Re points made by Ron et. al.
Ron said:
Most of those words were bluster aimed at covering up a MAJOR CONCESSION, namely that Bejing has conceded to deal with Taiwan on a "state to state" basis, and not as a rebel province.
Your reply:
I am more inclined than some to take dictatorships at their word when they announce their intent.
In other words, you seem to feel that words speak louder than actions. The only reason I can see for this is that the words support your opinion and the actions don't.
Ron also said:
in either case, Bejing lacks the navy or logistical infrastructure necessary to launch such a major amphibious invasion (for now)
You said...
I think at this point, intent, not military capability is of primary importance.
I can't see how intent, even assuming that intent is defined by words instead of actions, is more important than capacity. If I announce that I intend to fly, is that more significant to you than the fact that I can't?
I was also intrigued by the following comments, reported in the IHT:
Popular opinion in Taiwan appeared to be similarly unbowed.
A survey by the cable-TV station TVBS found 25 percent of respondents to be 'slightly worried' or 'very worried' about a military threat from Beijing, compared to 68 percent who were 'not very worried' or 'not at all worried.'
Day Sheng-tong, head of the Taiwan association of small and midsize businesses, dismissed fears over possible hostilities, saying Beijing's threat was mere political propaganda.
'Mainland China has too much to lose if a war breaks out,' he said. 'With the help of Taiwan investors, they can easily become a main global economic power in coming years. Why risk it?
'Commercial exchanges are so frequent that there is no hostility whatsoever,' said Mr. Day, owner of San Sun Hat & Cap Co.
There seems to be more concern in Washington than there is in Taipeh, which would is odd. I think most of the bellicose rhetoric in Washington is aimed not at China, but at the US electorate, which for some reason wants its leaders to be "tough", even when toughness serves no function.
It has also been pointed out, legitimately, that change in China's leadership will be happening in the immediate future simply by attrition, as the old generation dies off. It seems extremely likely that their successors will be more pragmatic and more likely to pursue modernization and reform.
Our strongest weapons against the Chinese dictatorship are not guns and bombs, but the free flow of commerce and information. Interrupting that flow harms our interests - and those of China's reformers - more than it harms the regime. |
