The United States, Taiwan and China - Stirring the Pot of Discontent Part II

In Part One of this two part posting, I examined the history of Taiwan and its relationship with the United States, particularly after the end of China's civil war in 1949.  In Part Two, I will take a closer look at one key issue that is causing significant diplomatic discontentment among the leadership of the world's most populous nation, China.

As I noted in Part One, the United States has had a very long and close military relationship with Taiwan which was governed under the Sino-American Mutual Defense Treaty aka the Mutual Defense Treaty Between the United States and the Republic of China which was signed on December 2, 1954 as shown here:

The key phrase in this treaty reads like this:

"In order more effectively to achieve the objective of this Treaty, the Parties separately and jointly by self-help and mutual aid will maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack and communist subversive activities directed from without against their territorial integrity and political stability." (my bold)

Obviously, the treaty is referring to the People's Republic of China which was formed under the leadership of Mao Tse-tung and his communist cohort in 1949 as outlined in Part One of this posting.  This treaty has led to the selling of hundreds of millions of dollars worth of military equipment to Taiwan over the past six decades.  

Moving to the present, let's look at the most contentious issues in the 2017 edition of the U.S. National Defense Authorization Act, keeping in mind that this is unprecented since the termination of the Sino-American Mutual Defense Treaty in 1979:

“SEC. 1254. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON SENIOR MILITARY EXCHANGES BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND TAIWAN.

(a) IN GENERAL - It is the sense of Congress that the Secretary of Defense should conduct a program of senior military exchanges between the United States and Tai- wan that have the objective of improving military-to-military relations and defense cooperation between the United States and Taiwan.

(b) ADMINISTRATION OF PROGRAM.—It is the sense of Congress that the program described in subsection (a)—

(1) should be conducted at least once each calendar year; and

(2) should be conducted in both the United States and Taiwan                   

SEC. 1259. UNITED STATES POLICY ON TAIWAN.

(a) Findings - Congress finds the following:

(1) For more than 50 years, the United States and Taiwan have had a unique and close relationship, which has supported the economic, cultural, and strategic advantage to both countries.

(2) The United States has vital security and strategic interests in the Taiwan Strait.

(3) The Taiwan Relations Act has been instrumental in maintaining peace, security, and stability in the Taiwan Strait since its enactment in 1979.

(4) The Taiwan Relations Act states that it is the policy of the United States to provide Taiwan with arms of a defensive character and to maintain the capacity of the United States to defend against any forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security, or the social or economic system, of the people on Taiwan.

(b) Statement Of Policy.—The Taiwan Relations Act forms the cornerstone of United States policy and relations with Taiwan.

(c) Report.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than February 15, 2017, the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State shall jointly submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a report that contains a description of the steps the United States has taken, plans to take, and will take to provide Taiwan with arms of a defensive character in accordance with the Taiwan Relations .

SEC. 1259P. AUTHORITY TO GRANT OBSERVER STATUS TO THE MILITARY FORCES OF TAIWAN AT RIMPAC EXERCISES.

(a) IN GENERAL - The Secretary of Defense is authorized to grant observer status to the military forces of Taiwan in any maritime exercise known as the Rim of the Pacific Exercise.” 

Given the extremely complex history of the China-Taiwan connection and the fact that the PRC regards the "Taiwan Issue" as a domestic issue and one that is key to its "One China Policy", one might correctly suspect that the People's Republic of China would regard these moves as interfering in their domestic affairs.  Here's what the PRC's Foreign Ministry spokesperson, Hua Chunying, had to say about President Obama’s signing of these contentious portions of the National Defense Authorization Act during a recent press conference:

“Q: US President Barack Obama signed into law the US National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, which included a section on senior military exchanges between the United States and Taiwan. Do you have any comment on this? 

A: We are firmly against the Taiwan-related contents in the US act and have lodged solemn representations with the US. We are strongly discontent with the US for signing this act. 

The Taiwan question bears on China's sovereignty and territory integrity and falls entirely within China's domestic affairs. Although the Taiwan-related content in the US Act has no legal binding force, it still severely violates the three joint communiqués and interferes in China's domestic affairs. China will by no means accept this. We urge the US side to honor its commitment on the Taiwan question, put an end to military exchanges with and arms sales to Taiwan and avoid undermining China-US relations or cross-Straits peace and stability.“ (my bold)

Obviously, the United States is taking significant steps to "stir the pot" in its relationships with both the People's Republic of China and Russia.  One has to wonder how many fronts that Washington thinks it can successfully win should actual hostilities break out.  It certainly looks like the outgoing Obama Administration is doing what it can to hamstring the incoming Trump Administration. 

In closing, let's look at a recent op-ed piece by Zhang Tengjun in China's Global Times (a daily newspaper that is aligned with the Communist Party of China) that pretty much says it all:

"Unlike other issues, any negotiation over the Taiwan question will not be accepted. It is the most sensitive among all problems between China and the US. To challenge China over this matter will definitely rock the foundation of the Sino-US relationship.

Beijing has issued warnings to Trump, who should realize that messing with the one-China policy will pose severe risks to the US. If he insists, his government will not only fail to acquire what is expected, but also enhance China's determination to unite the country by force." (my bold)

The United States, Taiwan and China - Stirring the Pot of Discontent Part I

The recently signed National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 is a wide-ranging document, signed by the outgoing U.S. president in the dying days of his final year of office.  While attention has been paid to how the United States Department of Defense is to treat Russia, very little attention has been paid to America's relationship with China which has become increasingly fractious over the recent past, particularly over China's claims in the South China Sea.

In the Defense Authorization Act, for the first time since 1979's dismantling of the Sino-American Mutual Defense Treaty, there is specific discussion about the United States' relationship with Taiwan aka the Republic of China.  The People's Republic of China (PRC - often known as Mainland China) views the island nation as a province of the PRC whereas, the Taiwanese people regard themselves as an independent nation with a democratically elected government.  This difference in opinion results from the recent post-Second World War history of the region which I will briefly outline in Part One of this two part posting.

Taiwan was annexed by China's Qing dynasty in the late 1600s and was ceded to Japan as part of the post-Sino-Japanese War treaty in 1895.  Japan governed the island as colony until the end of the Second World War in 1945 when Japan surrendered to the Republic of China's (ROC) military forces led by Chiang Kai-shek.  The Republic of China came into existence in 1912 after the Qing dynasty was overthrown during the Xinhai Revolution and included the current territories of China, Taiwan and Mongolia and its government was headed by its president, Sun Yat-sen who handed over the presidency to Yuan Shikai who forced the last emperor to abdicate.  After short period of control after declaring himself the Emperor of China, he lost control of the territory and China returned to its warlord past.  Sun Yat-sen who had been in exile, returned to China and, along with the Communist Party of China and the rejuvenated Koumintang (KMT)and establ8isehd a rival government in the southern Chinese city of Guangzhou.  After his death in March 1925, the KMT was headed by his protege, Chiang Kai-Shek.  By 1927, the KMT and Communists split, marking the beginning of the Chinese Civil War with each group claiming that they were the true heirs to Sun Yat-sen.  Prior to the Second World War, Japan's desire to control China's ample natural resrouces resulted in the seizure of Manchuria in 1931, culminating in the fall of Nanking, China's capital city, in 1937.  Despite the loss of territory to Japan, the KMT and communists continued to battle in an attempt to control larger geographic regions of the nation.  After the end of World War II, despite American interventions and attempts to arrange truces between the two parties, the battle between the KMT and Communist People's Liberation Army continued during the Chinese Civil War , with Beijing being capture by the PLA in January 1949 and Nanking being captured in April 1949.  On October 1, 1949, the Communists, headed by Mao Zedong, founded the People's Republic of China.  Chiang Kai-Shek and his followers which included hundreds of thousands of troops loyal to him and two million refugees fled to Taiwan, declaring Taipei as its capital.  Chiang ruled Taiwan under martial law, banning opposition parties until 1989, and not holding its first free legislative elections until 1992 and its first presidential election in 1996.  Apparently, Washington preferred a non-Communist dictatorship over one that was part of the growing Red menace.   Backed by significant financial  aid from the United States who recognized Taiwan as the legitimate Chinese government, Chiang launched Taiwan on a path to economic growth.  In addition, in 1954, the United States and Taiwan signed the Sino-American Mutual Defense Treaty as part of America's move to stiffle the growth of global communism and prevent China from taking over Taiwan.  This treaty was terminated in 1979 after the United States established official diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China and replaced with the Taiwan Relations Act which pledged to continue commercial, cultural and other relations between Taiwan and the United States.  

Nonetheless, according to the Congressional Research Service, between 1990 and 2010, the following materiel has been sold to Taiwan:

Taiwan's primary military goal has been to prepare itself for an attack from China, however, its spending on its military is far outweighed by China's spending as shown on these graphics, a source of great concern in and diplomatic pressure from the United States:

a.) Taiwan:

b.) People's Republic of China:

What is particularly curious and unique about America's relationship with Taiwan is that, despite its security arrangement, the United States actually does not recognize or have diplomatic relations with Taiwan's government in Taipei, rather, it recognizes the People's Republic of China through its embassy in Beijing.  It's diplomatic ties with Taiwan are conducted through the American Institute in Taiwan, a nominally private organization.  In large part, America's Taiwan agenda over the past sixty years has been driven by its overriding "anti-communist in any form" sentiment.

With that background information in mind, in Part Two of this posting, I will take a look at some of the most contentious diplomatic issues that have arisen from the 2017 edition of the U.S. National Defense Authorization Act.

President Obama and the Broken Guantanamo Promise

With the Obama Administration finally releasing its drone strike casualty data (or a semblance thereof), it's a good time to take a look at another one of President Obama's signature first-term policies; the closure of the terrorist prison at Guantanamo in Cuba.

Let's start with this excerpt from a speech on national security that Barack Obama gave at the National Archives in Washington, D.C. on May 21, 2009, just five months after "Hope and Change" took office:

"The second decision that I made was to order the closing of the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay.  (Applause.)

For over seven years, we have detained hundreds of people at Guantanamo.  During that time, the system of military commissions that were in place at Guantanamo succeeded in convicting a grand total of three suspected terrorists.  Let me repeat that:  three convictions in over seven years.  Instead of bringing terrorists to justice, efforts at prosecution met setback after setback, cases lingered on, and in 2006 the Supreme Court invalidated the entire system.  Meanwhile, over 525 detainees were released from Guantanamo under not my administration, under the previous administration.  Let me repeat that:  Two-thirds of the detainees were released before I took office and ordered the closure of Guantanamo.

There is also no question that Guantanamo set back the moral authority that is America's strongest currency in the world.  Instead of building a durable framework for the struggle against al Qaeda that drew upon our deeply held values and traditions, our government was defending positions that undermined the rule of law.  In fact, part of the rationale for establishing Guantanamo in the first place was the misplaced notion that a prison there would be beyond the law -- a proposition that the Supreme Court soundly rejected.  Meanwhile, instead of serving as a tool to counter terrorism, Guantanamo became a symbol that helped al Qaeda recruit terrorists to its cause.  Indeed, the existence of Guantanamo likely created more terrorists around the world than it ever detained.

So the record is clear:  Rather than keeping us safer, the prison at Guantanamo has weakened American national security.  It is a rallying cry for our enemies.  It sets back the willingness of our allies to work with us in fighting an enemy that operates in scores of countries.  By any measure, the costs of keeping it open far exceed the complications involved in closing it.  That's why I argued that it should be closed throughout my campaign, and that is why I ordered it closed within one year...

We are currently in the process of reviewing each of the detainee cases at Guantanamo to determine the appropriate policy for dealing with them.  And as we do so, we are acutely aware that under the last administration, detainees were released and, in some cases, returned to the battlefield.  That's why we are doing away with the poorly planned, haphazard approach that let those detainees go in the past.  Instead we are treating these cases with the care and attention that the law requires and that our security demands."

In this speech, the newly minted President uses "Guantanamo" a total of 28 times.

Seven years later, what has happened?  SFA.  Here's what he had to say about Guantanamo in his State of the Union address on January 12, 2016:

"That's American strength. That's American leadership. And that kind of leadership depends on the power of our example. That’s why I will keep working to shut down the prison at Guantanamo. (Applause.) It is expensive, it is unnecessary, and it only serves as a recruitment brochure for our enemies. (Applause.) There’s a better way. (Applause.)"

That's it.  A single mention of Guantanamo and a very half-hearted, talking point mention at that.  

According to Close Guantanamo, since the prison opened on January 11, 2002, 779 prisoners have been held at the facility.  Of these, 690 have been released or transferred, nine have died, one has been transferred to the United States for trial and 79 are still being held with 29 of those being recommended for release.  Interestingly, of the 690 prisoners that have been released or transferred, 158 were released under the Obama Administration with there being a 15 month period between January 2011 and August 2013 in which no prisoners were released, a hiatus that was ended due to a prolonged hunger strike by a majority of the remaining prisoners, 45 of whom were force fed.  By December 2013, there were 164 men held at Guantanamo, the majority of which were held without charge.  Of the 79 remaining prisoners, 15 were cleared for release in 2009 by President Obama's Guantanamo Review Task Force yet, these men still languish in prison. 

Here is a list of the current prisoners, their country of origin and their current legal status:

The current president could always use an Executive Order to skittle past a reluctant Congress although that would likely lead to a series of unintended consequences for his other pet projects like gun control.  If, indeed, he is succeeded by the rather hawkish Hillary Clinton, although she has stated the following:

"“I support President Obama’s plan today to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay and finally close the door on this chapter of our history. Over the years, Guantanamo has inspired more terrorists than it has imprisoned. It has not strengthened our national security; it has damaged it. That’s why I backed closing Guantanamo as a Senator, and when I ran for President in 2008, as did both then-Senator Obama and Senator McCain. As President Obama’s Secretary of State, I appointed a special envoy and worked with our friends and partners around the world to repatriate or resettle prisoners, with all appropriate monitoring and security. Closing Guantanamo would be a sign of strength and resolve. Congress should implement President Obama’s plan as quickly and responsibly as possible.”

...she will likely face the same issues that her political master has faced over his seven plus years in the seat of power and may take the path of least resistance and leave things at Guantanamo as they are since this is obviously not one of her signature campaign issues.  On the other hand, if Donald Trump takes the Oval Office, here's what he's likely to do with the Guantanamo issue:

So, from all appearances, it looks like the current administration has frittered away any chance that the very existence of Guantanamo will continue to negatively impact the hearts and minds of America's enemies around the globe.  It appears that the Guantanamo prison facility is here to stay.

The B61-12 and Barak Obama's Broken Nuclear Promise

Back in 2010, one year after being "anointed" with the Nobel Peace Prize, President Obama's Administration released its Nuclear Posture Review Report (NPR).  Here is a quote from the report which clearly states the aim of the President's nuclear program:

“The United States will not conduct nuclear testing and will pursue ratification and entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. 





The United States will not develop new nuclear warheads. Life Extension Programs (LEPs) will use only nuclear components based on previously tested designs, and will not support new military missions or provide for new military capabilities.

 



The United States will study options for ensuring the safety, security, and reliability of nuclear warheads on a case-by-case basis, consistent with the congressionally mandated Stockpile Management Program. The full range of LEP approaches will be considered: refurbishment of existing warheads, reuse of nuclear components from different warheads, and replacement of nuclear components.





In any decision to proceed to engineering development for warhead LEPs, the United States will give strong preference to options for refurbishment or reuse. Replacement of nuclear components would be undertaken only if critical Stockpile Management Program goals could not otherwise be met, and if specifically authorized by the President and approved by Congress.” (my bold)

Note, that the President’s nuclear program would “not develop new nuclear warheads” nor would it ‘provide for new military capabilities”.  Please keep these phrases in mind as you read this posting.

The report also stated that the United States would promote "strategic stability with Russia and China and improving transparency and mutual confidence, (so that) we can help create the conditions for moving toward a world without nuclear weapons and build a stronger basis for addressing nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism." 

This report followed the President's speech in April 2009 in Prague where he highlighted the 21st century nuclear dangers and expressed his determination to take concrete steps toward "seeking the peace and security of the world without nuclear weapons" as shown here:

Recently, I posted an article on the proposed trillion dollar spending to update the U.S. nuclear weapons arsenal that you can find here.  Among the money to be spent as part of the NPR's recommendations, is "follow-on activities" for the next generation of the B-61 bomb, a staple part of America's nuclear stable for decades.  

Let's look at where some of the current inventory of B61s are stored around the world.  Approximately 50 B61 nuclear bombs are stored at Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada as shown in this photo:  

Here is a map showing the locations of B61 nuclear weapons of types 3, 4 and 10 in Europe from a 2005 report by the National Resources Defense Council:

Here is a table showing the distribution of U.S. nuclear weapons in Europe in 2014:

Here are the capabilities and inventory levels of the B61 nuclear bombs in 2014:

Of the 825 B61s in existence, roughly 370 were active in 2014 with 645 stored in the continental United States and 180 stored in Europe.

The B61 is a variable yield bomb that was originally designed back in 1963 and first deployed in 1968.  The latest version of the bomb, version 11 which is capable of earth penetration, was deployed in 1997.  All iterations of the B61 (there are nine versions in total) are considered unguided, that is, they are classified as a gravity bomb which is designed to be carried and dropped from a variety of aircraft.  This makes them less accurate that the current generation of guided non-nuclear missiles which can hit targets with an accuracy of metres.

The Obama Administration's new proposed expenditures on nuclear weapons includes spending on a new iteration of the B61; the B61-12.  The Federation of American Scientists (FAS) notes that the Obama Administration claims that this is:

1.) not a new nuclear bomb but a life-extension of an existing version.

2.) has no new military capabilities.

3.) will result in cost savings as stockpiles are reduced.

The report by FAS notes that these "claims" are not factual for several reasons:

1.) it is a new type of bomb that is not currently in the nuclear stockpile.

2.) it has improved military capabilities.

3.) it is the most costly nuclear bomb project of all-time and its ultimate costs are not quantified.

This flies right in the face of the Administration's own guidelines that it will not develop nuclear weapons with new military capabilities as I noted above.  

Let's look at the design changes for the B61-12.  This new nuclear weapon will replace the  existing rigid tail with a tail that has moving fins allowing it to be guided more accurately to a target.  This makes it the first guided standoff nuclear bomb in history.    The circular error probability (CEP ) (aka the weapon's accuracy) will increase from between 110 and 170 metres for existing B61s to 30 metres for B61-12s.  The increased accuracy means that low yields can be used to achieve the same military effect that would be expected from previous iterations of the B61, in fact the B61-12 will have a maximum yield of 50 kilotons, far less than the B83 nuclear bomb which has a maximum yield of 1200 kilotons.  Thankfully for any lucky targeted region, there will be less radioactive fallout as shown on this graphic which just happens to have Tehran as the targeted city:

The B61-12 will be integrated with six different delivery platforms including the B-2A, B-52H, F-15E, F-16, F-35A and Tornado.

How much does FAS estimate that this will cost American taxpayers?  The cost estimates to build nearly 500 B61-12s doubled between 2010 and 2012 to $8 billion, a Department of Defense study in 2012 projected a cost of $10.4 billion and the guided tail assembly alone is estimated to cost $1.4 billion.  In addition, the cost of integrating the B61-12 on bombers and fighter-bombers must be included; FAS estimates that it will cost $350 million for integration with the F-35 alone.  Finally, the cost of European deployment of the B61-12 is estimated to be $100 million per year.   According to the Friends Committee on National Legislation, the cost of each new bomb would be around $30 million.

Let's close this posting with a look at the bomb itself during a test run in mid-2015:

    

With NATO's membership expanding broadly to the former Soviet-controlled states (aka the Cannon Fodder States) including Poland, Romania, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Croatia, Bulgaria, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia as shown on this map:

...present day Russia has good reason to be concerned about the development of a smarter nuclear weapon, particularly given that the Pentagon plans to deploy 20 B61-12 bombs to replace its aging inventory at the Buchel Air Base in Germany.  On the upside, the increased accuracy of the lower yield weapon should reassure potential targets that there will be less of that nasty old radioactive fallout, thanks to improvements made to the latest generation of B61s, an obvious game-changer in the nuclear weapons business.

Can anyone say "Cold War Part II"?