PLA Strategy in a Taiwan Contingency

I understand all you have said...and can only say this in response.

If, as so many indicate, that Taiwan is essential to the PRC and an object of such absolute poignancy and focus...then why has Taiwan been essentially free for 60 years? All of the things you have talked about have existed throughout that period.

Is it soley because of US power? In terms of pure numbers and capability, the ratios have not changed that much.

There have been numerous ocassions when the US was diverted with other compelling issues (Vietnam, the height of the Cold War, Desert Storm, and(a few years ago) when Iraq and Aghanistan were going at the same time in major fashions, when the PRC could have done exactly the same thing, with exactly the same rational as you speak of now.

And yet they did not.

My guess is that there are other considerations, beyond the nationalistic fervor that you speak of, which are driving the issue behind the scenes as well. The PRC would definitely not divert ALL of its air or naval strength purely for Taiwan. That would be to invite other squabbles to be taken abject advantage of as well on other borders and with other islands and regional concerns.

Perhaps the PRC is reaching a point where they feel that the composition and make-up of forces make it more possible. But I believe the US is still holding the technological and capability edge that it has held throughout...and is verging on technologies that will even extend it.

My guess is also that there would be a point in any war of attrition, where enough losses would compel the PRC to cease and desist if they had not gained the upperhand. They would not use up and lose all of the more modern systems they had accumulated if it looked like that might be the case.

Would that happen? I honestly do not know...but it could, and that would be one of the worst case scenarios they would have to plan for.

As I said earlier...I hope and pray it never need come to that, and will leave this discussion on that note.

It matters because the people of Taiwan particularly, and the U.S. are going to be more open to reunification as the differences in these particular areas are lessened.

You may think that is trivial...but it is not.

I cannot make a solid prediction that it will make the difference. But it certainly could and I am simply expressing my hope that it does.

No one has stated that China need give up its desire, or its claim to Taiwan. However, the people of Taiwan have been (from their own perspective) free and independent for over 60 years. A lot of that time, they were recognized by the international community as such. Now they are not. But you have generations now of those people living that way and of themselves you can understand how they might not want to so easily give that up.

That is why I say through economic and through these other means a point could be reached where giving it up (what they deem to be there own soveriegnty) would be worthwhile because of reaching a point where the differences are so small that they are fine with it.

That's all. I for one, hope it goes that way as opposed to armed conflict That was the whole point of my comments and I stand by them.

...and with that, I believe we have expressed our viewpoints directly and I do not need to punctuate them any further on this count...so I will leave them at that.

Sorry but I have a lot of disagreement on this one. One who follows the history timeline will know the answers to the questions you proposed. After Chiang fled, the PLA doesn't possess any sorts of cross-straits capabilities. The rest of the decades were pretty much China having identity crisis, reforms, and modernizations. None of these show that China didn't care about Taiwan. Plus, up until Lee, both sides had always recognized one China, and never anything involving an independent Taiwan. It was Lee's actions which began to bring a new light to evolution of mentality on the island. Also, we had never given a shit about what the West thinks. Just because ROC is democratic in the latter decades doesn't mean they are "independent people who are separate". Will we say SK and NK are independent from each other because of different identity? Or the Germans?

To Chinese and the Koreans, this is not a matter of political identity; this is an ethic issue, same as why the Palestinians will be unyielding about their cause. No one else in the world will have the right to tell them what to do, not to mention the right to attempt to judge their cause as legit or not.
 
Last edited:
I have spent a lot of time in Taiwan and undertsand the history very well. I know and have talked to many citizens there as I spent (sometimes) months at a time in my work there.

Admittedly, it has now been well over 8 years since I was there.

The KMT did harsh and terrible things. Part of it was the war itself with the Japanese and the civil war. A large part was also the individuals involved.

It happened on both sides, no doubt that many people on the other side (and on his side too) would say the same thing about Mao, just like they do about the KMT and Chiang.

My point is simplly that as those issues regarding folks individual liberty and their ability to self-govern as much as possible draw closer together, and as the economic dependancies grow, the need for and use of military force and conflict to "force a union" will become less and less likely or needed.

If those things go one long enough and get close enough together, the reunification will be (as some have said here) a natural process...and it should be.

That is my hope.

I hope that neither side forces the other away from such a track. I can understand the Taiwan desire for independence...as far as many of them are concerned, they already are and have been for 60 years. I do not think any of them want a devastating war to achieve it for the sake of achieving it. I believe if the issues driving them for wanting to be apart are addressed, the desire for it will also diminish as they realize they can enjoy the same libertires, and even more prosperity without it. But that is only if it becomes evident that they can. Just as much as I hope no hothead on the Taiwan sides comes along and, unprovoked, pushs that issue too hard, I also hope the PRC does not decide to "Crack the whip" and force those people into unification before the incentives, in terms of their own liberty and prosperity, makes it somethig they would want anyway.

Now, the posturing the U.S. does at this time is in large oriented around avoiding what the U.S. views as a long-time ally being forced into a union based on the latter condition in the above paragraph, with military force, that it does not desire. Part of that is the human rights, ideological side...another part is the way the U.S. would be viewed if the stood back and allowed something like that to happen to someone viewed as an ally.

I believe and hope all that can be avoided...and without either side having to give up what it views as its core interests. Time will tell, but I believe it is achievable.

No worries I doubt Beijing will crack the whip. We who follow what's been going on, knows that for China doing so, is same as burning all the progress.
 
Wow, I missed a lot since the last time I logged in! Excellent dialogue gentlemen! I have a question for you all, do you think it's possible that Taiwan Island could become an S.A.R. someday? Or another scenario could be they can keep their independence, but under Beijing's military protection, meaning only PLA forces are allowed.

I kinda see that coming, although I wonder what happens to the ROC military after reunification. Will they be turned over to China? (I'd think perhaps most of the equipment by then, especially combat aircraft, will be useless and serve no use to China)
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Wow, I missed a lot since the last time I logged in! Excellent dialogue gentlemen! I have a question for you all, do you think it's possible that Taiwan Island could become an S.A.R. someday? Or another scenario could be they can keep their independence, but under Beijing's military protection, meaning only PLA forces are allowed.
Many in Taiwan fight the SAR development or possibility because they view what has happened in Hong Kong as not being what they want or hope for in TAiwan. They believe the executive is elected and operates with far too much influence from Beijing.

Now, the PRC has offered a broader SAR agreement, as I understand it, to TAiwan which would allow them to keep their political parties, keep their local elections, and keep their own military for self defense as long as it does not threaten the PRC military.

Those would be difficult negotiations on the last.

Anyhow, as the ecnomies grow closer and closer knit together...and that is what is happening whether people like it or not...and as the PRC itself opens up more and offers strict gurantees for individual liberty and autonomy...the people on the island will see less and less reason to push for independence at the risk of all out war, to get eh very things being offered them.

If they are offered in good faith, protected and acted upon.

What a lot of people are wholly unaware of is the official "legal" standing of the island of Taiwan. it is not internationally, legally under the control of either the PRC or ROC, even though the reality is that the ROC government is currently running the island.

I am speaking now of pure legaleze. Here's a brief history to illustrate.

1895 - The Qing Dynatsy signed the peace treaty of Shimonoseki with Japan that officially and legally gave Formosa to Japan. After that time, Japoan was the recognized, legitimate government of Formosa by treaty.

1912 - The Republic of Chan was founded. But years of strife ensued.

1928 - Most of China united under the ROC. Fomrosoa (Taiwan) not included, as it was still recognized as part of Japan.

1937 - Japan invades mainland China.'

1941 - US goes to war against Japan.

1945 - Japan is defeated by the US and allies and surrenders. As a result of General Order No. 1 issued by General Douglas Macauthur who became the ruling military occupational authority of all Japan holdings, in Formosa, the ROC was asked to act on behalf of the United States who was the occupying military authority for the island according to the terms of the surrender. In other words, the US as a result of the surrender had the occupying military authority over the island and they asked the ROC to act in their behalf.

1949 - The ROC government loses the civil war on the mainland and retreats to Formosa (Taiwan), establishing its provisional government in Taipai. The international community, including the US, continues to recognize the ROC as the legitimate government of China and a government in exile. However, this status does not apply to Formosa (Taiwan) as no formal peace treaty is in place with Japan at that date and the island has not been officially, legally ceded over to anyone. The ROC continues to act on behalf of the US as the occupying military power.

1952 (April) - The San Francisco Peace Treaty (SFPT) is signed and Japan renounced its sovereignty over Taiwan and title to its territory as of April 28, 1952. SFPT Article 2(b) read: "Japan renounces all right, title and claim to Formosa and the Pescadores." However, no receiving country was specified for this territorial cession in the treaty.

Neither the (exiled) ROC government at that point, which occupied the island of Taiwan as agent for the United States, nor the government of the People's Republic of China (PRC), established on Oct. 1, 1949, signed or ratified the SFPT.

Article 25 of the treaty specifically provided that the Treaty did "not confer any rights, titles or benefits on any State which was not an Allied Power as defined in Article 23(a)," regarding Formosa. Accordingly, China, a non-party to the treaty, did not receive "any right, titles or benefits" to Formosa as a result of that treaty.

While SFPT Article 2(b) did not designate a recipient of "all right, title and claim to Formosa and the Pescadores," Article 23 confirmed the US as "the principal occupying power" with respect to the territories covered by the geographical scope of the treaty, including "Formosa and the Pescadores."

1952 (August) - The Treaty of Peace between the ROC and Japan, the "Treaty of Taipei", entered into force on August 5, 1952, but did not transfer sovereignty over Taiwan from Japan to the ROC or anyone else. The US remained the principle occupying military authority, and the ROC remained acting in the US's behlaf accoding to General Order No. 1 from Macarthur.

1971 - Oct. 25, 1971, United Nations Resolution 2758 expelled the representatives of Chiang Kai-shek from the United Nations and all related organizations, and recognized the representatives of the Government of the People's Republic of China as the only lawful representatives of China to the United Nations. The island of Taiwan was not mentioned.

1979 - As of January 1st, 1979, the United States recognized PRC as the offical, legitimate government of China. Until that time it had recognized the ROC as the legal government of China. At no time during this time period did the United States recognize the ROC as the legal government of Taiwan.

So, as of January 1979, the ROC was no longer recognized by the leading countries of the world community as the legal government of China. In Taiwan the ROC is still, legally, fulfilling the role of a subordinate occupying power, since Oct. 25, 1945.

2011- According to this analysis (and please point me to actual documents, as I have done that would negate what is pointed out) it is clear that from April 28, 1952 to the present, according to the provisions of the San Francisco Peace Treaty with Japan, Taiwan has been, in effect, an occupied territory of the United States, "the principal occupying power."

Neither the treaty with Japan, the Treaty of Taipei nor any other subsequent legal instruments after 1952, including the resolutions in the UN as far as I can see, ever changed the status of Taiwan.

Again, please correct me if I am wrong.

Now, none of this changes the de facto, du jour status of the country as the ROC government runs the island day to day.

The US could, on any day, change this status with a treaty with either the ROC or with the PRC. My guess is, that once things are agreed to between both sides, the US would execute whatever legaleze paperwork is necessary and this condition would end...and no one would be the wiser.

But I believe this is an accurate rendition of what the "legaleze" situation is at present time and explains a lot about the actions regarding the same.

I imagine that the ROC and the PRC contest this, each from their own perspective, but I can find no treaty or other official instrument that does so.

Pretty interesting, huh?
 
Last edited:

franco-russe

Senior Member
Yes, pretty interesting.

I have never ever seen anyone else describe the situation as being that "it is clear that from April 28, 1952 to the present, according to the provisions of the San Francisco Peace Treaty with Japan, Taiwan has been, in effect, an occupied territory of the United States, "the principal occupying power."

But I had come to the same conclusion on the legal status. Which ought to mean that the status of Taiwan is a question to be settled between Washington and Beijing?
 

no_name

Colonel
...because Communism's primary core was a non-cheating world where everyone is NOT selfish.

Which is amusing in a quite ironical way. Because if that was the assumption then any form of governing system would pretty much work, and there will be no need to turn to communism in the first place.
 

Mr T

Senior Member
Wow, I missed a lot since the last time I logged in! Excellent dialogue gentlemen! I have a question for you all, do you think it's possible that Taiwan Island could become an S.A.R. someday? Or another scenario could be they can keep their independence, but under Beijing's military protection, meaning only PLA forces are allowed.

Anything is possible. But Taiwan won't willingly become a SAR because that means China having massive political influence. What's the point in going from a democracy to having a leader who is effectively appointed by Beijing and where half the legislators are appointed by special-interest groups?!

And disarming under China's protection? Where's the advantage in that? It would just give China the ability to roll in to Taiwan at any time with no resistance and take over.

The sad thing is that China wants Taiwan to unify with it, but it has no realistic game-plan for how unification would work.
 

Engineer

Major
What's the point in going from a democracy to having a leader who is effectively appointed by Beijing and where half the legislators are appointed by special-interest groups?!

Good question. The answer is that the two systems would be perfectly identical.
 
Yes, pretty interesting.

I have never ever seen anyone else describe the situation as being that "it is clear that from April 28, 1952 to the present, according to the provisions of the San Francisco Peace Treaty with Japan, Taiwan has been, in effect, an occupied territory of the United States, "the principal occupying power."

But I had come to the same conclusion on the legal status. Which ought to mean that the status of Taiwan is a question to be settled between Washington and Beijing?

This is one of those "just cause it has your name, doesn't make it yours" kinda thing. US will leave that alone, and I'm sure pretty much no one with a normal mindset will try to claim it's theirs just merely because their name happened to be on a piece of paper.
 

i.e.

Senior Member
The US could, on any day, change this status with a treaty with either the ROC or with the PRC. My guess is, that once things are agreed to between both sides, the US would execute whatever legaleze paperwork is necessary and this condition would end...and no one would be the wiser.


Then US got a bigger problem on its hands,


if it is still occupying the territory of another country, I would say pretty illegally....
because pretty much all international bodies and countries, including United States, recognizes Taiwan as part of China, even back when US recognized ROC as the official government of china.

and the PRC in 50s up to late 70s were pretty much right in pointing out that US is occupying Taiwan and should be thrown out as an invader.


better settle this before People's Liberation Army really knocks on the door.
 
Top