Only on mainland China, perhaps, would they celebrate the anniversary of the Korean War. Actually, the president of Red China, Xi Jinping, gave a speech the other day commemorating China’s entry into the war 70 years ago. The whole bloody disaster that was the Korean War ended up a stalemate with thousands of dead on the American side—and no telling how many dead on the Chinese and North Korean side.
Seriously, no telling. Those governments don’t give exact numbers on these things. The West can only estimate. But some estimates go into the millions, and most were Korean civilians.
In Red China, the Korean War is said to be a great victory. But then again, calling a draw a “great victory” isn’t much of a stretch for Beijing, since it also claims that the Americans invaded North Korea to start the massacre. Who knows? They may even believe that on the mainland.
We have fallen into the habit of saying “Red China” and “mainland China” to differentiate the ChiComs from the free Chinese, who moved, hurriedly, to Taiwan in 1949. The Taiwanese, and the ChiComs, were back in the news this past week again, after the Americans announced another sale of weapons to Taipei’s government.
Strategic ambiguity has worked for the Americans for decades when it comes to Taiwan and Red China. But that doesn’t mean this county is ambiguous about selling weapons to our allies.
CNN reports that the administration last week formally notified Congress that it proposes to sell billions of advanced weapons to Taiwan—again. Included this time are the Standoff Land Attack Missile Expanded Response (SLAM-ER) and the High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS) to go along with Stingers, Harpoon anti-ship missiles and Mod6 torpedoes. Say what you will, but the American military has cool names for its gadgets.
Now the ChiComs say they’ll retaliate for the proposed sale. And they’ll do so by imposing sanctions on American companies, such as Lockheed Martin and Boeing, for selling those weapons. Because the ChiComs say Taiwan is just a rogue state, not a independent one, and they’ll take it back when they please. They just haven’t pleased before now. Those living on Taiwan have a different view, as do their American and Western allies.
American policy about Red China and Taiwan has often been called “strategic ambiguity”—because why draw a line in the sand, or the water, if it’s not needed? Let the communists in Beijing guess about how this country would react if they launched an invasion on the free Chinese island. It’s a policy that’s kept the
peace since Eisenhower, and it could for years to come.
Every administration in Washington since the end of the Chinese Civil War has maintained this position. Sometimes to make oneself clear is to give the opposition a plan. As Sir Thomas More said in “A Man for All Seasons,” when clarity would have been unhelpful: “I trust I make myself obscure?”
A war between the Americans and the Chinese over Taiwan—or over anything—would be a global disaster. Word around the campfire is that U.S. military planners have played this war game against China in the Pacific for years, and it doesn’t always go well for the Americans.
We might not have enough missiles in that part of the world to counter what the Chinese can throw into the sea. Or even if they will come by sea at all. Word also has it that the Chinese military is putting more emphasis on paratroopers and airborne troops to get around any Taiwanese mines in the water.
Just having this conversation is distressing.
So why have it at all?
This week, John Pomfret at The Washington Post reported that President Xi’s “Chinese Dream” is to take Taiwan, and he’s said that China wouldn’t “wait forever” to do it. Is that bluster, or does he have real plans to bloody the South China Sea? Or is that Red China’s version of strategic ambiguity?
Not being completely forthcoming about plans might just work for both sides. And keep both out of a war.
Peace, it’s wonderful. So let’s keep it. One way to do that is to be ambiguous about things. Strategically.