China-US-Taiwan Economic (Temp closed-pls read my last post)
- Thread starter Orthan
- Start date
- Status
manqiangrexue
Brigadier
Neither of the articles you posted constitute a threat that was tested and not carried out. Especially the first one, it is still current policy; except no one was stupid enough to test China on it. The second one basically says if things go really badly under the radical new American president, war could be the result. And what has happened since the article was written in January? Trump has said he would not take another call from Cai without consulting Xi, he has said that he no longer thinks that China is a currency manipulator, and he has turned from blaming China for the trade deficit to praising China for the deficit and blaming past US administrations LOL. How do you go to war with a lovely fella like that?
Last edited:
In the first example, was the general authorized to speak to the media? Seem unlikely since he is not a diplomat
Second example, the reporter can't even provide a name. Besides, it is the duty of the military to be prepared
SinoSoldier
Colonel
You could equally argue that the threat to attack Taiwan following a USN port call is also an untested threat. Do you have evidence, besides the diplomat's claims (which may or may not reflect actual policy), that disallowing foreign military visits to Taiwan is an article within the law?
manqiangrexue
Brigadier
That's exactly what I'm saying; it's another untested threat. China does not have a history of backing off on threats so why would you not believe this one?
Someone else said it is an article within China's anti-succession law. I don't know if it is or what part it is but that's completely beside the point. The diplomat made a statement that China would respond forcefully, which is a new piece of information. Whether or not there is a pre-existing law that states that China must react forcefully is something else entirely.
No foreign troops in Taiwan has been an official policy for a very long time. Go do some research first
solarz
Brigadier
I interpret that as backing away from Li Kexin's threat of war.
"中方一贯坚决反对美台进行任何形式的官方往来和军事联系。"
Notice that the term used here is the same official position as before. "Resolutely opposed" is magnitudes different from a threat of war.
The reason Li's words are problematic is China has previously pledged that it would not resort to military force against Taiwan unless it declared independence. A port call by a foreign warship is a far cry from a declaration of independence.
manqiangrexue
Brigadier
How do you interpret "resolutely oppose" as a renunciation of force?? I could put them in the same smooth-flowing sentence:
"We resolutely oppose these actions and therefore will react with force if they are carried out."
vesicles
Colonel
I interpret the latest statement as reminding everyone China’s policy on Taiwan.
The earlier statement was simply their way of executing their policy, “what we will do if someone violates our policy”.
I think the earlier statement was entirely intended for the US Congress. The Chinese diplomat was saying “you guys are having a handful elsewhere. Back off from our turf”.
actually China will have the same reaction to a US warship making a port of call on Taiwan, as the US has with China piling sand up and declaring that is China's sovereign territory, ( which by the way is far, far, more provocative),,, they won't like it, and they will show their displeasure, (such as the US conducting FON ops in the SCS?
the Chinese ambassador's statement is certainly for the consumption of everyone with an interest, and his venue was chosen for precisely that reason, it is posturing, or honestly "positioning" is a much better word,,, its serious business, but its still posturing, as much for domestic Chinese consumption, Taiwanese consumption, and a veiled threat against the US not to get involved, but truth is we are involved, and we will continue to be involved.......
just a fact of life for each of us?? we may not like it, but we all have to deal with it??
- Status