky, ok, you’ve answered my query. Yes you are insane. You assume that sabre rattling and direct threats to go to war aren’t actually direct threats to go to war. Most worrying of all is the latest report that Jiang Zemin has now come out and set 2020 as a specific deadline for reunification. If this turns out to be true, and Beijing does not subsequently reinterpret it, then war in the Taiwan Straits is no longer a possibility, it is a probability.

One final point to another contributor, Jing. You say (if I understand you correctly) that if Taiwan was to declare independence, and Beijing was to declare war on Taiwan, this would be Taiwan’s fault, because they broke the status quo? So, would you agree, by analogy, that if I said to you, “if sell your house, I’m going to shoot you”, and then you sold your house, and I shot you, this would be your fault?
Jacky, people also looked at the plain words of Adolf Hitler as expressed in Mein Kampf, and they did the same thing you do … oh, he didn’t really mean it … it was all bluster, bluff, clever political manipulation.

And yes Jacky, my responses may be predictable … but that’s because there’s only one obvious answer. If your case had any merit, there would be a range of possible responses … as it is, there is only one … “ummm, No!”

To answer a couple of your specific points. The poker analogy: you seem to have forgotten that in poker you can maintain a poker face and raise the stakes, but if your opponent holds his nerve, then sooner or later you’re going to have to show your cards. Even if your cards are not good, there comes a point of no return. You’ve already staked so much that you can no longer back down. You’re going to have to keep throwing good money after bad. Essentially you back yourself into a corner, and you can’t back out. This is exactly what China is doing with its harsh rhetoric … because that rhetoric has been aimed at their own population even more than at Taiwan and “outside forces” … so the 100 names simply won’t let them back off and say “oh no, we were only bluffing.” This is also the answer to your point about China currently not having the resources for a full-blown invasion and occupation of the island.

Lastly your reply about military buildup … it is a classic case of attacking an argument by claiming that it said something entirely different from what it actually said, and then attacking this other argument (that was never actually made). The point was not that China is going through normal modernisation and expected upgrades, but rather that the military reforms and equipment acquisitions and training, all appear to be aimed at one specific task. There are plenty of stories around at the moment reporting on China’s practising for military activities in the Taiwan Straits. Can you imagine if China’s military upgrades were all aimed at fighting in cold weather in terrain like the Russian steppes, with extensive acquisitions of anti-tank missiles etc., and military exercises in Inner Mongolia, and claiming that large sections of Siberia were taken from China by illegal and unequal treaties,
that a certain land power to the north of China would NOT be justified in considering that China was actively planning to attack them, and should just assume that it was all sabre rattling?

July 24, 2004 @ 10:48 pm | Comment

Filthy,

You may wish to put words in my mouth re what you alleged as my assessment of the likelihood of war, but I ask you to re-read my previous postings. You would have noted I didn’t aver an absolute NO. In reading that same assessment/statement, you would also have the answers to your poker analogy (so you were saying what I had already stated).

All military buildups or upgrades are always designed in accordance with a country’s contingency plan. That doesn’t mean that there is going to be an attack imminent. I know, I know, some guys would love to have war occur,.

For example, last I read, the US has a contingency plan for a 2-theatre war. The planners then staff and equip the armed forces to enable such planned operations. Once the bean counters provide the budget as approved, the required force levels would be developed for air, land and sea, and also an amphibious capability.

All the operational plans have to be exercised at periodic intervals by the military to assess the feasibility and workability of her contingency plans, and to modify or even change them completely. Command, control, and communications (C-cube) are also exercised and tested – these 3 components are absolutely vital and expectedly complex in tri-service or joint warfare. The complications and complexity increase when allied forces are involved. The US has more ‘C’ than just the traditional C-cube, involving stuff like Computers etc.

Similarly, the PRC or any other country would have such planning, programmes and exercises. A large country like the US, PRC, Russia operates in several types of theatre (cold, hot, wet, dry, desert, jungle, etc) thus the plans embrace the possibilities suggested by threat assessments.

It seems your suspicions will not permit the PRC to exercise what would be due diligence in her defence planning. I bet if the PRC acquires an aircraft carrier, you would go ballistic as this would be, in your mind, an indication that she must be up to no good. Based on this (eg. aircraft carriers), how would the US current foce level measure up in your suspicion meter?

In an earlier thread on this blog, there was much ado about nothing on a “new type” submarine that the PRC has. PRC’s new earth-shattering submarine technology??? Ho hum, this is the sort of war/fear-mongering that some blokes like to propagate to paint the PRC as a belligerent nation, a kind of bigger N Korea. That submarine ‘scare’ was designed to imply that the PRC would interdict Taiwan – really? And the US would sit quietly while Taiwan becomes the Berlin of 1948? PUHHLEASE.

The fact is the PRC is very backwards in naval and air assets, and does not even have a blue water navy. Compare her to India and Japan, who both have such assets and experience.

I am sorry, Filthy, you may want war to be the PRC’s intention but I don’t think she’ll obliged you, unless of course she is deliberately provoked, as I had stated in an earlier posting, beyond a limit where commonsense is no longer heeded. That’s why I suggested and still suggest that the chief provocator President Chen be told by the US to clam up.

July 25, 2004 @ 12:42 am | Comment

Asia by Blog

Let’s plunge straight into today’s Asia linkfest: Hong Kong, Taiwan and China More on the Taiwan-China potential for conflict. Firstly Richard points to a story of some Taiwanese people perpetually in the wrong place at the wrong time. Joseph Bosco fol…

July 26, 2004 @ 12:44 am | Comment

Jacky,
It doesn’t matter what the PRC thinks, as long as the majority of Taiwan supports the ‘chief provocator’ Chen. And the majority do support him.

So from the Taiwanese point of view he is not a ‘provocator’ but their president standing up for their rights and lives.

Right now the only thing that the PRC can do is threaten war, which they seem to do on a regular basis.

One day the PRC may figure out that Taiwan is already an independant country , grow up and deal with Taiwan as she is.

July 28, 2004 @ 5:13 pm | Comment

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.