Since I think it’s probably the most important real story of the day, I want to draw your attention to the article cited in the QandO post in my Catching my eye feature today:
“If the Americans draw their missiles and position-guided ammunition on to the target zone on China’s territory, I think we will have to respond with nuclear weapons,” Zhu Chenghu, a major general in the People’s Liberation Army, said at an official briefing, according to the Financial Times.
The original Financial Times article is here and includes this:
Gen Zhu was speaking at a function for foreign journalists organised, in part, by the Chinese government. He added that China’s definition of its territory included warships and aircraft [ed. emphasis mine].
Or, in other words, he’s warning of a nuclear first-strike by China for targeting Chinese military assets wherever they are and whatever they’re engaged in. Not for striking. And not as a response to a use of nuclear weaponry by the United States.
This is extremely troubling on a number of grounds. This threshold is extremely low. Targeting goes on all the time. Do you remember the U. S. plane forced down by the Chinese in 2001? If the United States followed the rubric being suggested by General Zhu, we would already have completely destroyed China with nuclear weapons (and, yes, that is within our capabilities).
Certainly, the general must be aware of the total conventional and nuclear military superiority of the United States. And its not only the United States. If China were to strike the United States with nuclear weapons preemptively, that would surely invoke the NATO mutual defense provisions. Britain and France would use their own nuclear arsenals against China. And, if I were in Russia’s shoes, I’d consider it a pretty good opportunity to join in and finish China off for good—they’re a greater threat to the Russians than they are to us.
Making obviously suicidal threats strikes me as being remarkably reckless. And, no, I don’t believe the general was speaking out of turn. I suspect that his position reflects conventional wisdom among the Chinese military establishment.
Very, very troubling.
UPDATE: ZenPundit responds with some excellent analysis. Several points need to be made here. As Mark notes, the One China policy—to the best of my knowledge—continues to be the policy of the United States and has the force of law. I believe that has been our policy for the last fifty years. The gist of the policy is that we formally oppose Taiwan independence and believe that the parties i.e. the PRC and Taiwan should arrange re-unification peacefully and voluntarily. We’re committed to defending Taiwan, if necessary, to ensure that happens. I believe that arguments could be made to change the policy but it would need to be an affirmative argument and would bear the burden of proof.
The real question, IMO, is the converse of the question McQ implicitly asks in the title of his post. Does China consider re-unification with Taiwan worth losing half its population and most of its productive capacity, effectively throwing it back to the 8th century? Would China’s neighbors leave a debilitated China alone? And why now? That’s a key question: why now?
hi Dave,
I saw this as well and intend to post on it later but here’s my take:
The Chinese government has been signalling, for at least a decade, that their bright red line for war is a formal declaration of independence by Taiwan and that they will absolutely go to war regardless of the costs.
Having stoked the fires of nationalism to make-up for the decline of Marxism in public esteem in order to legitimize their rule, the CCP leadership sees that kind of declaration as:
a) A threat to China’s territorial integrity and a likely inspiration for Tibet and Xinjiang to follow suit.
b) Something that could spur massive urban unrest and bring down the Communist Party if they fail to be perceived by the populace as taking strong action to prevent it or to punish Taipei.
That China would commit this kind of national suicide in any other context is belied by their blustery but ultimately ineffectual reaction to our bombing of their embassy in Belgrade ( which contrary to official reports I believe to have been fully intentional on our part and well-deserved for hostile Chinese SIGINT assistance to Serbia during the air war). I find China going nuclear over the Spratley’s or a downed plane to be a specious scenario.
On the other hand, regarding Taiwan, they’re much more serious and this should be taken into account by American policymakers. Whether Beijing would escalate to the extent threatened is debatable but the Chinese are desperate to indicate to the United States and Taipei that this issue is regarded by China as a critical national defense interest.
I think your political analysis is sound, Mark. What bugs me about this is a) the extremely low threshold and b) that Zhu has obviously got the blessing of the powers-that-be for the statement. Official U. S. policy opposes Taiwan independence, too, but we haven’t pre-announced that if the Chinese ships move in that direction we’ll nuke Beijing.
Good calls, and anyone who thinks these statements do not have official blessing… A very interesting and troubling action.
Avoid problems and butt out of China !!!
‘total conventional and nuclear military superiority of the United States”…who cares if at the end of the day you have millions dead….and the world economy in shambles !!!!
“Avoid problems and butt out of China !!!”
Even China does not want the U.S. out of China’s backyard Dan, because that would mean Japan would have to adopt an independent foreign and defense policy of their own – and almost certainly nuclear weapons. Ditto for South Korea. Either of which might begin looking to Russia and India for a military relationship to replace the United states.
What Beijing wants is the U.S. to guarantee that Taiwan will not receive American military backing to declare independence.
LOL…you think France and England would risk a nuclear strike in order to help the U.S.? I realize that this point is not the focus of your post but please…it is absurd on your part.
As to your central theme, I would make two points. China is certainly a dictatorship which borders on a fascist state. Therefore we should be very leery of their military intentions. Secondly, why would we ever risk nuclear war with China over Taiwan. Not only is it not vital to the United States, we agree with China that Taiwan IS a part of China; how would we respond to China if it threatened war with us if we used the military to prevent Hawaii from seceding? If Taiwan is important then we need to find a way to make Taiwan a nuclear power before China can do anything about it; China has seen fit to help both Pakistan and North Korea in their programs. If Taiwan were armed then it would be strictly a “Chinese” affair.
Barnabus: Not only is it not vital to the United States, we agree with China that Taiwan IS a part of China; how would we respond to China if it threatened war with us if we used the military to prevent Hawaii from seceding?
This ignores the reality that Uncle Sam is physically in control of Hawaii. A better analogy would be if Uncle Sam reasserted his claim to the Philippines and China threatened war with Uncle Sam if he used the military to prevent the Philippines from “seceding”.
As to our agreement that Taiwan is part of China, we also agreed that Croatia, Slovenia, Bosnia, Kosovo and Montenegro were part of Yugoslavia. Hasn’t stopped us from helping carve these parts away from the Serbian rump state, despite the risk of a clash with Mother Russia. The question is what is in Uncle Sam’s interest, not consistency. Like every other country in the world, we’re consistent when we need to be and not if we don’t.
I don’t think the US is in any danger from Chinese nukes. China will not trade Beijing for Taiwan – or even 100 Taiwans. The Chinese know what Uncle Sam’s posture is in response to a nuclear attack – the nuclear annihilation of the enemy’s cities, military bases and military units, followed perhaps by American occupation. What they’re trying to do is create enough uncertainty in American minds to delay a US military response, in the event of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. That delay could bring the Chinese victory, after which they believe Uncle Sam will not pull a Falklands-style campaign to eject Chinese troops from Taiwan. (On the other hand, even a successful Chinese invasion would be a gamble, since the Argentines also believed that the Brits would not try to take the Falklands back).
Barnabus: If Taiwan is important then we need to find a way to make Taiwan a nuclear power before China can do anything about it; China has seen fit to help both Pakistan and North Korea in their programs. If Taiwan were armed then it would be strictly a “Chinese” affair.
This makes little sense, as the Taiwanese could choose to surrender, which would provide the Chinese with up-to-date American nuclear and missile technology. There is a high proportion of Taiwanese who really want Uncle Sam to do their fighting for them – and if Taiwanese have to actually risk their lives, they might choose to surrender instead.
DS: Does China consider re-unification with Taiwan worth losing half its population and most of its productive capacity, effectively throwing it back to the 8th century? Would China’s neighbors leave a debilitated China alone? And why now? That’s a key question: why now?
You can’t take these statements at face value. During Gulf War I, Uncle Sam threatened to use nukes if Iraq used chemical or biological weapons. Do you really think the US would have used nukes? I don’t. And Iraq wasn’t even in a position to retaliate with nukes.
China isn’t going to use nukes against Uncle Sam, any more than North Korea or Iran are going to launch nuclear first strikes against the US. The simple reason is that Uncle Sam can annihilate them. It is, however, in their interest to threaten the use of nukes against the US whenever possible. Heck, even the US has threatened the use of nukes several times to forestall enemy initiatives, without ever following through. It happened in Korea – against the Chinese – and on a number of other occasions (including, I believe, the Yom Kippur War). Against a nuclear-armed opponent, the only thing you can use them for is threats. And the Chinese *know* that there is no risk of an American nuclear first strike to pre-empt a Chinese nuclear attack.
China will not trade Beijing for Taiwan. Or even 100 Taiwans. This is just a bluff, and potentially a war-winning bluff, if it makes American policymakers hesitate for just a few days while contemplating a military response to a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. Those few days may be China’s margin of victory.
Why is China doing this now? Because it can. Unification was the holy grail of the governments on both sides of the Taiwan Straits until native Taiwanese took over on Taiwan. China will try to annex Taiwan one way or another. The only question is when and whether it will be by force.
When Japan launched its military venture in Southeast Asia just over 60 years ago, its economy was a tenth of the size of Uncle Sam’s alone, let alone those of the European powers it sought to displace. China’s economy has been charging along for over two decades. Its economy is over a tenth of Uncle Sam’s*, and all it is bidding for (at the moment) is Taiwan. Why now? Because they couldn’t before, and they have lusted after this goal for over five decades. Because only now have Chinese military capabilities reached the point that a narrow victory, via surprise attack – if Uncle Sam does not respond militarily – is possible.
* In nominal terms. In purchasing power parity terms, China’s GDP is between 1/3 and 1/2 of Uncle Sam’s GDP.
barnabus: If Taiwan is important then we need to find a way to make Taiwan a nuclear power before China can do anything about it; China has seen fit to help both Pakistan and North Korea in their programs. If Taiwan were armed then it would be strictly a “Chinese” affair.
How would Uncle Sam react if the Chinese provided nuclear weapons to Hawaiian or Indian secessionists? I don’t think we can provide nukes to Taiwan and expect the Chinese not to nuke the US if they are nuked by Taiwan. What the Chinese general said was a bluff. What barnabus suggested is a red line that will cause an immediate invasion.
Hi Zhang, I understand and agree with most of what you have said. In response to some of your comments: If Taiwan really would “surrender,” then it is game over; i.e. if there is no political will in Taiwan to defend it’s right to self determination using it’s blood and treasure then whatever the U.S. does is irrelevant. As to your last point concerning Taiwan and nukes: first the U.S. would not have to transfer the latest technology nor even thermonuclear weapons. Secondly, Taiwan has the technology to do it itself. All it needs is encouragement from the U.S. China needs to learn that in the future, not only it’s allies (Pakistan and North Korea) will go nuclear. Only then will China take nuclear proliferation seriously.
My main point was that the U.S. needs to have a public discussion about what the nature of our relationship should be with Taiwan and China. Personally, I do not think that Taiwan is strategically important to the U.S. On the other hand a dictatorial communist state that does not allow freedom of speech and that may have expansionist ideas is a threat that must be contained.
On this I couldn’t agree with you more, Barnabus. It’s been a frequent source of amazement to me that so many of our foreign policy positions—even those, like our policy on Taiwan that have statutory force—go unexamined. I suspect it’s because there are careers depending on things staying as they are.
It’s all the more amazing when you take into account that some of our policies aren’t even our own but are things left sitting around after the British and French colonial empires evaporated.
barnabus: On the other hand a dictatorial communist state that does not allow freedom of speech and that may have expansionist ideas is a threat that must be contained.
What exists in China isn’t a dictatorial communist state – it’s a dictatorial state, period. No self-respecting communist country would run TV series glorifying its imperial era, as the Chinese authorities have been doing for over a decade. The most bloodthirsty emperor in Chinese history even had a movie made in his honor with Chinese government funding – Hero. China isn’t a communist country – it is a non-hereditary plutocracy run by a set of New Emperors.
Whatever one might feel about China’s intentions, its present rulers are rapidly closing down or privatizing the nation’s state-owned enterprises and transforming the economy into one where private companies compete head-to-head with each other. And that is a potent recipe for a rapid increase in China’s military capability, given that China has let its spending grow just a little ahead of the high-single digit percentage growth of its economy. Friend or foe, China will be a power to be reckoned with in the Western Pacific.
I personally think this system of “mutual” defense treaties and foreign bases is too much work. We should abrogate all of these treaties and bring our boys home. Shut the Defense Department and expand the Coast Guard and the Border Patrol. We are bounded by an ocean on each side. Why the heck are we getting involved in other people’s problems? We need a Canadian foreign policy. Nobody gives Canadians a hard time. Why do we have to have a position on everything? Let somebody else worry about it.
barnabus: My main point was that the U.S. needs to have a public discussion about what the nature of our relationship should be with Taiwan and China. Personally, I do not think that Taiwan is strategically important to the U.S.
I’ll have to agree with you there. I think the Chinese brass who thought this statement up ought to be given a medal. If Uncle Sam backs out from supporting Taiwan after some public discussion, the likelihood is that Taiwan will surrender to China without a fight. And that is perhaps the best outcome of all. And China will have accomplished it without firing a single shot. They might even make this guy the head of the Chinese military.
The shipping lanes between Taiwan and the PRC and to a lesser extent between Taiwan and the Philippines are of vital importance to japan and Korea. They get much of their raw materials including oil shipped through there. Control of Taiwan allows thos that have that control the ability to keep those lanes open. Or shut them down. Don’t underestimate the strategic importance of Taiwan.
kennycan: The shipping lanes between Taiwan and the PRC and to a lesser extent between Taiwan and the Philippines are of vital importance to japan and Korea. They get much of their raw materials including oil shipped through there. Control of Taiwan allows thos that have that control the ability to keep those lanes open. Or shut them down. Don’t underestimate the strategic importance of Taiwan.
So if China takes Taiwan, the ships will just swing a little further out to the east, so as not to go through the Taiwan Straits. What’s the big deal? If you look at the map, there’s a whole lot of ocean to the east of Taiwan. No shortage of maneuvering room, there.