Author Topic: US-China (& Japan, South China Sea-- Taiwan, Vietnam, Philippines, etc)  (Read 398444 times)


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72317
    • View Profile

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19768
    • View Profile
Re: US-China (& Japan, South China Sea-- Vietnam, Philippines, etc)
« Reply #702 on: January 04, 2019, 02:14:36 PM »
"Sen. Feinstein: "President Trump was right and I was wrong"

Did she actually say that ?  I don't see it put that way.

Gee you think she would be invited onto any of the fake news networks to discuss
 this.

I don't know what was so hard to see .  I thought it fairly ***obvious*** for a few decades now exactly what China has been up to when everyone of their military machines coincidently just happens to look like ours.

Among other obvious rip offs.     :roll:
« Last Edit: January 04, 2019, 06:39:31 PM by ccp »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72317
    • View Profile
Re: US-China (& Japan, South China Sea-- Vietnam, Philippines, etc)
« Reply #703 on: January 04, 2019, 06:16:19 PM »
""Sen. Feinstein: "President Trump was right and I was wrong"

"Did she actually say that ?  I don't see it put that way."


I was just translating  :evil:

bigdog

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2321
    • View Profile


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
Chinese Economic Stats
« Reply #706 on: January 14, 2019, 10:14:18 AM »
Some Chinese economic stats here you don't often see printed...

https://business.financialpost.com/opinion/lawrence-solomon-remember-trumps-supposedly-lose-lose-trade-war-hes-winning-chinas-losing

By Lawrence Solomon, Financial Post:

Remember Trump’s supposedly ‘lose-lose’ trade war? He’s winning. China's losing.
The tariffs clearly hurt China’s economy more than America’s

Not that long ago, China’s economy was seen as a juggernaut that would soon overtake America’s to become the world’s largest. “Made in China 2025,” the Chinese government’s blueprint to take over manufacturing, was seen as an existential threat to U.S. technological leadership. Speculation had the Chinese yuan replacing the United States dollar as the world’s reserve currency.

What a difference a trade war makes. No one marvels at the Chinese economy today.

Car sales in China, the world’s largest car market, plummeted by 19 per cent in December, capping a six-per-cent decline in sales for the 2018 year, the industry’s first fall in 20 years. Goldman Sachs predicts the decline will steepen to seven per cent in 2019. More broadly, China’s private and public manufacturing sectors both contracted in December.

Beijing heads to trade talks with ‘good faith’ as Trump says China’s weak economy incentive for deal
‘An elephant starting to run’: With China’s economy slowing, all eyes turn to India in search of growth
Trump renews attacks on Federal Reserve, calls it the U.S. economy’s ‘only problem’
China’s mainland stock markets, which declined 25 per cent in 2018, aren’t doing well either. Neither is growth in consumer spending, which is at a 15-year low. The government is backpedalling on its targets for “Made in China 2025,” and its other high-profile initiatives — the much-ballyhooed Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and the Belt and Road Initiative — are falling short.

In fact, the entire Chinese economy may not only be falling short, it may never have performed as well as claimed. Many believe that China’s official economic growth rate, a fabulous 6.5 per cent, is more a fable. A World Bank estimate for 2016 put China’s economic growth at 1.1 per cent, with other estimates showing low or even negative growth. Also worrying is the potentially catastrophic hidden debt that fuelled China’s growth — as much as US$6 trillion by China’s local governments alone, according to S&P Global Ratings, which called it “a debt iceberg with titanic credit risks.”
[Putting numbers to something Crafty has pointed out.]

Many authorities point to the trade war to explain in part these poor metrics, typically adding that trade wars are always lose-lose. Yet while China clearly seems a loser, the same can’t be said for the U.S., whose economy is on fire.

In contrast to the 15- and 20-year lows logged by China’s economic indicators, the U.S. is racking up 20-, 30-, 40- and 50-year highs. Wages are up, especially for those traditionally worse off, while unemployment rates for blacks, Hispanics and women are at lows not seen in decades. The U.S. economy has added 4.8 million jobs since Donald Trump was elected president, with U.S. manufacturers last year adding 284,000 jobs, the most in more than 20 years. Americans are ditching food stamps and disability payments for well-paying jobs. “Put it together, and this is the best time for the American labor market in at least 18 years and maybe closer to 50,” The New York Times noted in November.

So much for the claims of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which warned that Trump’s tariff policy on imported products “endangers the jobs of millions of workers”; of the Tax Foundation, which predicted that Trump’s tariffs would decrease Americans’ wages; of Bank of England Governor Mark Carney, who stated the trade war with China would reduce U.S. GDP; and of the Heritage Foundation, which called Trump’s tariffs “ineffective and dangerous.”
  
While China’s demise and America’s rise can’t all or even mostly be attributed to Trump’s tariffs, the tariffs clearly hurt China’s economy more than America’s. For one thing, the “tax” that tariffs represent has mostly been paid by China. According to a recent policy brief from EconPol Europe, a network of researchers in the European Union, U.S. companies and consumers will pay only 4.5 per cent of the 25-per-cent tariffs on US$250 billion of Chinese goods, with the other 20.5 per cent falling on Chinese producers. The EconPol report found that the Trump administration selected easily replaced products, forcing China’s exporters to cut selling prices to keep buyers. “Through its strategic choice of Chinese products, the U.S. government was not only able to minimize the negative effects on U.S. consumers and firms, but also to create substantial net welfare gains in the U.S.,” the authors determined, adding that the tariffs will accomplish Trump’s goals of lowering the trade deficit with China.

More importantly, the tariffs have spurred investment confidence in the U.S., not only in steel and aluminum, where dozens of plants are either being built or reopened, but in the broader economy, too. A UBS Wealth Management Americas survey found that 71 per cent of American business owners support additional tariffs on imports from China, with only one-third believing tariffs would hurt them. A Bloomberg Businessweek article in October bore out the view that tariffs hitting steel and aluminum imports would be beneficial: “Employment in metal-using industries has risen since the tariffs went into effect last spring, (more than) the increase for overall manufacturing.”

The American public likes tariffs, too: According to a Mellman Group and Public Opinion Strategies poll in October, nearly 60 per cent of likely voters deem it important for Trump and Congress to “place trade restrictions on countries that violate trade agreements.” When the tariffs apply to China, the public doubtless also likes them for non-economic factors  — to rein in one of the world’s worst human rights offenders and America’s chief military threat.

Contrary to the conventional wisdom, this trade war is anything but lose-lose. This one is a big win for the U.S.
[Doug: The win is yet to come, when they open their market and stop stealing.]
« Last Edit: January 14, 2019, 01:36:52 PM by Crafty_Dog »


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
US-China (& Japan, S. China Sea, Philippines, etc) The Great Wall of Democracy
« Reply #708 on: January 25, 2019, 06:48:57 AM »
Good perspective on the larger issues in the region...

https://freebeacon.com/columns/great-wall-democracy/

China is not a ten-foot giant. It may have moved too aggressively and too quickly in the South and East China Seas, alerting the world to its ambitions and spurring Japan to spend more on defense. China also seems more interested in showing off its military modernization and strength than investing in strategic capabilities
...
China doesn't have many friends. It is deeply distrusted even by putative allies.
...
Xi Jinping's signature Belt and Road Initiative and Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, heralded as a shift in global economic power toward Eurasia, have run into trouble as participant nations worry they may be ensnared in a Chinese debt trap. China's heavy-handed behavior at the recent Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in Papua New Guinea alienated smaller powers. Its partners tend not to carry much geostrategic weight. Djibouti is not Singapore.
...
America's treaty alliances with NATO, Japan, and the Republic of Korea are not just legacies of World War II and the Cold War. They constitute the steel frame of the American-led liberal international order that has kept a lid on great-power war for more than 70 years. A visit to Japan reminds you American power is appreciated at least as much as, if not more than, it is resented. A visit to Japan reminds you that the alliance system is essential to a Pacific Ocean secured by ships flying Old Glory. Not patrolled by destroyers bearing flags of gold stars in fields of red.


bigdog

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 2321
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72317
    • View Profile

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
U.S. Navy sails warships through Taiwan Strait
« Reply #711 on: January 28, 2019, 06:15:02 AM »
Among some other things in the news Friday:

U.S. Navy sails warships through Taiwan Strait
 CNN    Fri, January 25, 2019



http://cnnphilippines.com/world/2019/01/25/US-Navy-Taiwan-Strait.html
« Last Edit: January 28, 2019, 11:04:55 AM by Crafty_Dog »


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72317
    • View Profile
GPF: The Philippines tries to save a treaty
« Reply #713 on: February 11, 2019, 09:35:01 AM »
maps will not print here:

=============


The Philippines Tries to Save a Treaty

What are the security options for a country that can dictate terms to neither friend nor foe?

Phillip Orchard |February 8, 2019
Save to PDF
Print
Tweet
Share on Facebook
Recipient e-mail

Your name

Your message



Next week, the U.S. and the Philippines will open exploratory talks on salvaging their 1951 Mutual Defense Treaty. This comes after a month of renewed drama that has come to typify the hot-and-cold relationship between the U.S. and its oldest security treaty ally in Asia. In late December, Philippine Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana called for a comprehensive review of the treaty for updating. A week later, he announced that Manila had begun studying the possibility that the pact could be scrapped altogether.

Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte has threatened to withdraw from the treaty repeatedly since his election in 2016. Duterte says a lot of things, often changes his mind before the sun has set over Manila Bay, and is mostly incapable of fundamentally restructuring Philippine foreign policy to his personal tastes, anyway. But this particular warning came from Lorenzana – an advocate for robust U.S.-Philippine ties, a former attache to the Pentagon, and a Philippine defense establishment check on Duterte – suggesting that the anxieties Manila has about U.S. security commitments are born not from the vagaries of Duterte but from a more immutable set of circumstances: The U.S. and the Philippines face a common threat in China but have starkly divergent views on how to manage it.

Arguments Ring Hollow

The main problem with the treaty, according to Lorenzana, is that the U.S. won’t confirm that it includes Philippine holdings in disputed parts of the South China Sea. The treaty says the U.S. is obligated to respond to “an armed attack on the metropolitan territory of either of the Parties, or on the island territories under its jurisdiction in the Pacific or on its armed forces, public vessels or aircraft in the Pacific.” But the text leaves some room for interpretation on what would actually trigger the treaty – and what “acting to meet common dangers” in such an event actually means in practice. This debate isn’t academic; this week, for example, imagery published by the Center for Strategic and International Studies showed as many as 90 Chinese naval, coast guard and fishing vessels near Pag-asa Island, the Philippines’ largest holding in the Spratlys, ostensibly in response to Manila’s plans to resume work on a beaching ramp on the island.


(click to enlarge)

For Washington, the ambiguity is at least partly deliberate. When the pact was signed in 1951, it argues, the Philippines did not yet control the nine features in the hotly contested Spratly archipelago that it does today. The U.S. is officially neutral on the territorial dispute, which began in earnest in the late 1980s, emphasizing instead that such matters should be resolved in accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The 2016 ruling by the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague on a case brought by Manila invalidated Beijing’s claims that its Spratly holdings were entitled to territorial seas, but it did not rule on the rightful ownership of any of the reclaimed islands. So if the U.S. were to formally include the South China Sea in the treaty, it would ostensibly abandon a policy it applies in disputed hot spots around the world – one that serves the broader U.S. interest of bolstering a “rules-based” international order.

But this argument rings hollow to Manila for several reasons. For one, in 2015, the Obama administration agreed to updated guidelines in its Mutual Defense Treaty with Japan that, in no uncertain terms, included the disputed Senkaku Islands, which are administered by Japan but also claimed by China and Taiwan in the East China Sea. Washington can point to minor differences in the language of the two treaties to defend its position, but it’s the kind of legalistic rationale you invoke only if you’re looking to keep a pact weak. (The U.S. hasn’t always been so circumspect. The Clinton administration twice confirmed that the treaty covered the South China Sea, even though the Philippine Senate voted to boot the U.S. Navy from its strategically invaluable base at Subic Bay in 1991.)

Perhaps most telling, the legal case for covering the Scarborough Shoal, just 130 miles (210 kilometers) from Luzon, is more straightforward. The U.S. formally took administrative control of the resource-rich reef from Spain in 1900 following its victory in the Spanish-American War, and the Philippines acquired formal control upon gaining independence in 1946. The Philippines established a U.S. naval operating area covering a 20-mile radius around Scarborough Shoal in the 1960s, and the two allies used the reef as bombing range into the early 1980s.

Yet, when Chinese forces seized the shoal in 2012, the U.S. declined to forcefully intervene. The Obama administration reportedly warned China in 2016 that it would consider an attempt to turn Scarborough Shoal into yet another artificial island a red line. But neither the Obama nor the Trump administration has moved to stop China from exercising effective control over the surrounding waters. Nor has the U.S. expressed any willingness to defend Manila’s right to drill for oil in waters the U.N. tribunal determined were Philippine. From Manila’s viewpoint, in other words, the U.S. is going out of its way to keep the Philippines at arms’ length.

Words on Paper

Unfair as it may appear, the U.S. has strategic reasons to keep its options open. It doesn’t want to get dragged into a war with China, at least not one that wasn’t started on its terms, and so it doesn’t want to give the Philippines reason to think the U.S. will automatically have its back if it picks a fight it can’t win on its own. The U.S. is basically content with the status quo in the South China Sea. It doesn’t really need to escalate matters there to contain China on other fronts. So long as the Chinese navy can’t challenge the U.S. Navy directly, the U.S. is happy to cripple China by choking its maritime traffic along the first island chain and around the Strait of Malacca.

The problem for the U.S. is that this strategy gives the Philippines little choice but to do whatever it deems necessary to remain friendly with China. Over the past two years, this has meant limiting the scale of cooperation with the U.S., presumably at Beijing’s behest, while allowing China to gradually expand its commercial and political influence in the country in ways that could come back to haunt the U.S.

For example, Manila has dramatically slowed implementation of the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement, a 2014 deal providing U.S. forces with rotational access to five Philippine bases. Construction on U.S. facilities was delayed by more than two years before finally breaking ground earlier this month. Two bases, including the one closest to the Spratlys, may now be excluded, and any hope that the deal would expand in scope, which Duterte’s predecessor’s administration assumed was inevitable, has been quashed.


(click to enlarge)

Meanwhile, Chinese firms are making plays for assets at what were once the U.S.’ two most important bases in Luzon – Clark airfield and Subic Bay naval base. There’s no guarantee that commercial ownership will mean China will ever be able to get these assets for military purposes. We’re skeptical of the strategic utility of so-called Chinese “debt traps” in general. But the potential threat is real enough that those concerned about China across the region are moving to counter or block outright Chinese acquisitions of strategically valuable infrastructure abroad. (Lorenzana, for example, is calling for the government to take over the shipyard at Subic Bay to keep it out of Chinese hands.) Perhaps just as important, in November, Manila approved entry to the Philippine market of a wireless consortium led by China Telecom, which is likely to aid Chinese efforts to export fifth-generation wireless technologies to strategically important states, the military implications for which are potentially game-changing.

Ultimately, to blow a hole in the U.S. containment line, China needs one of the countries along the first island chain to flip fully into its camp. Weak as it is, the Philippines may be China’s best bet, even if it’s not an especially good bet. Even if Manila scrapped the Mutual Defense Treaty outright, it wouldn’t automatically bring the U.S.-Philippine partnership to an end. In practice, the U.S. hasn’t been cooperating with the Philippines substantially more than it has been with other regional allies with which it has no formal treaty. And in any case, Washington and Manila struck a more detailed and arguably more important visiting forces agreement in 1999 that has facilitated the bulk of recent cooperation, including U.S. assistance in the Philippines’ fight against jihadist militants in Mindanao. (On the other hand, the EDCA would likely need to be renegotiated if the Mutual Defense Treaty is snuffed out. This would be a substantive setback to bilateral cooperation.)

The Duterte administration’s outreach to Beijing is less an expression of preference for China over the U.S. than one of a desire to keep its options open. Nearly every strategically located state on China’s periphery is keen to play the U.S. and China off each other, and to balance ties with any number of outside powers, to their advantage. The Philippines has been eagerly deepening military cooperation with U.S. allies like Japan, Australia and South Korea accordingly.

Still, countries as weak as the Philippines don’t get to dictate terms, whether to friends or to foes, and an “omnidirectional” foreign policy is no substitute for using the U.S. to deter the Chinese. Treaties are only as relevant as the strategic logic underpinning them, but they can be important for facilitating things like military interoperability, intel-sharing and basing agreements – the flesh and bones of a balance of power strategy. A Chinese alliance with Manila, then, may never be in the cards. But a divided, uncertain Philippines – one vulnerable to influence and fruitlessly trying to keep its own options open – is the next best thing.
« Last Edit: February 11, 2019, 09:37:12 AM by Crafty_Dog »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
Re: US-China (& Japan, South China Sea-- Vietnam, Philippines, etc)
« Reply #714 on: February 11, 2019, 10:57:10 AM »
That is quite a conundrum for both countries.  We don't want to be drawn into a war because of the Philippines but most certainly want all these countries to align with us and not China in a conflict.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: US-China (& Japan, South China Sea-- Vietnam, Philippines, etc)
« Reply #715 on: February 11, 2019, 01:09:48 PM »
That is quite a conundrum for both countries.  We don't want to be drawn into a war because of the Philippines but most certainly want all these countries to align with us and not China in a conflict.

They are free to choose poorly, which they did. Now they get to be China's prison bitch.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72317
    • View Profile
Re: US-China (& Japan, South China Sea-- Vietnam, Philippines, etc)
« Reply #716 on: February 11, 2019, 08:27:35 PM »
And we take a major step towards losing the South China Sea.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: US-China (& Japan, South China Sea-- Vietnam, Philippines, etc)
« Reply #717 on: February 11, 2019, 08:36:24 PM »
And we take a major step towards losing the South China Sea.

That happened with the election we had back in 2008.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72317
    • View Profile
Re: US-China (& Japan, South China Sea-- Vietnam, Philippines, etc)
« Reply #718 on: February 12, 2019, 06:59:47 AM »
Indeed.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19768
    • View Profile
Should we go to war with China over Taiwan?
« Reply #719 on: February 16, 2019, 08:40:54 AM »
This author says no:

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/skeptics/us-shouldn’t-go-war-china-over-taiwan-44432

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
Re: Should we go to war with China over Taiwan?
« Reply #720 on: February 16, 2019, 07:27:12 PM »
This author says no:

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/skeptics/us-shouldn’t-go-war-china-over-taiwan-44432

Should anyone have helped fight back when Hitler invaded Austria, Czech, Poland?  Or let the oppressors keep picking up more resources and territory, then maybe they'll be satisfied and stop.

Taiwan is a democracy, not part of a territory ruled by the mainland totalitarians. To change that by force is an invasion of a sovereign country, in fact if not in name, IMHO

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72317
    • View Profile
Re: US-China (& Japan, South China Sea-- Vietnam, Philippines, etc)
« Reply #721 on: February 17, 2019, 04:47:10 AM »
Taiwan is part of a larger Chinese mission , , ,

https://geopoliticalfutures.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Greenland-China.jpg?utm_source=GPF+-+Paid+Newsletter&utm_campaign=91fc034455-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_02_15_06_43&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_72b76c0285-91fc034455-247660329

OTOH, we have shown ourselves to be real unenthused about Russia (and/or China) being in our backyard.  Witness the Cuban Missile Crisis and our various interventions in Central America.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
Re: US-China, South China Sea-- Taiwan
« Reply #722 on: February 18, 2019, 07:23:50 AM »
"OTOH, we have shown ourselves to be real unenthused about Russia (and/or China) being in our backyard.  Witness the Cuban Missile Crisis and our various interventions in Central America."

True.  And we have refrained for 60 years from invading Cuba, 90 miles off our shore (similar distance to Taiwan Strait), and removing that threat.

The US does not want a full scale military conflict right now with China over anything, but isn't that feeling mutual?

What is the history of the communist PRC ruling the free people of Taiwan?  None. There is no historic claim to restore that I can see.

Taiwan-US Mutual Defense Treaty was ended by Jimmy Carter, the President who gave away the Panama Canal.

https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/the-looming-taiwan-crisis/
America’s [current] commitments to Taiwan were articulated in legislation (the Taiwan Relations Act) signed in 1979. The US stated that it would ‘consider any effort to determine the future of Taiwan by other than peaceful means of grave concern to the United States’.

The law stated that the US would support Taiwan’s self-defence and maintain the capacity to come to Taiwan’s aid. Left vague, however, was whether it actually would. Taiwan could not assume that it would; the mainland could not assume that it would not. Such ambiguity was meant to dissuade either side from unilateral acts that could trigger a crisis.

Look for Taiwan to go under communist control by force during Gillibrand's [Kamala's?] first term. 
« Last Edit: February 18, 2019, 07:58:40 AM by DougMacG »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72317
    • View Profile
Stratfor: The End of Strategic Luxury for China
« Reply #723 on: February 19, 2019, 06:51:15 AM »
Feb 14, 2019 | 23:07 GMT
11 mins read
The End of Strategic Luxury for China
By Zhixing Zhang
Senior East Asia Analyst, Stratfor
Zhixing Zhang
Zhixing Zhang
Senior East Asia Analyst, Stratfor
As its economy matures, China has attempted to move up the value chain in manufacturing, beyond industries such as textiles and into high-tech development.


    Signs of China's economic maturation, such as decreased reliance on exports and reduced returns on government-led investments, have promised an era of slowed Chinese economic growth since the years after the global financial crisis.

    China needs more time and space to facilitate its domestic socio-economic transformation and upgrade its value chain, but it is losing the "strategic luxury" of a  relatively stable external environment.

    Beijing will reverse infrastructure spending and credit expansion and try to use financial incentives to stimulate domestic consumption where it can, but it is likely to face greater economic pain, at least in the short term.

Editor's Note: This assessment is part of a series of analyses supporting Stratfor's upcoming 2019 Second-Quarter Forecast. These assessments are designed to provide more context and in-depth analysis on key developments over the next quarter.

When Chinese President Xi Jinping declared his country's "era of national rejuvenation" at the 19th Communist Party Congress in 2017, he saw a historical mission awaiting him. China had gone from a "century of humiliation" into seven decades of rehabilitation through internal reconsolidation and economic growth. The country had developed a massive economy and was halfway to its goal of ascending into a global power; Xi saw it as his job to take it the rest of the way. But though Xi may have had a clear mission informed by his predecessors, the fact is that he presides over a China that sits at a major crossroads domestically, politically, economically and globally.

China has hit the point in its economic transition where it must adapt to slower growth and adjust to a rockier economic situation. Chinese leaders are finally facing the constrictions stemming from the end of the country's previously near-unrestrained expansion at the same time that China is facing active challenges from the United States in the form of an aggressive trade war, a tech competition and challenges to Chinese territorial claims. For the next several years, almost none of China's existing internal and external challenges will face, and some will possibly even escalate, marking the final years of the decade as the end of "easy times" for China.

The Big Picture

Over the past two decades, China's emergence as the world's second-largest economy, coupled with its growing capacity to turn wealth into military power, has remade the geopolitical landscape, both regionally and globally. But its economic boom years have passed, and as its economy matures, China faces pressure to transform its structure and climb the value chain. It must figure out how to do so, however, without the strategic luxury that its astronomical growth spurt afforded to it.

China's Economy, the Origins

To understand the complex challenges that Xi's China faces today, it is helpful to examine their origins. While the historical perspective will not answer the question of what China will do next, it does illuminate the country's priorities, and, in turn, help explain its behaviors. While China's actions are inherently driven by the country's economic path, the interplay of geopolitics and the global power competition exudes a strong pull on them.

Even before Xi took his place as the Communist Party's general secretary in 2012, the economic and political order that guided China in the post-reform era had been rapidly evolving.

In 1978, China opened its economy to the world and started down a path to economic success and, by extension, military and global ascendance. Over 40 years into the process, China's economy is finally stumbling, but the country's main challenges have not arisen simply because of its cooling growth. Investment returns and external trade were once the core pillars of the Chinese economic miracle, but both have been losing potency, promising a somewhat slower "new normal." Continued weak domestic consumption, a struggling private economy and high debt loads provide a limited buffer for externally driven financial crises like a recession or the current U.S.-China trade war, while China's aggressive pursuit of technological development is facing increasing international scrutiny.

Stratfor has long argued that the 2008-09 global financial crisis and its aftermath had profound implications on China's domestic environment, resonating in the policy priorities and challenges that China's government faces today. In short, the financial crisis exposed the fundamental vulnerabilities of the export-oriented growth model that sustained China's decades of extraordinary growth and its employment of some 300 million people — the majority of whom were low-end manufacturing workers migrating from the impoverished countryside.

When the recession hit China's coastal economy and 40 million laborers found themselves unemployed, the government had few options other than drastically pivoting away from the export sector. But to do so, it had to implement a massive financial stopgap of 4 trillion yuan ($591 billion) for government-directed investments into development of roads, railways and, most importantly, real estate to mitigate economic and employment stress. In a post-crisis world, China continued to rely on credit expansion to sustain its economic transition, resulting in substantial industrial overcapacity and outstanding debt; indeed, debt currently sits at almost 260 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), spanning local government, state-owned enterprises and the household sector (the latter in part due to soaring real estate mortgages).

It was only a matter of time before China entered a lasting era of slow growth. As its economy matured and government-led investments expanded, returns naturally diminished. And regardless of Beijing's willingness to spur China's real estate market, whatever stimulus it could provide could not maintain the pace of growth it experienced before 2015, resulting in limited domestic consumption and suggesting that boosting the real estate market is losing its efficacy as a key policy tool. Added to all this is China's rapid shift away from export reliance — the export sector went from accounting for 36 percent of GDP in 2007 to just 22 percent in 2013.

The fact that domestic consumption has not grown as expected, private investments grew tighter and debt got larger pointed to one of two core problems facing the Chinese government: short of broad liberalization reforms, the strategies available to the government to quickly respond to unexpected shocks — and by extension, to continue to deliver wealth and mitigate social consequences — have been stretched to their limits, and using them will come with increasing costs.

 

China's economy also faced a second maturation challenge in the years after the recession. Although its export sector continued to grow in dollar value following the crisis and has served as a key buffer for the country's economic transition, rising costs of living and rapid urbanization, coinciding with inevitable shrinking demographic dividends would eventually undermine China's competitiveness in the face of emerging economies in Southeast Asia or East Africa. And for the sake of avoiding the dreaded middle-income trap, China must aggressively accelerate the pace of development of its technology sector to make the country's economy a more value-added and innovative one.

Essentially, when Xi took power, the country was caught between two types of economies: eager emerging markets were waiting for China's low-end manufacturing windfall, but at the same time, China also retained a heavy dependence on Western markets for cutting-edge technologies such as semiconductors. Chinese leaders knew their options were limited, and so was time.

A Sense of Economic Urgency

Xi has always known he was racing against time, which explains the spate of reform initiatives since 2015 (around the time when he consolidated political power) and his clear belief that the country needs to slow its growth rates to make way for these reforms. Over the past three years, Xi's government has ruthlessly eliminated excess capacity and improved efficiency in state-owned sectors, and it removed so-called "zombie" corporations owned by the state that produce no returns and carry high debt. It has limited credit generation, cracked down on informal lending in local governments and the private sector, and restricted property markets in large cities.

A sense of urgency also explains Xi's desire to rapidly ramp up China's technology industry and reduce external dependency on cutting-edge technologies — a plan outlined in the state-led Made in China 2025 industrial initiative. And it informs the country's aggressive overseas tech investments and acquisitions and its hunt for technological know-how, which has also included illicit means such as espionage and cybersecurity.

 

The Communist Party itself will struggle to maintain the sort of legitimacy that high growth and substantial wealth once helped to provide.

 

None of these measures are without casualties. The credit crunch, liquidity stress and property restrictions, for instance, have hit hard, affecting both private companies that have rising defaults or bankruptcies and debt-laden local governments over the past two years. It also risks bringing rising unemployment and financial stress to individuals who have experienced negative consequences from reforms. And amid China's aggressive pursuit for tech development, many Western companies and governments have found themselves directly exposed to growing Chinese competition and national security threats. Even within China's domestic political environment, the Communist Party itself will struggle to maintain the sort of legitimacy that high growth and substantial wealth once helped to provide. But despite the limitations, Chinese leaders are convinced they can buy China enough time to quickly upgrade the country's value chain, advance its technology capabilities, prevent potential supply chain disruption, and ensure China is in a better position to withstand another internal or external economic crisis than it was a decade ago.

The Dawn of the U.S.-China Rivalry

Another global economic crisis has yet to manifest. But something more profound has arrived, long overdue: the emergence of a strategic rivalry between China and the United States. The two are engaged in competition over technological supremacy, conflict over China's territorial and infrastructure expansion and a massive trade war, both reflecting and increasing the global ambivalence to China's rise.

Just a year after its economic opening, China normalized its relationship with the United States, a key element of ensuring a stable strategic global environment in which China could grow and develop. After decades of ebbs and flows from its Cold War peak, the state of the U.S.-China relationship has hit an all-time low — and it's poised to grow worse.

This eventuality is hardly surprising to Beijing. The prospect of the U.S.-China relationship morphing from positive to competitive has haunted Chinese leaders since the collapse of the Soviet Union neutralized their mutual adversary. Indeed, the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush entertained the idea of labeling China as a strategic competitor in early 2001 — right before the 9/11 attacks urgently redirected U.S. attention toward a global war on terrorism (for which it conveniently needed strong allies like China) for nearly two decades.

Now, almost 20 years later, the United States is working to disengage from overseas conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria, and it has finally begun amassing resources to engage with China in a strategic rivalry. In late 2017, the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump released a policy paper officially classifying China as a strategic competitor of the United States. But China has not wasted the past two decades. Building on its economic heft, China has largely established dominance as a regional economic and political powerhouse. Beijing has also accrued diplomatic influence, infrastructure capability and military power on a global scale.

At this point in the great power competition, China is acknowledging the blessings and curses it has observed in other rising powers. Specifically, as China's economic growth slows and as it increasingly challenges U.S. technology supremacy in areas such as artificial intelligence and robotic and other high-end manufactured goods, China has found itself limited in ways similar to those that Japan faced three decades ago. Back then, Washington challenged Tokyo's protectionist policies, currency management and economic model, much like the United States is doing to China today. However, unlike Japan in the 1990s, which relied on the U.S. security umbrella, China's security independence allows it to approach any negotiations with its strategic competitor from a stronger position.

Likewise, as China assertively engages in eastward maritime expansion to secure vital access to overseas markets and moves westward to develop its desolate inland regions, it finds itself with the same geographic limiters that Germany confronted nearly a century ago. Like pre-World War I Germany, China sees its expansion as defensive in nature, but that inevitably exposes China both to skeptical and competing neighbors and to conflicts with the United States over its imperative to secure maritime dominance. If China's expansion makes it a target for containment by U.S-led allies, then its critical supply lines would be vulnerable to disruptions.

The End of Easy Times

China still would benefit from more time and space to facilitate its domestic socio-economic transformation, but the strategic luxury that once supported the country's four-decades of near unrestrained rise is evaporating. It is coming to the global great power competition from a position of much greater strength than it would have two decades ago. However, it also has found itself with fewer domestic policy options and less strategic flexibility for withstanding external shocks.

In the long run, China's global ambitions will oblige it to continue updating its supply chains and restructuring its economy while continuing its fierce economic competition with the United States. At the same time, Beijing cannot ignore domestic economic issues, such as maintaining employment levels and minimizing supply chain disruptions. It will do that by seeking to expand and deepen export markets and continuing its push to build out infrastructure, a strategy that will drive it, when it can, to continue expanding its economic, political and military influence. This process will inevitably create points of conflict with other powers and require a reluctant Beijing to continue to adapt to international norms.

Without question, China is entering a new period in its ascendancy, and the way it handles the international conflicts and economic challenges ahead will shape the country's trajectory for many years to come.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72317
    • View Profile
Defense One: Beyond South China Sea Tensions-2
« Reply #724 on: February 21, 2019, 12:17:43 PM »
Been checking out this site:  Seems to be very Dem, but still giving it a chance-- haven't read this one yet:

https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2019/02/ep-38-beyond-south-china-sea-tensions-part-two-ccp-vision-and-future-chinese-history/154946/

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19768
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72317
    • View Profile
Re: US-China (& Japan, South China Sea-- Vietnam, Philippines, etc)
« Reply #726 on: February 25, 2019, 11:07:16 PM »
Those of you who are on FB should follow Jacob Bauer.  We have broken bread together.  The man is DEEPLY knowledgeable about China-- things of which he will not speak in print.  Check out this evening's chat in which I participate. 

https://www.facebook.com/jacob.bauer.545/posts/1909235762518614?comment_id=1909257385849785&reply_comment_id=1909267689182088&notif_id=1551164454315776&notif_t=feed_comment_reply


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
China to make forced technology transfer illegal
« Reply #728 on: March 07, 2019, 10:01:01 PM »
China to make forced technology transfer illegal as Beijing tries to woo back foreign investors
Issue a key demand made by US President Donald Trump as part of the ongoing US-China trade war
China expected to pass new foreign investment law next week during National People’s Congress

https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-economy/article/2188885/china-make-forced-technology-transfer-illegal-beijing-tries


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72317
    • View Profile
Walter Russell Mead: China's rise means trouble in paradise
« Reply #730 on: March 19, 2019, 11:27:58 AM »


China’s Rise Means Trouble in Paradise
Fiji and other tiny South Pacific states will be flashpoints of global competition.
By Walter Russell Mead
March 18, 2019 7:04 p.m. ET
Fijian Prime Minister Frank Bainimarama with Chinese engineers in Suva, Fiji, Sept. 29, 2017.


Viti Levu, Fiji

On a recent visit to Fiji I was able to confirm that the majestic islands of the South Pacific remain as close to paradise as one can get in this world. But alongside the sparkling crystal waters and coral gardens, I saw something darker at work in the region.

As U.S.-China competition intensifies, the thinly settled islands scattered across Oceania will become geopolitical flashpoints. The contest has already begun to impose strains on fragile societies. These strains will intensify as strategists in Washington, Beijing and Canberra seek to further influence political developments in tiny, almost inaccessible island-states.

U.S. interests in the South Pacific run deep. The American naval presence in the region, originally dispatched to protect U.S. whalers, is 200 years old. American statesmen have long believed that the country’s security depends on U.S. power in the Pacific. President John Tyler extended the Monroe Doctrine to Hawaii in 1842; a century later the importance of the region was driven home by the brutal island warfare of World War II. Even in an era when many Americans want to limit the nation’s overseas commitments, voters and Washington strategists alike will remain focused on maintaining security and stability in the South Pacific.

For many years, the main diplomatic drama in the region revolved around the bidding war between Taipei and Beijing for diplomatic recognition. In exchange for aid packages, island-states would agree to recognize either Taiwan or the mainland. For small states without many goods to sell, diplomatic recognition turned out to be good business. Of the 17 countries world-wide that maintain diplomatic relations with Taiwan, six are in the South or Central Pacific.

More recently, Beijing has intensified its courtship of Pacific island-states. Large investments and aid packages for countries like Papua New Guinea, Vanuatu and Fiji have alarmed Australia and New Zealand; additionally, China dangles the prospect of massive infrastructure aid for countries willing to participate in the Belt and Road Initiative. Tonga’s indebtedness to China amounts to nearly one-third of its GDP.

Some in the region welcome China’s new activism. A bidding war between Western nations and Beijing over sea lanes and naval bases, they reason, will be more lucrative than a mere contest over diplomatic prestige between Beijing and Taipei. Outsiders might be tempted to sneer at the venality of countries looking at geopolitics in this way, but the Pacific island nations cannot afford many scruples.

Fiji, for example, has a population of 926,000 citizens and a GDP of $4.9 billion according to the latest CIA World Factbook estimate. Yet it must provide infrastructure and basic services to 110 inhabited islands while monitoring a maritime territory that includes more than 200 uninhabited islands scattered across 486,000 square miles of sea. Kiribati, an archipelago north of Fiji, has a population of 109,000 distributed across an expanse of ocean twice the size of Alaska with a GDP of $197 million.

Good jobs on the islands are often hard to find. Young Pacific islanders who gain university education are often drawn to the bright lights of Sydney and Auckland, New Zealand. With little or no manufacturing capacity, the islands must import goods, from fuel to textiles and pharmaceuticals—usually at high cost, due to their distance from industrial centers. In these circumstances, the islands have every incentive to leverage their geographical position for financial and diplomatic advantage.

The priority in the U.S. and allied nations (including France and Britain, which still control territories in the region) must be to draw these countries into a stable and deepening relationship with the West while reducing the risk of crises and confrontations with China.

This will not always be easy. Economic development in countries like Papua New Guinea hinges on the exploitation of mineral resources. Papua New Guinea was ruled by Australia until 1975, but China’s role as a major export destination ensures that it will have a close relationship with Beijing. China’s willingness to finance the construction of ports and rail infrastructure makes that relationship likely to grow closer still.

Protecting U.S. interests in the South Pacific is neither the most difficult nor the most expensive task confronting American policymakers in a newly competitive world. But success will send an important signal to Beijing and beyond about Washington’s ability to respond effectively to the wider geopolitical consequences of China’s rise.

Failure will also be noted, and will come with a price.

Appeared in the March 19, 2019, print edition.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Walter Russell Mead: China's rise means trouble in paradise
« Reply #731 on: March 19, 2019, 11:36:38 AM »
China plays to win. Do we?




China’s Rise Means Trouble in Paradise
Fiji and other tiny South Pacific states will be flashpoints of global competition.
By Walter Russell Mead
March 18, 2019 7:04 p.m. ET
Fijian Prime Minister Frank Bainimarama with Chinese engineers in Suva, Fiji, Sept. 29, 2017.


Viti Levu, Fiji

On a recent visit to Fiji I was able to confirm that the majestic islands of the South Pacific remain as close to paradise as one can get in this world. But alongside the sparkling crystal waters and coral gardens, I saw something darker at work in the region.

As U.S.-China competition intensifies, the thinly settled islands scattered across Oceania will become geopolitical flashpoints. The contest has already begun to impose strains on fragile societies. These strains will intensify as strategists in Washington, Beijing and Canberra seek to further influence political developments in tiny, almost inaccessible island-states.

U.S. interests in the South Pacific run deep. The American naval presence in the region, originally dispatched to protect U.S. whalers, is 200 years old. American statesmen have long believed that the country’s security depends on U.S. power in the Pacific. President John Tyler extended the Monroe Doctrine to Hawaii in 1842; a century later the importance of the region was driven home by the brutal island warfare of World War II. Even in an era when many Americans want to limit the nation’s overseas commitments, voters and Washington strategists alike will remain focused on maintaining security and stability in the South Pacific.

For many years, the main diplomatic drama in the region revolved around the bidding war between Taipei and Beijing for diplomatic recognition. In exchange for aid packages, island-states would agree to recognize either Taiwan or the mainland. For small states without many goods to sell, diplomatic recognition turned out to be good business. Of the 17 countries world-wide that maintain diplomatic relations with Taiwan, six are in the South or Central Pacific.

More recently, Beijing has intensified its courtship of Pacific island-states. Large investments and aid packages for countries like Papua New Guinea, Vanuatu and Fiji have alarmed Australia and New Zealand; additionally, China dangles the prospect of massive infrastructure aid for countries willing to participate in the Belt and Road Initiative. Tonga’s indebtedness to China amounts to nearly one-third of its GDP.

Some in the region welcome China’s new activism. A bidding war between Western nations and Beijing over sea lanes and naval bases, they reason, will be more lucrative than a mere contest over diplomatic prestige between Beijing and Taipei. Outsiders might be tempted to sneer at the venality of countries looking at geopolitics in this way, but the Pacific island nations cannot afford many scruples.

Fiji, for example, has a population of 926,000 citizens and a GDP of $4.9 billion according to the latest CIA World Factbook estimate. Yet it must provide infrastructure and basic services to 110 inhabited islands while monitoring a maritime territory that includes more than 200 uninhabited islands scattered across 486,000 square miles of sea. Kiribati, an archipelago north of Fiji, has a population of 109,000 distributed across an expanse of ocean twice the size of Alaska with a GDP of $197 million.

Good jobs on the islands are often hard to find. Young Pacific islanders who gain university education are often drawn to the bright lights of Sydney and Auckland, New Zealand. With little or no manufacturing capacity, the islands must import goods, from fuel to textiles and pharmaceuticals—usually at high cost, due to their distance from industrial centers. In these circumstances, the islands have every incentive to leverage their geographical position for financial and diplomatic advantage.

The priority in the U.S. and allied nations (including France and Britain, which still control territories in the region) must be to draw these countries into a stable and deepening relationship with the West while reducing the risk of crises and confrontations with China.

This will not always be easy. Economic development in countries like Papua New Guinea hinges on the exploitation of mineral resources. Papua New Guinea was ruled by Australia until 1975, but China’s role as a major export destination ensures that it will have a close relationship with Beijing. China’s willingness to finance the construction of ports and rail infrastructure makes that relationship likely to grow closer still.

Protecting U.S. interests in the South Pacific is neither the most difficult nor the most expensive task confronting American policymakers in a newly competitive world. But success will send an important signal to Beijing and beyond about Washington’s ability to respond effectively to the wider geopolitical consequences of China’s rise.

Failure will also be noted, and will come with a price.

Appeared in the March 19, 2019, print edition.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72317
    • View Profile
GPF: How the Trade War won't end
« Reply #732 on: March 20, 2019, 07:26:15 AM »
March 20, 2019



By Phillip Orchard


How the Trade War Won’t End


Washington wants to cut a deal now, but Beijing is playing the long game.


The U.S. and China are circling ever closer to a trade deal. They just need to agree on how to make it mean something a year or two from now. In the weeks since U.S. President Donald Trump agreed to postpone the March 1 spike in tariffs on $200 billion in Chinese goods, enough progress has apparently been made that both sides are eyeing a “signing summit” between Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping by June. This cautious optimism is fueled by several factors, from Beijing’s offer to nudge down the trade deficit by binging on U.S. energy and agriculture products, to new laws set to be approved this week that include expanded protections for foreign investors. Trump’s barely concealed urgency to give markets a boost by calling off the dogs is probably furthering hopes in Beijing.

But “ending” the trade war still appears to mean something quite different to each side. China, naturally, wants to put this whole unpleasantness behind it and to turn its full focus to its staggering domestic headaches, and is reportedly demanding that all tariffs be lifted immediately. The U.S., naturally, is wary of China’s history of backsliding on rigorously negotiated deals, and presumably aware that it would take Beijing years to implement some of the structural reforms Washington is demanding. Washington needs to hold on to at least some leverage to ensure that the Chinese follow through. As a result, the U.S. is reportedly offering only to lift tariffs incrementally (while Chinese counter-tariffs would be lifted immediately). What’s more, the U.S also wants snapback mechanisms in place to further discourage Beijing from backsliding.

In other words, the focus of the talks has evidently moved to the thorny issues of implementation and enforcement. This speaks to a core problem bedeviling U.S. aims in the matter: Given that U.S. tariffs are only one of many problems weighing on Beijing, can the U.S.-China trade dispute really be negotiated away?

Keeping to a Deal

Whether the U.S. has any real urgency beyond political interests to wrap up a deal depends on whether it believes its broader strategic aims merit the costs of the trade war. The U.S. economy is at the peak of the business cycle and will eventually come back to earth. And the diminishing returns of a tool as blunt as tariffs for forcing China to make systemic changes are starting to become clear. Already, according to the Institute of International Finance, Chinese counter-tariffs are costing U.S. exporters more than $3 billion per month. The higher cost of imports is falling primarily on U.S. consumers, with losses expected to approach $70 billion this year, according to two new authoritative studies. None of this is devastating to the U.S., but Washington can’t ignore the ghost of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff – which raised duties on 20,000 imported items and contributed to the severe economic deterioration of the Great Depression. Meanwhile, there’s no evidence suggesting Beijing is preparing to make the sweeping structural changes demanded by the U.S. To get everything it wants from Beijing, the U.S. would have to keep up the pressure for years – likely well into an economic downturn, and certainly during a key election year. Moreover, even if annual Chinese growth plummets to 3-4 percent, it will still be adding hundreds of billions of dollars in new consumption. The opportunity cost to U.S. exporters is steep.

If the U.S. deems the costs necessary to stunt China’s rise, then no deal is imminent. Otherwise, the U.S. has an interest in settling for quite a bit less up front. By agreeing to a limited deal, pairing relief from specific tariffs with implementation of select concessions by Beijing, Washington can gradually ease the burden on the U.S. entities hurting most – exporters, firms with supply chains routed through China, firms dependent on lower-cost Chinese inputs, and consumers. And it will still have other tools like export controls, investment restrictions and the embattled but still potent World Trade Organization dispute settlement courts with which to protect U.S. firms and target Chinese practices that pose the biggest long-term threat, particularly in the race for technological supremacy. Whether or not the current negotiations produce a substantive deal, U.S. pressure in these areas isn’t going away.

But to trade hawks in the Trump administration, the sense of urgency to get a deal risks undermining efforts to address the very real problem of post-deal implementation – and giving Beijing incentive to try to run out the clock on what it sees as an impatient president. (Beijing would be foolish to think the next U.S. administration will be fundamentally more dovish, but it’s reasonable to think political and economic complications in the coming years will weaken U.S. appetite for a sustained offensive.) China has a mixed history, at best, of implementing deals. If it had fulfilled all of its WTO obligations, after all, it wouldn’t be in this position in the first place.

Beijing is trapped between oft-conflicting imperatives: economic dynamism and social stability. Under Xi, it has routinely prioritized the latter, deepening state domination of the economy in ways that have provoked the U.S., but that also helped maintain steady employment and manage China’s immense internal financial risks. Tariffs are a far smaller problem for China than internal dysfunction. But the duties are making Beijing’s tightrope walk of internal reform ever more precarious. In all likelihood, China will agree to whatever it deems necessary to make the tariffs go away. But if keeping order necessitates cheating on its commitments and risking a backlash, Beijing won’t hesitate.

What the U.S. Can Do

U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer is trying to make it harder for Beijing to backslide in a couple ways. The U.S. is insisting that concessions from Beijing be as explicit and quantifiable as possible. (Lighthizer says the agreement will exceed 110 pages.) The easier it is to identify cheating, the greater the reputational costs for Beijing and the easier it will be for Washington to make the case to the U.S. public and allies that pressure be revived. There are two main problems here: One, the Chinese system is exceedingly opaque, especially given the dominance of state-owned enterprises. Two, implementation progress on the biggest issues – forced technological transfers and cyber theft, for example – can’t easily be quantified or monitored. Thus, the U.S. is also demanding the right to independently assess whether China is living up to what it considers the spirit of the deal – and to unilaterally reimpose tariffs, without retaliation, if it concludes Beijing is falling short.

Still, these sorts of measures can do only so much. Trade deals, like most international agreements, last only as long as each side is willing to comply, which is why they tend to work only when they are truly in both sides’ interests. Either way, it’s really hard to make them binding. There won’t be any trade cops to make arrests when there’s a violation. The U.S. isn’t going to threaten war to enforce this sort of deal. Nor can the U.S. really take too much reassurance from measures like China’s new foreign ownership law, which would ostensibly help address the issue of forced technology transfers. The new law is vague, and Beijing has only so much ability and interest to enforce it at a granular level. (Trade lawyers say tech transfer typically happens willingly, often by foreign firms that are desperate for funding or that simply failed to adequately protect themselves under existing Chinese laws.) And when it comes to core technologies Beijing deems critical for initiatives like next-generation military applications, all bets are off. Law in China is applied only to the extent that it serves the Communist Party’s interests.
This isn’t to say China won’t have reasons beyond the lure of tariff relief to continue to comply. A lot of what Beijing will likely concede is fairly low-hanging fruit. For example, it’s expected to pledge to refrain from artificially weakening its currency (currently, it’s trying to keep the yuan from collapsing) and to buy more U.S. goods (items it needs to import anyway). Its measures to improve intellectual property protections, meanwhile, are needed to reassure spooked foreign investors, ease discontent among domestic private firms fed up with their state-owned counterparts, and further erode the U.S. business community’s support for the trade war. Countries often use trade agreements to bring recalcitrant domestic players obstructing needed reforms into line. And Beijing has a real need to repair its image abroad. The trade war has triggered a slow-motion stampede to the exits by foreign firms in the country, while also intensifying the spotlight on internal practices, deterring new investment. It’ll be dealing with the fallout of this for years and has ample reason to let the U.S. lose interest.

But structural reforms like ending industrial subsidies and scaling back the state’s role in the economy would be an order of magnitude trickier for Beijing to implement. These issues also happen to be at the heart of U.S. grievances. Even if the U.S. can pressure China into including concessions in these areas in the deal, it will be an exceedingly wobbly deal, however many pages it runs.


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
Re: GPF: How the Trade War won't end
« Reply #733 on: March 21, 2019, 11:38:18 AM »
I disagree in part. 

"Given that U.S. tariffs are only one of many problems weighing on Beijing, can the U.S.-China trade dispute really be negotiated away?"

Yes it can.  If we only succeed in part, that part can amount to millions, billions or trillions.  We will be far better off with partial success than where we were before this trade war started, a Trump accomplishment and a big bump in the economy.  China is better off in some ways too, with an end to the crisis and being legitimized instead of being the scapegoat called out constantly for unfair practices.  Strangely, domestic politics matters in dictatorships too. 

China used these unfair policies to jump to being the world's second largest economy.  To go further, the unfair advantage needs at least some reform.

Free trade is possible because it benefits both sides.  That's why real reductions in tariffs are possible.

The old system, mercantilism(?), is gone.  Trump can't turn back now, or take a faux agreement to save face.  Neither can his successor.  Trade toughness and tariffs actually have more natural support in the Democratic party.  Democrats don't really like trade and they love tariffs which are taxes and revenues in the US.  Can Xi really see the US Dem nominee running on a platform of lowering taxes or running to hand China back their unfair advantage?  Or will the Dem nominee promise to be tougher than Trump on China?  On that count Xi is better off dealing with this now. 

I opposed picking this fight and found some of Trump's claims false or misleading.  Trade deficits by themselves aren't bad.  But there is truth in this too, China's higher tariffs, technology theft and forced technology transfers are undeniable.  Going back to the old way isn't an option.  China's best option is to cut their best deal now.

I calculated that the danger of escalation hurts China 6 times more than it hurts the US based on reliance of each economy on the exports to the other country.  We can recalculate that all we want but the difference in impact is gigantic, yuge.

A deal can be made and kept, not perfectly, but to put us in a far better position than we were in before.  Trade enforcement is not nuclear weapon enforcement.  How do you hide charging more than the tariff rate for a tariff?  If you cheat on banned nuclear weapons, you have the nuclear weapons and become less likely to be attacked.  Not so with tariffs, you face immediate tariff 'snapback', again, with 6 times more power.  If you break a new Chinese law to stop forced technology transfers, then we have a Chinese company is breaking a Chinese law.  That is better than where we were, something that can be addressed.

Try this for enforcement:  If a US company hands away protected technology to a Chinese company, they lose patent protection for that technology in the US - and around the world.  Have we got your attention?

From the Article:  "Beijing would be foolish to think the next U.S. administration will be fundamentally more dovish [on trade]"

Regarding the long game, how long is Trump's term?  Assuming he loses in 2020, he has about a year before going lame duck.  If he wins, he has 5 years plus.  China doesn't have an economic plan that includes putting growth on a 5 year delay. Current leadership has never experienced a downturn and don't wish to start now.  Some think China's economy rests on a house of cards, of debt in particular, also based on false and exaggerated economic reporting.  (From the article, "China’s immense internal financial risks")  The current challenges for the regime are exacerbated by this trade crisis.  Trump is asking for nothing more than parity.  Having it solved is an advantage for both sides.  The Chinese regime looks better domestically and around the world with the American President bragging about the new fairness (he caused) in China than of their cheating.  Their economic numbers will be better too.

Yes they will cheat and yes they will still be our rival, our adversary, our enemy.  But making real improvement is a win for the US, for our economy and for Trump to have called them out on what no other candidate or President would have even attempted.
« Last Edit: March 21, 2019, 11:49:16 AM by DougMacG »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72317
    • View Profile
Re: US-China (& Japan, South China Sea-- Vietnam, Philippines, etc)
« Reply #734 on: March 21, 2019, 05:41:14 PM »
I am of more than one point of view on all this-- here is one of them  :lol:

Between the squeeze for the South China Sea (including the apparent purchase of the Philippine president) the BRI, the String of Pearls, the theft of our military and high tech technology, our debt payments financing the Chinese military, our lag in 5G, our lag in hypersonic missile technology, having of our country having lost its fg mind geopolitically as well as domestically, and various other matters the long term trends are ominous. 

China is now in the position that the US was in with regard to international capital flows that enabled us to supplant the British Empire and post WW2 take command of the international order.  Witness China's play in Iran, Africa, Venezuela and elsewhere in Latin America.

TRADE IS NOT DIVISIBLE FROM THE OTHER ISSUES.  This is our last and best chance of stopping the Chinese drive to dominance.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
Re: US-China (& Japan, South China Sea-- Vietnam, Philippines, etc)
« Reply #735 on: March 22, 2019, 04:53:12 PM »
Profound wisdom there Marc.  Great takeoff point for a youtube rant or podcast...

Ominous, but the current process brings a ray of hope.

"TRADE IS NOT DIVISIBLE FROM THE OTHER ISSUES.  This is our last and best chance of stopping the Chinese drive to dominance."

It is "our last and best chance" - > and we are finally doing it!

Indivisible from the other issues means that getting the trade agreement is a start at countering the other challenges and threats that China poses. 

I am more optimistic. 

A Pacific contest will involve/ include allies.  The US is in a better position to make good alliances (IMHO), Japan, India, Singapore, Taiwan if necessary, Australia, and others hopefully.  Balance of naval military power in the Pacific . South China Sea region should not be limited to the US standing up to China.  If others aren't involved, who are we defending?

Back to the point that trade is indivisible from other factors:  Because of that, when free trade is flowing dynamically in both directions and China is more prosperous and a bigger consumer of future American products, the relationship IMHO becomes way too intertwined to have a real war.  Unlike envies in the lead up to past wars, we have zero interest in conquering any Chinese land to plant our flag there, and vice versa.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19768
    • View Profile
Huaweii
« Reply #736 on: March 28, 2019, 03:13:58 PM »


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72317
    • View Profile
STratfor: China invades Taiwan's airspace
« Reply #738 on: April 01, 2019, 02:20:54 PM »
The Big Picture

Tensions across the Taiwan Strait have escalated over the past two years due to Beijing's increasingly aggressive military posture regarding its territorial claims over Taiwan. For its part, the United States has more assertively challenged China over Taiwan. This situation could lead to more standoffs and close calls in maritime hot spots between Taiwanese and U.S. forces on one side and Chinese forces on the other.
See Global Trends section of the 2019 Annual Forecast

What Happened

Two Chinese J-11 fighter jets crossed the cross-strait median, the de facto maritime border between China and Taiwan, the morning of March 31, Taiwanese officials said. When the Chinese fighters failed to change course after being hailed by the Taiwanese, they were met by Taiwanese interceptors. Even so, the Chinese fighter jets continued the incursion for about 10 minutes. Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen labeled the incursion "reckless and provocative" and called for the "forceful expulsion" of Chinese warplanes should they cross the line again.

Why It Matters

The encounter marks one of the most serious incursions by People's Liberation Army Air Force fighter jets on the Taiwanese side of the maritime border this century. Chinese jets flew across the cross-strait median frequently until 1999, when both sides tacitly agreed to halt the practice. Rare subsequent Chinese crossings were largely deemed accidental.

The duration of the latest incursion implies it was intentional, and it reflects increased tensions between China and Taiwan and in the broader U.S.-China geopolitical struggle.

The incursion might be an effort by Beijing to test Taipei's response, or to compel Taipei to seek negotiations on avoiding escalations from such encounters.

China's apparent ending of the informal nonincursion agreement might be an effort to test Taipei's response, and it could compel Taipei to seek negotiations on avoiding escalations from such encounters. It could result in Taiwanese fighters making their own incursions on the west side of the line, which in turn could lead to a cycle of tit-for-tat provocations coming amid already-tense cross-strait relations. Unsurprisingly, Beijing is more likely to avoid potentially dangerous escalations with the United States, but increased hostile encounters in the Taiwan Strait could draw Washington in deeper anyway.

Background

Cross-strait relations have deteriorated since Tsai took office in 2016, with Beijing using pressure tactics including threats of military action to try to assert its claims over Taiwan. The government of U.S. President Donald Trump has meanwhile stepped up its support to Taipei, which has included more U.S. naval patrols in the Taiwan Strait and efforts to regularize arms sales to Taipei. In March, the Trump administration gave preliminary approval to Taiwan's request to buy more than 60 more modern F-16s. The Chinese response to more U.S. naval patrols and to arms sales to Taiwan can be expected to include increased Chinese maritime patrols and exercises in and across the Taiwan Strait.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72317
    • View Profile
WSJ calls for F-16s to Taiwan
« Reply #739 on: April 02, 2019, 02:33:41 PM »
Tension Over the Taiwan Strait
More evidence that the U.S. ally needs F-16V jets to deter China.
By The Editorial Board
April 1, 2019 7:05 p.m. ET
Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen speaks during a military award ceremony at the Presidential office in Taipei, April 1. Photo: /Associated Press

Two Chinese J-11 fighter jets crossed the Taiwan Strait’s “median line” on Sunday, stoking a 10-minute standoff with Taiwanese jets in the island’s airspace. Taipei’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs called the incident “intentional, reckless, and provocative,” and it underscores why President Trump should bolster Taiwan’s defenses with a sale of American F-16s.

Taiwanese media called the incursion the first since 2011, and the one eight years ago was considered an accident. Chinese planes have skirted the island’s airspace for years with little consequence, and Sunday’s deeper breach underscores the danger of that impunity.


Beijing is smarting from the voyage a week ago of a U.S. Navy destroyer and Coast Guard cutter through the Strait, as well as President Tsai Ing-wen’s speech in Hawaii a few days later. Speaking via video link to the Heritage Foundation, Ms. Tsai confirmed her government’s request to buy American M-1 Abrams tanks and F-16V fighters.

The Chinese may hope Sunday’s escalation will convince Washington that its support for Taiwan’s democracy isn’t worth the risks. This strategy has worked for decades to convince American Presidents not to sell fighters to Taiwan, and the island’s forces are now heavily outnumbered. Taiwan has 144 fourth-generation F-16s from the 1990s compared to 600 fourth-generation planes on the Chinese side, an advantage that has made Beijing more aggressive.

News reports say the Administration is close to accepting Taiwan’s request for some 60 F-16Vs, which are more advanced than the island’s existing fleet and would provide meaningful deterrence in the Taiwan Strait. Such a sale would “show to the world the U.S. commitment to Taiwan’s defense,” as Ms. Tsai said last week. America’s Pacific allies want to know how Mr. Trump will respond to Chinese aggression, and Taiwan is his most important test.

Appeared in the April 2, 2019, print edition.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
Re: US-China, China's economic rise over the Obama years
« Reply #740 on: April 03, 2019, 06:44:44 AM »
To be fair, US policies toward China were in place and defective long before Barack Obama was President.  But while the US under Obama was under-performed our potential during the post-crash period by 200 or 300%, our chief rival was growing gangbusters.  Scott Grannis calls the stagnant US Obama-era economy compared with its long term average the "GDP Gap", with the area under the curve now amounting to tens of trillions of dollars, more than the entire US government debt.

Meanwhile 'communist' China invested and grew, if not catching and surpassing us, making that a very real possibility.  This article in the South China Morning Post reports on China's phenomenal growth during that time.  My question is outside the scope of this article; why did the US stand still while our main economic (and military) rival was energized on steroids?  Although largely unreported, the American people knew this and changed course.

https://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/article/3004415/chinas-decade-extraordinary-growth-2008-lost-its-critics

"China's economy tripled in size from 2008-2018,"
------------------------------------------------------
Doug:  Adjusting for bias and inaccuracies in China's economic reporting, the growth was still phenomenal while the growth in the US was pathetic.  We were doing cash for clunkers, solyndra and 'shovel ready jobs' while they were invested in major targeted industries.

https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-economy/article/2189052/china-exaggerated-gdp-data-2-percentage-points-least-nine
« Last Edit: April 03, 2019, 06:49:58 AM by DougMacG »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72317
    • View Profile
Re: US-China (& Japan, South China Sea-- Vietnam, Philippines, etc)
« Reply #741 on: April 03, 2019, 09:02:58 AM »
Fair points all AND

Chinese numbers are highly suspect.   Buildings built empty etc.  Loans that have no meaningful collateral carried on books, etc.  The country is a toxic dump, etc

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72317
    • View Profile
GPF: US deployments in western Pacific
« Reply #742 on: April 03, 2019, 09:42:46 AM »
second post

U.S. deployments in the Western Pacific. According to Japanese media, a U.S. Air Force RC-135S Cobra Ball, a reconnaissance aircraft designed to monitor ballistic missile launches, arrived in Japan over the weekend amid speculation that North Korea is planning to resume missile testing. U.S. Marines also deployed 14 aircraft to South Korea for joint exercises and an amphibious assault ship carrying 10 F-35Bs (more than such ships can usually carry) to the South China Sea. And according to the South China Morning Post, the U.S. and Philippines are in talks over the possible deployment of a U.S. rocket system to help the Philippines boost its defense capabilities against Chinese expansion in the South China Sea.



Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72317
    • View Profile
GPF: Taiwan, more than a friend of convenience
« Reply #745 on: April 17, 2019, 07:21:30 AM »


By Phillip Orchard


Taiwan: More Than a US Friend of Convenience


U.S. assurances to Taiwan are intentionally vague. U.S. interests in Taiwan are crystal clear.


Last Wednesday marked the 40th anniversary of the Taiwan Relations Act – the U.S. law shaping de facto diplomatic relations between Washington and Taipei. Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen celebrated the occasion by doing what most of her predecessors have often found themselves having to do: exhorting the U.S. to prove that it still “considers the security of Taiwan vital to the defense of democracy.” This comes amid Taipei’s latest push for a tangible demonstration of U.S. commitment to Taiwanese security, this time by approving the sale of more than 60 F-16 fighter jets to the self-ruled island, which China considers a renegade province.

Taiwan hasn’t lacked for attention under the Trump administration. Two months before Donald Trump even took office, he took an infamous phone call from the Taiwanese leader, violating decades of protocol and antagonizing Beijing, but effectively acknowledging that the game of diplomatic make-believe around the issue of Taiwan had become rather silly. In early 2018, the U.S. Congress passed legislation allowing the resumption of high-level official visits between Washington and Taipei that became taboo after 1979. In March, a U.S. warship sailed through the Taiwan Strait for the fifth time in six months.


(click to enlarge)


Yet, with the balance of power between Taiwan and China shifting dramatically in the latter’s favor, and with Beijing repeatedly declaring its intent to reunify (by force, if necessary), Taipei’s perpetual unease is understandable. After all, Washington designed the Taiwan Relations Act to give itself ample flexibility to reinterpret the law if changes in the broader strategic environment necessitated it. Forty years later, in other words, Taiwan’s fate is still tied firmly to a superpower an ocean away that Taipei suspects could someday conclude that it has bigger fish to fry. But that day won’t arrive anytime soon.

A Diplomatic Dilemma

The Taiwan Relations Act was an inelegant but effective fix to a diplomatic dilemma that started with President Richard Nixon’s landmark trip to China in 1972. At the time, the strategic interests of Beijing and Washington were converging. The U.S. wanted China to stop meddling in Vietnam and, more important, to cooperate against the Soviets. China, which had fought a major battle with the Soviets along the Siberian border a decade earlier and feared additional attacks, was inclined to coordinate with Washington against the Soviets.

But Washington struggled to appease both China and Taiwan, and so the normalization process with Beijing dragged on for another seven years as the U.S. tried to come up with a way to let both sides save face and preserve the cross-strait status quo. Since China was too weak to retake Taiwan by force – and since Beijing was demanding few substantive changes to U.S.-Taiwanese defense or trade ties – Washington was happy to endorse the “one China” policy and shift diplomatic recognition to Beijing. It was easy enough to close its embassy in Taiwan and reopen it as the American Institute in Taiwan, a nongovernmental organization that happened to be manned by U.S. diplomats (and, since 2005, U.S. military personnel).

Somewhat more problematic, Washington also had to formally pull out of the 1954 Sino-American Mutual Defense Treaty, which meant that it needed a mechanism to maintain military ties with a government in Taipei it no longer recognized as legitimate. The solution, introduced in Congress less than two months after U.S. diplomatic ties shifted to the mainland, was the Taiwan Relations Act.

The act includes two key passages. Both are notably vague in keeping with the U.S. principle of “strategic ambiguity,” which allows the U.S. to avoid military entanglements not of its choosing. (Formal U.S. mutual defense treaties are likewise imbued with this principle.)

The first passage describes how the U.S. would respond to an attack on Taiwan: “[The U.S. will] consider any effort to determine the future of Taiwan by other than peaceful means, including by boycotts or embargoes, a threat to the peace and security of the Western Pacific area and of grave concern to the United States.” This isn’t exactly an ironclad commitment. Every U.S. administration since President Jimmy Carter has sought to augment this clause with various clarifications and promises intended to reassure Taipei, but its ambiguity continues to make Taiwan uneasy.

For the U.S., however, balance and flexibility have remained the priorities. President Ronald Reagan, for example, gave Taipei his “Six Assurances,” promising, among other things, to continue arming Taipei without asking first for permission from Beijing. But he also committed in the “Third Communique” with Beijing to gradually reduce arms sales to Taiwan. The Clinton administration, focused firmly on boosting economic ties with Beijing, reinterpreted the act to allow for further international isolation of Taiwan, and then sent a carrier group into the Taiwan Strait in 1996, humiliating Beijing, in response to a series of Chinese drills simulating an invasion.

The second key passage in the act is intended, in part, to avoid ever having to decide whether to come to Taiwan’s rescue in the first place: “The United States will make available to Taiwan such defense articles and defense services in such quantity as may be necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capability.” Since 1979, the U.S. has sold Taiwan more than $25 billion in arms. Still, what’s sufficient for Taiwanese self-defense is open to interpretation. What Taipei thinks Taiwan needs and what Washington thinks Taiwan needs have, at times, differed widely. Ultimately, it’s up to Congress and the White House to make that determination. And the U.S. inevitably has myriad factors to look at when considering an arms sale to the self-ruled island. The U.S. is wary, for example, of giving Taipei cutting-edge technology because of Taiwan’s extreme vulnerability to Chinese espionage. More broadly, the U.S. is constantly either at odds with Beijing or in need of Chinese cooperation on one issue or another. Reagan’s assurances notwithstanding, the timing and scope of arms sales to Taiwan will inevitably be seen as something of a U.S. bargaining chip with Beijing – especially in an environment where a Chinese invasion appears a pipe dream.

Island Bliss

Taiwan has geography on its side, and it’s a technological powerhouse in its own right. So it doesn’t need the full weight of U.S. power on its side to keep China at bay. (Early on, in fact, the U.S. was worried about giving Taiwan too much, lest Chiang Kai-shek and the Kuomintang try to restart the Chinese civil war.) A Chinese invasion of Taiwan would be exceedingly difficult. It doesn’t matter how many troops, arms and supplies the Chinese army can amass on the shores of Fujian province across the Taiwan Strait. To invade Taiwan, China would need the bulk of its forces to get into boats and make an eight-hour voyage into the teeth of Taiwanese firepower coming from well-entrenched, well-supplied onshore positions. They would be funneled into just a handful of acceptable landing zones and met by as many as 2.5 million well-armed troops and thousands of armored fighting vehicles and self-propelled artillery. China’s army is almost entirely bereft of experience with amphibious operations in a modern combat environment. Amphibious war requires extraordinarily complex coordination between air, land and sea forces, especially with logistics. An enormous number of things must go right for China to succeed, and the political risks of failure would be sky high.

Still, for Beijing, reunification is a matter of when, not if. Politically, Taiwan is a perpetual scar on the Communist Party’s narratives about the communist victory in the Chinese civil war, and the party routinely nurtures grievances about foreign meddling in Taipei to curry nationalist support for its right to rule. Strategically, so long as the U.S. can pair its superior naval and aerial capabilities with bases and allied support along what’s known as the first island chain – Japan, Taiwan, the Philippines and Indonesia – it poses a threat to block sea lanes that are critical to China’s export-dependent economy. And more than any other island in this chain, Taiwan could be used by a foreign power to threaten the Chinese mainland itself. Retaking Taiwan would blow a hole in the U.S. containment strategy – and put China in a more enviable position to threaten Japan’s southwestern islands.


 

(click to enlarge)


Thus, the possibility that the U.S. (along with allies like Japan) may, in fact, intervene on Taiwan’s behalf is, more than anything else, preserving the status quo. And Taiwan does have some reason to question the continued willingness of the U.S. to do so. While China may still be incapable of mounting an invasion with an acceptable chance of success, much less going toe-to-toe with the U.S. in open waters, it is developing the capabilities to make it increasingly costly for the U.S. to go to battle closer to the mainland. Unlike other U.S. allies like the Philippines and Japan, Taiwan is located well within range of China’s growing “fortress fleet” of onshore anti-ship missiles, air power and swarming maritime forces.

But the fact remains: Control of the Pacific is important enough to the U.S. that Taiwan can neither be left to its own devices nor bargained away. Strategic ambiguity cuts both ways; the U.S. doesn’t have to convince Beijing that it will intervene, just that it might and that it can. And for the time being, at least, the U.S. can defend Taiwan without putting its surface ships at risk, much less bringing its own amphibious forces into the fray. U.S. missiles and air power could pick off amphibious forces like sitting ducks and impose severe retaliatory costs on the mainland, while the vastly superior U.S. (and Japanese) submarine fleets thwart a Chinese blockade.

Ultimately, to take Taiwan, China has to think it’s ready to take the entire Western Pacific. China does not think it will be ready for this for decades to come. Until then, it’ll be stuck fruitlessly trying to coerce Taipei back into the fold via economic and political coercion. Thus, Taipei is largely in the same situation it was in 1979: anxious, isolated and comfortably secure.



G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: GPF: Taiwan, more than a friend of convenience
« Reply #746 on: April 17, 2019, 02:10:23 PM »
Nuclear Taiwan flips the script and allows for a de-nuclearized North Korea.




By Phillip Orchard


Taiwan: More Than a US Friend of Convenience


U.S. assurances to Taiwan are intentionally vague. U.S. interests in Taiwan are crystal clear.


Last Wednesday marked the 40th anniversary of the Taiwan Relations Act – the U.S. law shaping de facto diplomatic relations between Washington and Taipei. Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen celebrated the occasion by doing what most of her predecessors have often found themselves having to do: exhorting the U.S. to prove that it still “considers the security of Taiwan vital to the defense of democracy.” This comes amid Taipei’s latest push for a tangible demonstration of U.S. commitment to Taiwanese security, this time by approving the sale of more than 60 F-16 fighter jets to the self-ruled island, which China considers a renegade province.

Taiwan hasn’t lacked for attention under the Trump administration. Two months before Donald Trump even took office, he took an infamous phone call from the Taiwanese leader, violating decades of protocol and antagonizing Beijing, but effectively acknowledging that the game of diplomatic make-believe around the issue of Taiwan had become rather silly. In early 2018, the U.S. Congress passed legislation allowing the resumption of high-level official visits between Washington and Taipei that became taboo after 1979. In March, a U.S. warship sailed through the Taiwan Strait for the fifth time in six months.


(click to enlarge)


Yet, with the balance of power between Taiwan and China shifting dramatically in the latter’s favor, and with Beijing repeatedly declaring its intent to reunify (by force, if necessary), Taipei’s perpetual unease is understandable. After all, Washington designed the Taiwan Relations Act to give itself ample flexibility to reinterpret the law if changes in the broader strategic environment necessitated it. Forty years later, in other words, Taiwan’s fate is still tied firmly to a superpower an ocean away that Taipei suspects could someday conclude that it has bigger fish to fry. But that day won’t arrive anytime soon.

A Diplomatic Dilemma

The Taiwan Relations Act was an inelegant but effective fix to a diplomatic dilemma that started with President Richard Nixon’s landmark trip to China in 1972. At the time, the strategic interests of Beijing and Washington were converging. The U.S. wanted China to stop meddling in Vietnam and, more important, to cooperate against the Soviets. China, which had fought a major battle with the Soviets along the Siberian border a decade earlier and feared additional attacks, was inclined to coordinate with Washington against the Soviets.

But Washington struggled to appease both China and Taiwan, and so the normalization process with Beijing dragged on for another seven years as the U.S. tried to come up with a way to let both sides save face and preserve the cross-strait status quo. Since China was too weak to retake Taiwan by force – and since Beijing was demanding few substantive changes to U.S.-Taiwanese defense or trade ties – Washington was happy to endorse the “one China” policy and shift diplomatic recognition to Beijing. It was easy enough to close its embassy in Taiwan and reopen it as the American Institute in Taiwan, a nongovernmental organization that happened to be manned by U.S. diplomats (and, since 2005, U.S. military personnel).

Somewhat more problematic, Washington also had to formally pull out of the 1954 Sino-American Mutual Defense Treaty, which meant that it needed a mechanism to maintain military ties with a government in Taipei it no longer recognized as legitimate. The solution, introduced in Congress less than two months after U.S. diplomatic ties shifted to the mainland, was the Taiwan Relations Act.

The act includes two key passages. Both are notably vague in keeping with the U.S. principle of “strategic ambiguity,” which allows the U.S. to avoid military entanglements not of its choosing. (Formal U.S. mutual defense treaties are likewise imbued with this principle.)

The first passage describes how the U.S. would respond to an attack on Taiwan: “[The U.S. will] consider any effort to determine the future of Taiwan by other than peaceful means, including by boycotts or embargoes, a threat to the peace and security of the Western Pacific area and of grave concern to the United States.” This isn’t exactly an ironclad commitment. Every U.S. administration since President Jimmy Carter has sought to augment this clause with various clarifications and promises intended to reassure Taipei, but its ambiguity continues to make Taiwan uneasy.

For the U.S., however, balance and flexibility have remained the priorities. President Ronald Reagan, for example, gave Taipei his “Six Assurances,” promising, among other things, to continue arming Taipei without asking first for permission from Beijing. But he also committed in the “Third Communique” with Beijing to gradually reduce arms sales to Taiwan. The Clinton administration, focused firmly on boosting economic ties with Beijing, reinterpreted the act to allow for further international isolation of Taiwan, and then sent a carrier group into the Taiwan Strait in 1996, humiliating Beijing, in response to a series of Chinese drills simulating an invasion.

The second key passage in the act is intended, in part, to avoid ever having to decide whether to come to Taiwan’s rescue in the first place: “The United States will make available to Taiwan such defense articles and defense services in such quantity as may be necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capability.” Since 1979, the U.S. has sold Taiwan more than $25 billion in arms. Still, what’s sufficient for Taiwanese self-defense is open to interpretation. What Taipei thinks Taiwan needs and what Washington thinks Taiwan needs have, at times, differed widely. Ultimately, it’s up to Congress and the White House to make that determination. And the U.S. inevitably has myriad factors to look at when considering an arms sale to the self-ruled island. The U.S. is wary, for example, of giving Taipei cutting-edge technology because of Taiwan’s extreme vulnerability to Chinese espionage. More broadly, the U.S. is constantly either at odds with Beijing or in need of Chinese cooperation on one issue or another. Reagan’s assurances notwithstanding, the timing and scope of arms sales to Taiwan will inevitably be seen as something of a U.S. bargaining chip with Beijing – especially in an environment where a Chinese invasion appears a pipe dream.

Island Bliss

Taiwan has geography on its side, and it’s a technological powerhouse in its own right. So it doesn’t need the full weight of U.S. power on its side to keep China at bay. (Early on, in fact, the U.S. was worried about giving Taiwan too much, lest Chiang Kai-shek and the Kuomintang try to restart the Chinese civil war.) A Chinese invasion of Taiwan would be exceedingly difficult. It doesn’t matter how many troops, arms and supplies the Chinese army can amass on the shores of Fujian province across the Taiwan Strait. To invade Taiwan, China would need the bulk of its forces to get into boats and make an eight-hour voyage into the teeth of Taiwanese firepower coming from well-entrenched, well-supplied onshore positions. They would be funneled into just a handful of acceptable landing zones and met by as many as 2.5 million well-armed troops and thousands of armored fighting vehicles and self-propelled artillery. China’s army is almost entirely bereft of experience with amphibious operations in a modern combat environment. Amphibious war requires extraordinarily complex coordination between air, land and sea forces, especially with logistics. An enormous number of things must go right for China to succeed, and the political risks of failure would be sky high.

Still, for Beijing, reunification is a matter of when, not if. Politically, Taiwan is a perpetual scar on the Communist Party’s narratives about the communist victory in the Chinese civil war, and the party routinely nurtures grievances about foreign meddling in Taipei to curry nationalist support for its right to rule. Strategically, so long as the U.S. can pair its superior naval and aerial capabilities with bases and allied support along what’s known as the first island chain – Japan, Taiwan, the Philippines and Indonesia – it poses a threat to block sea lanes that are critical to China’s export-dependent economy. And more than any other island in this chain, Taiwan could be used by a foreign power to threaten the Chinese mainland itself. Retaking Taiwan would blow a hole in the U.S. containment strategy – and put China in a more enviable position to threaten Japan’s southwestern islands.


 

(click to enlarge)


Thus, the possibility that the U.S. (along with allies like Japan) may, in fact, intervene on Taiwan’s behalf is, more than anything else, preserving the status quo. And Taiwan does have some reason to question the continued willingness of the U.S. to do so. While China may still be incapable of mounting an invasion with an acceptable chance of success, much less going toe-to-toe with the U.S. in open waters, it is developing the capabilities to make it increasingly costly for the U.S. to go to battle closer to the mainland. Unlike other U.S. allies like the Philippines and Japan, Taiwan is located well within range of China’s growing “fortress fleet” of onshore anti-ship missiles, air power and swarming maritime forces.

But the fact remains: Control of the Pacific is important enough to the U.S. that Taiwan can neither be left to its own devices nor bargained away. Strategic ambiguity cuts both ways; the U.S. doesn’t have to convince Beijing that it will intervene, just that it might and that it can. And for the time being, at least, the U.S. can defend Taiwan without putting its surface ships at risk, much less bringing its own amphibious forces into the fray. U.S. missiles and air power could pick off amphibious forces like sitting ducks and impose severe retaliatory costs on the mainland, while the vastly superior U.S. (and Japanese) submarine fleets thwart a Chinese blockade.

Ultimately, to take Taiwan, China has to think it’s ready to take the entire Western Pacific. China does not think it will be ready for this for decades to come. Until then, it’ll be stuck fruitlessly trying to coerce Taipei back into the fold via economic and political coercion. Thus, Taipei is largely in the same situation it was in 1979: anxious, isolated and comfortably secure.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
Re: GPF: Taiwan, more than a friend of convenience
« Reply #747 on: April 17, 2019, 03:23:28 PM »
quote author=G M:

"Nuclear Taiwan flips the script and allows for a de-nuclearized North Korea."

The idea of a nuclear Taiwan might quickly go from a bargaining chip to a reality and it is China's fault.  They could have quashed the nuclear threat in N.K. and they are openly threatening the entire region, especially Taiwan, with their words, their military buildup and provocative actions.

If I were China I would pretend to be more peace seeking and cooperative.  I don't think they are such great strategists.

The "inevitable" "reunification" is 75 years behind schedule.  They missed their best chance under President O.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72317
    • View Profile
Re: US-China (& Japan, South China Sea-- Vietnam, Philippines, etc)
« Reply #748 on: April 17, 2019, 05:46:34 PM »
Enabling Taiwan to go nuke presents some REAL interesting scenarios  :-o :-o :-o

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: US-China (& Japan, South China Sea-- Vietnam, Philippines, etc)
« Reply #749 on: April 17, 2019, 09:02:00 PM »
Enabling Taiwan to go nuke presents some REAL interesting scenarios  :-o :-o :-o

The reality is that Taiwan or Japan is quite capable of going nuclear without our assistance or permission.