Will China Mess With US
Warships Headed for Taiwan Strait?
By Ray McGovern
August 16, 2022:
Information Clearing House-- "Anti War" - The US has thrown down the gauntlet. A
showdown may come "in the coming weeks," if
sanity does not prevail.
"What’s important for us right now is to
make sure that Beijing understands that our
forces in the region will continue to operate,
to fly, to sail wherever international waters
allows. That includes the Taiwan Strait.
"I think you should expect that we will
continue to do Taiwan Strait transits, as we
have in the past, in the coming weeks. …"
What About President Biden?
Not to worry. To the degree it matters, he
seems relaxed. On Aug. 8, after China announced
new post-Pelosi-visit military drills in the
seas and airspace around Taiwan,
Biden expressed mild concern about China’s
deployments, but spoke reassuringly to
reporters:
“I’m concerned they (the Chinese) are
moving as much as they are,” but I don’t think
they’re going to do anything more than they
are.”
"… Nothing has changed – nothing has
changed – about our One China policy … Put
simply, there is no reason for Beijing to turn a
potential visit [by Pelosi] … into some sort of
crisis or conflict, or use it as a pretext to
increase aggressive military activity in or
around the Taiwan Strait. [Emphasis added.]
"And yet, over the weekend, even before
Speaker Pelosi arrived in the region, China
conducted a live-fire exercise. China appears to
be positioning itself to potentially take
further steps in the coming days and perhaps
over longer time horizons.
"Now, these potential steps … could also
include actions in the diplomatic and economic
space, such as further spurious legal claims
like Beijing’s public assertions last month that
the Taiwan Strait is not an international
waterway. [Emphasis added.]
"Some of these actions would continue
concerning trendlines … but some could be of a
different scope and scale."
… and is Kirby Listening to the Bobbsey
Twins?
Kirby’s boss, whiz-kid national security
adviser Jake Sullivan and his elder (but equally
innocent twin) Antony Blinken have served Biden
poorly. In the fine schools they attended, they
seem to have concentrated on courses on US
Exceptionalism, skipping over what
John Mearsheimer calls "Balance of Power
Politics 101."
On the key question of Sino-Russian
relations, they seem to have been operating out
of textbooks a half-century old when they told
President Biden that China was "squeezing"
Russia – the exact opposite of what has been
happening for several decades now. Worse still,
they seem to have learned close to nothing about
what the Soviets used to call the "world
correlation of forces."
In a word, these extremely bright whiz kids
have helped drive the Chinese and the Russians
into each other’s arms. That’s what has
changed – plus China’s recent military
buildup that makes it a formidable foe.
Not Hard to See This Coming
On May 25, 2021,
when the date of June 16 was announced for
the in-person summit between Presidents Biden
and Putin, it seemed necessary to warn Biden and
his neophyte advisers that a major shift in the
"world correlation of forces" was bound to
heavily influence the June talks. China, of
course, would not be taking part in the
bilateral talks, but it would be very much
present.
“Whether or not Official Washington fully
appreciates the gradual – but profound – change
in America’s triangular relationship with Russia
and China over recent decades, what is clear is
that the US has made itself into the big loser.
The triangle may still be equilateral, but it is
now, in effect, two sides against one. …
“There is little sign that today’s US
policymakers have enough experience and
intelligence to recognize this new reality and
understand the important implications for US
freedom of action. Still less are they likely to
appreciate how this new nexus may play out on
the ground, on the sea or in the air.”
It was clear that the new phenomenon of
Russia-China entente would dwarf the
significance of less important issues; and we
could not be sure Biden would be appropriately
informed. He wasn’t.
The Chinese "Squeeze"
President Biden did not get the word.
Here is the bizarre way Biden described, at
his post-summit presser, his
decades-behind-the-times approach to Putin on
China:
“Without quoting him [Putin] – which I
don’t think is appropriate – let me ask a
rhetorical question: You got a
multi-thousand-mile border with China. China is
seeking to be the most powerful economy in the
world and the largest and the most powerful
military in the world.”
At the airport, Biden’s co-travelers did
their best to whisk him onto the plane, but
failed to stop him from sharing more of his
views on China – this time on China’s strategic
“squeezing” of Russia:
“Let me choose my words. Russia is in a
very, very difficult spot right now. They are
being squeezed by China.”
Have Biden’s innocent advisers, by now,
sought out new textbooks, updated from the ones
they may have read in the 70s and 80s. Have they
learned that Russia and China have never been
closer – that, indeed, they have what amounts to
a virtual military alliance?
Why This Matters
Back to what may be in store for U.S.
warships should they try to enter the Taiwan
Strait "in the coming weeks." Will China try to
impede or harass them?
Experts on China tell me there is low
likelihood of that, and I defer to their
judgment. At the same time I cannot banish from
memory what they told me before Russia invaded
Ukraine; namely, that China’s principled stand
against interference in the affairs of other
countries would make it impossible for China to
support such an invasion. And yet, the Chinese
have been in the forefront of defending it,
explaining that Russia’s "core interests" are at
stake. Bejing is now reminding all that Taiwan
is a "core interest" of China.
Would the Chinese expect Russia to have their
back, so to speak, if they moved to interdict or
harass US warships in the Strait? I believe they
would expect that. Russia’s immediate
endorsement of China’s policies on the Pelosi
visit is one tangible sign pointing in this
direction. (Use your imagination and pick the
various ways President Putin could up the ante
so as to advantage his friend and ally Xi
Jinping.)
Is this worth testing by trying to sail into
the Taiwan Strait? Only an innocent hawk would
think so. And yet the Chinese have every reason
to believe that it is the hawks who are calling
the shots in Washington – not Biden. (I discuss
some of these issues in a short interview I gave
early yesterday
Sunday, though the connection dropped at
minute 8:40.)
Bottom line: The White House has left
little incentive for the Chinese to keep pushing
what they call a "Win-Win" policy. According to
reliable sources, when top Chinese officials
pressed the mutual advantages of "Win-Win" with
White House National Security Council China guru
Kurt Campbell, they were set back at his
response. They described it as “Your win-win
IS BULLSH*T!."
Aside from the use of vernacular, this is not
difficult to believe, given what is known about
Campbell, who very early on said
“the era of engagement is over." Sadly,
Campbell is no wiser than the Bobbsey twins with
respect to the implications for the US of the
virtual alliance that now exists between China
and Russia.
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a
publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the
Saviour in inner-city Washington. His 27-year
career as a CIA analyst includes serving as
Chief of the Soviet Foreign Policy Branch and
preparer/briefer of the President’s Daily Brief.
He is co-founder of Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).
Views expressed in this article are
solely those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect the opinions of Information Clearing House. in this article are
solely those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect the opinions of Information Clearing House.
Reader financed- No
Advertising - No Government Grants -
No Algorithm - This
Is Independent
In accordance
with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material
is distributed without profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for research and educational
purposes. Information Clearing House has no
affiliation whatsoever with the originator of
this article nor is Information ClearingHouse
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)