The WP Has a Solid Article on China's Growing Military

Edward Cody has a very succinct article in today's Washington Post.  Many of his points have been made here at Dawn's Early Light, but I would like to highlight a few paragraphs and themes:

Thesis Opening

"Several programs to improve China's armed forces could soon produce a stronger nuclear deterrent against the United States, soldiers better trained to use high-technology weapons, and more effective cruise and anti-ship missiles for use in the waters around Taiwan, according to foreign specialists and U.S. officials."

Advanced Weapons and Ships (see DEL here)

"The Chinese navy has taken delivery of two Russian-built Sovremenny-class guided missile destroyers and has six more on order, equipped with Sunburn missiles able to skim 4 1/2 feet above the water at a speed of Mach 2.5 to evade radar. In addition, it has contracted with Russia to buy eight Kilo-class diesel submarines that carry Club anti-ship missiles with a range of 145 miles.

"'These systems will present significant challenges in the event of a U.S. naval force response to a Taiwan crisis,' Vice Adm. Lowell E. Jacoby, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, told the Senate Armed Services Committee in testimony March 17."

Nuclear Deterrent

"The Type 094 nuclear missile submarine, launched last July to replace a trouble-prone Xia-class vessel, can carry 16 intercontinental ballistic missiles. Married with the newly developed Julang-2 missile, which has a range of more than 5,000 miles and the ability to carry independently targeted warheads, the 094 will give China a survivable nuclear deterrent against the continental United States, according to 'Modernizing China's Military,' a study by David Shambaugh of George Washington University.

In addition, the Dongfeng-31 solid-fuel mobile ballistic missile, a three-stage, land-based equivalent of the Julang-2, has been deployed in recent years to augment the approximately 20 Dongfeng-5 liquid-fuel missiles already in service, according to academic specialists citing U.S. intelligence reports.

It will be joined in coming years by an 8,000-mile Dongfeng-41, these reports said, putting the entire United States within range of land-based Chinese ICBMs as well. 'The main purpose of that is not to attack the United States,' Lin said. 'The main purpose is to throw a monkey wrench into the decision-making process in Washington, to make the Americans think, and think again, about intervening in Taiwan, and by then the Chinese have moved in.'"

Air Superiority (See DEL here)

"Striving for air superiority over the Taiwan Strait, the air force has acquired from Russia more than 250 Sukhoi Su-27 single-role and Su-30 all-weather, multi-role fighter planes, according to Richard D. Fisher, vice president of the International Assessment and Strategy Center in Washington. The Pentagon has forecast that, as the Sukhoi program continues to add to China's aging inventory, the air force will field about 2,000 warplanes by 2020, of which about 150 will be fourth-generation craft equipped with sophisticated avionics.

Missile Threat Across the Straight (See DEL here)

"The 2nd Artillery Corps has deployed more than 600 short-range ballistic missiles aimed at Taiwan from southeastern China's Fujian and Jiangxi provinces, according to Taiwan's deputy defense minister, Michael M. Tsai. Medium-range missiles have also been developed, he said, and much of China's modernization campaign is directed at acquiring weapons and support systems that would give it air and sea superiority in any conflict over the 100-mile-wide Taiwan Strait."

China Stumbles with the EU on Arms Embargo (See DEL here)

"Buying such electronic equipment would be China's most likely objective if the European Union goes ahead with plans to lift its arms sales embargo despite objections from Washington, a senior European diplomat in Beijing said. A Chinese effort to acquire Israel's Phalcon airborne radar system was stymied in 2000 when the United States prevailed on Israel to back out of the $1 billion deal."

However Amphibious Capability Lacking

"But U.S. and Taiwanese officials noted that China's amphibious forces had the ability to move across the strait only one armored division -- about 12,000 men with their vehicles. That would be enough to occupy an outlying Taiwanese island as a gesture, they said, but not to seize the main island.

Instead, Taiwanese officials said, if a conflict arose, they would expect a graduated campaign of high-tech pinpoint attacks, including cruise missile strikes on key government offices or computer sabotage, designed to force the leadership in Taipei to negotiate short of all-out war. The 1996 crisis, when China test-fired missiles off the coast, cost the Taiwanese economy $20 billion in lost business and mobilization expenses, a senior security official recalled."

Defending Taiwan is becoming incrementally costly for US forces, which is China's motivation.  With enough improvement and pressure and a less forceful US administration, Communist China may be able to politically coerce Taiwan to relinquish its control.  The US, Japan, Australia and India must not let this happen.

Comments

[Jarrod]

Why?

How important is Taiwan to us these days? Our growing economic ties to China give us more influence there than Taiwan ever did. Thomas PM Barnett said we should trade Taiwan in exchange for China solving the North Korean problem. We have other allies in Asia who are bigger, stronger and more influential. While it'd of course be a shame to let Taiwan become "Chinese" it's unlikely they would do too much to it. Hong Kong, as far as I know, has been left mainly untouched. They aren't stupid enough to ruin a good thing.

Plus it'd do wonders for our relations. We should be courting China as they become a power, not immediately making them an enemy.

[Bill Rice]

Jarrod,

As a believer in American Exceptionalism, I find your solution above to cave in on our democratic ideals for economic gain and bow down before China repugnant.

I very much support better ties between the US and China and desire a peaceful path for both nations, but not at all at the expense of our principles.

I am glad that John F. Kennedy in his inaugural address said:

"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

This much we pledge and more.

To those old allies whose cultural and spiritual origins we share, we pledge the loyalty of faithful friends. United, there is little we cannot do in a host of cooperative ventures. Divided, there is little we can do -- for we dare not meet a powerful challenge at odds and split asunder."

Trading Taiwan for Chinese favor would destroy the cornerstone of trust we have with many nations, including Japan, South Korea, Australia, Israel, Iraq, Afghanistan, Qatar, the U.A.E and many others.

Your proposal is Machiavellian at best, a betrayal of our democratic ideals and national morals at worst.

Wouldn't encouraging China to embrace a democratic government be a better long term foreign policy for the US? Wouldn't one billion Chinese being able to express themselves freely not only economically but religiously and individually be a better solution?

Wouldn't a China more like Taiwan, rather than a China that swallowed Taiwan be more in long term US interests?

The Greater War on Terror, if it has shown us anything is that realism for its own pursuit is a failed policy. Realism, supporting an Idealistic goal is the sound future of US foreign policy, otherwise we are on the road to another 9/11 but in a completely different forum.

Kind regards,

Bill Rice
Dawn's Early Light

[Dan]

Barnett's views on Taiwan are his most significant weakness as a strategist.

Taiwan is a liberal democracy. China is not. Taiwan has open and contested elections. China does not. Taiwan seeks long-term security through alliance with America's friend, Japan. China will not.

North Korea is a threat to all of its neighbors, including Beijing. Barnett has correctly written that the PRC would like the DPRK gone too. There is no reason that the cost of such self-interest should be a peace-loving island nation.

Abandoning Taiwan will not increase American security or friendship with China. It will empower the wrong Chinese -- those who feel that force works. It weaksn the right Chinese -- those who focus on diplomacy on engagement. It would be a disaster.

There are three significant differences between Hong Kong and Taiwan

1. Hong Kong is ethnically Chinese. Taiwan is ethncially Malay.
2. Hong Kong never had a seperatist majority. Taiwan does.

If you want to see what happens to captive nations in China, ask the Tibetans or Uighers/Xinxiangese/East Turkmen. Or for a "lighter" touch, the Manchurians (once China's factory, now China's rustbelt).

Barnett is right on the need to engage China. But abandoning Taiwan is not the right appraoch.

[Jarrod]

I appreciate the lengthy response. While I appreciate your criticism and your raising good points, especially about pure realism vs realism with idealistic goals.

However, idealism doesn't always transfer easily into real world politics. Where exactly do you want to draw the line? North Korea and Taiwan are the biggest security problems in Asia. My suggestion, would theoretically kill two birds with one stone, leaving a much better security situation for the US and China.

We need to contructively work towards a democratic China and constantly antagonizing them isn't helping. Our presence there also forced them to continue to built up their naval forces which in the long rung will have negative consequences for us. We're creating our competitor so to say. I don't deny China would expand it's military otherwise, but we are speeding up the process.

I recommend working together to seriously solve both problems. If we get the message out that they are linked, Asian security would not only be won, but China could also prove itself to be a reputable broker of peace and an international negotiator.

In the past, the US has often forsaken allies, switched sides, supported both sides and so forth. Is it always the best policy? Definitely not, but sometimes it's a necessary one. We need to pick our battles but never rule such things out. Is trading Taiwan a good idea? Perhaps, I was merely making a suggestion. Allies such as Israel and Taiwan are always seen as permanent, as if questioning them isn't allowed (as one never hears it in reasonable dialogue, just from the extreme left).

Besides, democracy isn't always the end all be all form of government. There are numerous dictatorships far ahead of other democratic countries. Coming Anarchy has a good discussion about this between Curzon and myself.

In order to accomplish a greater good, we often need to engage in activities which are less than good. As they say no plan ever survives its first contact with reality and the same can be said for idealism.

[Marvin]

How do you accomplish the greater good by supporting the elimination of liberty in Taiwan for the sake of a non-nuclear DPRK. What you end up with is a stronger China, and the false assurance that the DPRK will not have nuclear weapons (as if they'd need them with China behind them). Jarrod, it seems to me that you are quick to favor a solution that is worth little more than the repugnance that Bill had for it in his response. We'd be better served by standing firm by liberty and forcing China to either support it or prepare to defend their flawed system, just as we did with the Soviets.

[Dan]

Jared

We need to contructively work towards a democratic China and constantly antagonizing them isn't helping. Our presence there also forced them to continue to built up their naval forces which in the long rung will have negative consequences for us. We're creating our competitor so to say. I don't deny China would expand it's military otherwise, but we are speeding up the process.

Our forces in Asia generally service one of two rules

1. Protect international shipping lanes from piracy
2. Preempt competitors

Both work to reduce foreign military presense. As long as the American Navy keeps a lid on piracy, other nations will not feel that need. And as long as the American Navy has an unrecoverable lead against other states, no other state will choose to compete.