Will war break out in the Taiwan Strait?

The original link of China Labor Forum: https://chinaworker.info/zh-hans/2021/07/19/30185/

Telegram link of China Labor Forum: https://t.me/chinaworkerISA

Twitter link of China Labour Forum: https://twitter.com/OctRevolution1 7

If you are interested in subscribing to "Socialist" magazine, please send an email to: chinaworker.isa@gmail.com

Taiwan is at the center of the escalation of the new Cold War between China and the United States. The new Cold War is not a temporary phase in global relations - Biden's anti-China policies are meant to "win the 21st century".

Vincent Kolo

In April, The Economist magazine called Taiwan "the most dangerous place on earth." The cover headline sparked a heated discussion. How can Taiwan be compared to North Korea, Afghanistan or Gaza? But in recent years, especially in the months since the Biden administration took office, the Indo-Pacific and strategic competition with China have been prioritized, while tensions across the Taiwan Strait have risen to unprecedented levels.

In the epoch-making conflict between Chinese and American imperialism in the 21st century, the Taiwan question is a key economic, political and geostrategic one. For this Communist Party-state, which has no real name and no communism, Taiwan can be used to incite nationalism, and the "great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation" will not be realized until it is taken down. But the CCP's policy toward Taiwan cannot be explained by this symbolism alone.

China's red line

The Chinese regime cannot allow Taiwan to formally "split" into the US-led Western camp in the new Cold War conflict. Therefore, Taiwan's official declaration of independence, the promotion of Taiwan independence by major powers such as the United States, and the stationing of the US military in Taiwan are all its "red lines". Once these red lines are crossed, it will be a historic setback for the CCP regime and may even lead to its downfall. This is why Beijing has not only adopted the wolf warrior language, but also increased the number of military exercises in the airspace and waters surrounding Taiwan. (In 2020, the People's Liberation Army Air Force entered Taiwan's airspace to a record 380 times, and this year it will be more.) In the disputed waters of the South China Sea closely related to the Taiwan conflict, the actions of China and the United States are escalating at the same time. Beijing's action is to warn Taipei and Washington not to challenge its "red lines" and to assist Xi in his power struggle within the party through nationalism to consolidate his lifelong rule over the party-state.

For the U.S. side, the opposite is true: if China and Taiwan were to be "unified" and firmly controlled by the People's Liberation Army, it would be a historic defeat for U.S. imperialism. Militarily, control of Taiwan would enable China to dominate East Asia and the Western Pacific. The United States will be decisively weakened, and its strategic alliances with regional powers such as Japan, South Korea, India and Australia will begin to unravel. America's credibility as Asia's major superpower since 1945 will suffer irreversibly.

Comparison with the Suez Crisis

Some commentators have compared the new U.S.-China Cold War to the 1956 Suez Crisis (the second Middle East war), when Egypt’s radical pan-Arabist President Gamal Abdel Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal, leaving the U.K. trying to control it. , France and Israel suffered setbacks. The Suez Crisis marked the end of British and European imperialism as a world power. The United States has stayed out of the Suez crisis, leaving its allies to shame. If the United States fails or refuses to prevent the People's Liberation Army from taking Taiwan, it would mark a historic turning point in America's "Suez Moment." But under today's conditions, such an outcome would be worse for Western capitalism. As The Economist quoted Trump's senior director of Asia affairs Matt Pottinger as saying, when Britain suffered a setback at the Suez Canal, the United States had replaced Britain as the leader of the Western world. Today, "No Other America Is Waiting Behind"

Clearly, neither the Renminbi nor the great powers in today's Cold War will view the "Taiwan issue" in terms of people's well-being, security, or democratic rights. The 23 million Taiwanese have unfortunately become an important pawn in the race for supremacy and control in the Indo-Pacific. In Taiwan, people are now gradually realizing the full meaning of the geopolitical alliance of forces. Taiwan's nationalist bourgeois leadership (the ruling pan-green camp) has used society's hatred of the CCP regime to push a pro-American agenda and win votes, complicating mass consciousness.

There is still a perception among grassroots supporters of Taiwanese nationalism (especially the younger generation who overwhelmingly support independence and see it as a guarantee of democratic rights) that the problem can be resolved within Taiwan or through diplomacy and an alliance with the United States to solve. But the US backs 75% of the world's dictatorships, and when its geopolitical interests changed, it betrayed countless pledges of support for the Kurds, Afghan women, Tibetan Kham guerrillas, and more. For U.S. imperialism, as shown by the support of Chiang Kai-shek's regime in the past, as long as Taiwan "stands on our side", there is no moral doubt about Taiwan's dictatorship.

In principle, it is of course very reasonable for the Taiwanese people to decide the future of Taiwan, but this cannot be achieved on the basis of capitalism and imperialism. Unfortunately, Taiwan's fate is now determined by Beijing and Washington, and by their race to "win the 21st century" above the people of Taiwan. Only with the victory of the international socialist revolution and the end of capitalism and imperialism can the peoples of Taiwan and other countries decide their own future.

"Strategic Ambiguity"

Both Chinese and American capitalists want to control the Taiwanese pawn. Rather, they must do whatever it takes to prevent the other from taking control. For this reason, a geostrategic stalemate is still acceptable to both sides. This is why the United States still adheres to the "One China Policy" as its foreign policy. According to this policy, the United States does not recognize Taiwan as an independent country. This was a diplomatic agreement reached 50 years ago by former US President Nixon and Chinese leader Mao Zedong, insisting that "one China" was the price US imperialism was willing to pay for pulling China to the US side in the then Cold War to confront the Soviet Union. Due to changing global relations, Taiwan was unceremoniously kicked out of the United Nations in 1971.

The US policy of "strategic ambiguity" towards Taiwan also came into being. The US promises to "protect" Taiwan (sells arms to Taiwan), but has not indicated that it will send troops to protect the island in the event of a Chinese military invasion of Taiwan. But things are very different today. Especially since Biden took office, both sides have significantly increased tensions in Taiwan. Compared to Trump's capricious policies, Biden is pursuing a more coherent, planned and (at least so far) refined foreign strategy to "squeeze" China, such as forming an international coalition and "the United States has back to the negotiating table." The Xi regime has responded by intensifying its nationalistic wolf warrior foreign policy and domestic repression.

The United States is concerned that China's growing military might eventually allow China to take Taiwan by force. The Chinese navy is now larger than the US (China has 360 ships, the US has 297). China has the advantage of fighting closer to home. The U.S. military and foreign policy community is debating whether past “strategic ambiguity” should be abandoned in favor of a clear U.S. assurance of military involvement in Taiwan. Opponents warn that this could instead violate the law and invade Taiwan by Xi Jinping.

Rather than ditch the “strategic ambiguity” altogether, Biden and his regrouped allies have changed language and made subtle changes in posture as a warning to Xi. At the G7 summit held in the UK in June, and when Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga met with Biden two months ago, the official communiqué mentioned "the importance of peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait." Western leaders have never mentioned Taiwan in their forums in the past. Beijing sees it as a provocation, and that's their intention. Recently, Japan's Deputy Prime Minister warned that China's invasion of Taiwan would "threaten Japan's survival", which apparently means Japan will go to war to defend Taiwan. Australian politicians, including Defence Minister Peter Dutton, have made similar warnings in recent months.

In July, Biden's Indo-Pacific policy coordinator, Kurt Campbell, delivered a widely reported speech and reiterated the U.S. stance that "we do not support Taiwan independence." This is certainly nothing new, it has been consistent US policy since Nixon and Mao Zedong reached a diplomatic agreement. But the most important part of Campbell's speech was his warning that any use of force by China against Taiwan would be "catastrophic." Campbell said the international community had a "clear sense" that China was using the Hong Kong incident to test the waters to assess possible future international responses to Taiwan.

Campbell's speech implicitly acknowledged the inability of the United States to stop China's political crackdown on Hong Kong, but warned China not to expect a similar approach to Taiwan. A fierce competition is unfolding, with both sides resorting to more extreme actions to deter the other. But since neither side can afford to lose face, this will only fuel a further escalation of tensions.

Will Xi Jinping attack?

So how dangerous is the CCP's military attack on Taiwan? Despite the apparent toughness of his rhetoric (the official CCP no longer adds “peace” when it refers to “unification”), Xi Jinping will not risk war unless he is completely confident that the war will be won. Because of Taiwan's rocky coastline and unpredictable weather conditions, the invasion of Taiwan would have required a large military effort from both a military and geographic standpoint. Apart from revolutions, the most dangerous thing for any regime (especially dictatorships) is war and the effects of defeat, as in Russia in 1904-1905, Argentina in 1982 and many other cases. Being defeated in war, being forced to suspend aggression, suffering heavy casualties—all these could trigger a regime crisis, possibly the fall of Xi Jinping, or even the fall of the entire CCP regime.

Another important question is how will the CCP rule Taiwan? Given that the vast majority of Taiwanese oppose reunification and CCP rule, a massive military occupation and police state will be required for the CCP to rule Taiwan. Even if this were to succeed, it would present Beijing with the danger of imperial overreach. Failure and mass resistance in Taiwan will bring instability and social unrest back to China. The "one country, two systems" vision proposed to Taiwan over the years has some logic and sees Hong Kong as a possible model. Beijing envisions being able to rule Taiwan through a pro-CCP Kuomintang or similar "comprador" government, not unlike Hong Kong's early years after the 1997 handover of sovereignty. But that option has now become less likely, undermined by Xi Jinping's bloody crackdown on Hong Kong. Taiwanese people are disgusted with "one country, two systems", and even the Kuomintang has jumped out to oppose it.

Revolutionary crisis

In this way, Xi Jinping's hard line on Hong Kong has put the Chinese regime in a difficult position to formulate its Taiwan policy. Of course, the CCP cannot give up the goal of "unification", but now realistically, this can only be achieved through war. To mobilize against the new Cold War, the U.S. military has repeatedly warned that Beijing could launch an invasion of Taiwan within six years, or as U.S. Indo-Pacific Command General John Aquilino said earlier this year: "It's closer than most people think."

At this stage, these forecasts appear to be exaggerated. But if the current balance of power swings decisively on one side, something else could happen. For example, when there is a serious crisis, a revolutionary crisis in China, Xi Jinping or his successor may panic and launch a military offensive in order to take the public's attention away from the political crisis. On the other hand, if there is a serious political crisis or economic collapse in the United States in the future, it may force the United States to withdraw its military forces from the Indo-Pacific region, thereby creating a power vacuum that only China has the ability to fill in today's power structure. . In this case, Taiwan and its fragile and unstable bourgeois democracy could face the fate of Czechoslovakia in the 1930s - being "sold" to China as part of an imperialist pact.

These different outlooks Taiwan's fate will not be determined primarily by its internal development. The labor movement and youth, increasingly eager for independence, need to understand that it is imperative that they connect their struggles with workers and youth in China, the United States, and globally. Parts of the left, and many with radical nationalist positions, fail to grasp this connection and tend to view world relations, China, and the new Cold War between China and the United States as purely interesting external developments that have nothing to do with Taiwanese politics. But despite the clear desire for independence of most Taiwanese, it is unlikely that Taiwan will achieve independence under a capitalist framework.

Campbell just reminded everyone that not one, but two imperialist superpowers are opposing Taiwan independence. Taiwan under capitalism is destined to be a prisoner of the imperialist Cold War: no state status, highly militarized, and under the shadow of a "hot" war that breaks out at any time. Socialists fought to build a workers' movement, to seize power with a socialist program, and to abolish Taiwanese capitalism, fully defend the Taiwanese people's right to self-determination, and as part of a broader struggle against capitalism and imperialism in Asia and globally.