THE INSCRUTABLE CHINESE
by Fred Edwards
Feb. 15, 2008

In my column of Feb. 2, (Crosshairs on Taiwan), I referred to the interplay between the Peoples Republic of China and Taiwan as if the PRC were solely a military monolith whose actions are inscrutable. Consequently Edward Van Court, an international affairs researcher, reminded me that, based on foreign trade information from basic sources such as the CIA Factbook, Taiwan is essential to both U.S. and foreign trade. Consequently, the PRC’s military option might lie somewhere down the list of Chinese priorities.

Noting that China is less than a century out of feudalism, he pointed out indications that the current situation is a hybrid of geographical and functional feudalism under the leadership of the Central Party in Beijing. This suggests a feudal melange among several ministries and agencies, with residual warlord tones. To carry Chinese inscrutability a step further, just overlay the PRC’s Military Regions on an ethno-linguistic map of this disparately populated land mass. Now compare the bios of the leaders of the Central Military Commission and it becomes evident why the MRs are established “for centralized control and decentralized operation.”

Now let’s take another look at why an American aircraft carrier battle group and other U.S. warships resorted to steaming through the Taiwan Straight — scarcely 100 miles wide at its narrowest–after China cancelled a planned holiday Navy warship visit to Hong Kong. Susan Shirk, a China expert at the University of California in San Diego, and a former State Department official dealing with East Asia, agrees that the cancellation probably signals dissatisfaction with U.S. actions concerning Taiwan.

But look how it played out. According to the White House, Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi first told President Bush the port-visit reversals were due to a “misunderstanding.” Then later, Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao said such reports were not true. So the Foreign Ministry might simply have been out of the loop. That seemed to be the case in January when — without forewarning the United States — the Chinese launched a missile that destroyed an aging weather satellite. The Chinese Foreign Ministry seemed unaware of that action.

So is the Chinese government conducting uncoordinated foreign policy, or is it sending signals, or is it just being inscrutable? A great deal depends upon the answer to these questions, because wars too often are started by mistake.

For example, although the circumstances were different in the early 20th century, just look at how the treaty dominos were set up during the summer of 1914. The Austrian Archduke Francis Ferdinand and his wife were assassinated in Sarajevo by a Serbian militant. Austria declared war on Serbia. Russia came to Serbia’s aid and mobilized for war against Austria. Germany, Austria’s ally, declared war on Russia. When France showed signs of supporting Russia, Germany declared war on France. Shortly thereafter Britain declared war on Germany. Now all of Europe was at war. In late 1914, Turkey joined Germany and Austria, spreading the conflagration to the Middle East. Then the United States sent their boys “over there.” After millions of casualties on all sides, a new world order emerged.

Now transfer to 2008. According to Van, if the PRC uses the military option to bring Taiwan to heel, the infrastructure that makes it worth taking will be destroyed. Taiwan has become an economic power by virtue of its transportation infrastructure (ports), its manufacturing sector, and its information infrastructure. A rain of bombs, artillery shells, and missiles would devastate what makes Taiwan so valuable. Compounding this, in the event of a war, the brain drain out of Taiwan to the United States and other western democracies would reduce the quality of human capital of the island drastically. It seems doubtful that the Chinese would want to gain a “lost province” that offers no gain. So in the scheme of Chinese inscrutability, let’s place trade before out-and-out military aggression.
——————————————————————————–
The content of Crosshairs - Military Matters in Review may be copied or retransmitted for information purposes, but may not be used for any commercial purpose without my written permission. Please include this notice and credit the source as Crosshairs - Military Matters in Review by Fred Edwards.

Fred Edwards is a military columnist and journalist. He has contributed articles to more than two dozen periodicals and has written six books. His most recent are The Buffie Brigade and The Bridges of Vietnam: From the Journals of a U.S. Marine Intelligence Officer.

Comments RSS