DATE=11/1/1999
TYPE=BACKGROUND REPORT
TITLE=CHINA'S MILITARY
NUMBER=5-44663
BYLINE=ED WARNER
DATELINE=WASHINGTON
CONTENT=
VOICED AT:
INTRO: Relations between China and Taiwan remain
tense, with Beijing periodically threatening the use
of force. If that occurred, opinions vary sharply on
the likely outcome. V-O-A's Ed Warner reports on a
debate in an American publication over the strengths
and weaknesses of China's military.
TEXT: Chinese belligerence is obvious, write Bates
Gill and Michael O'Hanlon in "The National Interest"
quarterly. But they question its significance.
In contributing to the publication's debate, the two
senior scholars at Washington's Brookings Institution
say Beijing's ambitions are confined to the immediate
areas to its south and China is hardly a global
threat.
They write that China's capabilities do not match the
aspirations of its leaders. Mr. Gill and Mr. O'Hanlon
say China spends less than a quarter of what the
United States devotes to defense, and China's air
power is markedly inferior to that of the United
States.
The authors quote the Commander-in-chief of U-S
Pacific Forces, Admiral Dennis Blair, who predicts
China will not pose a serious strategic threat to the
United States for at least 20-years.
Authors Gill and O'Hanlon say China would face near
insuperable obstacles in trying to take over Taiwan.
Despite a missile barrage from the mainland, Taiwan's
combat aircraft could sink almost an entire Chinese
amphibious armada. Taiwan also has air-to-air
missiles to prevent Chinese troops arriving by plane.
If the United States intervenes, say the authors,
China has intercontinental ballistic missiles that can
reach U-S targets. But given the 15-to-one U-S
advantage in nuclear warheads, Beijing does not seem
likely to resort to such weapons.
However, this is much too complacent a view, according
to military analyst Carl Ford and former U-S
ambassador to China James Lilley.
They contribute to the debate in the latest issue of
"The National Interest". They write that China's
armed forces may not be a direct threat to the United
States, but are good enough to cause plenty of trouble
in their region and will be better in the future.
Authors Ford and Lilley note China is one of the few
nations to increase its defense spending in the post
cold-war world, and is engaged in a major effort to
upgrade its weapons capability for a possible quick
strike on Taiwan.
They write Taiwan would face an enormous challenge in
repelling a determined Chinese attack. They say the
island is too close to the mainland and too inferior
in forces to hold out indefinitely. Its technological
advantages would enable it to prolong the struggle,
but not defeat China.
The Ford and Lilley article says if the United States
gets involved, it would face a nuclear-armed adversary
capable of striking its American shores. That is not
likely to happen, they add, but it has to be kept in
mind.
A senior analyst at the Henry L. Stimson Center in
Washington, Kenneth Allen, has recently returned from
a trip to Asia. Commenting on the debate, he says
virtually every China watcher expects some kind of
conflict with Taiwan in the next 10 to 15-years.
Mr. Allen says attacking the island would not be a
rational act, but Bejing might still decide to do it.
// ALLEN ACT //
You have to make a clear distinction between
capabilities and intentions. In my personal
opinion, China today does not have the
capability to attack and take over Taiwan. But
does that mean that they would not try? No, it
does not mean they would not try. If the
leadership in Beijing said, "P-L-A (Peoples
Liberation Army), tomorrow you are going to
attack Taiwan, and you are going to do it with
every thing you have got", I believe that they
would try to do it.
// END ACT //
Mr. Allen says there are a thousand different
scenarios of what would happen. But, he adds, there
would be considerable advance warning of any attack:
// ALLEN ACT //
You are not going to wake up tomorrow morning
and have missiles raining down on Taiwan. There
is going to be some type of a buildup. You are
going to have a buildup of air, ground, and
naval forces. You are going to see all kinds of
indicators. It could be two weeks' worth. It
could be 30-days or a month and a half.
// END ACT //
Mr. Allen says during that time, political activity
can get underway to forestall hostilities and reach
some kind of accommodation. It took China 45-days,
for example, to build up sufficient forces for its
1979 incursion into Vietnam.
Mr. Allen says keeping the peace between China and
Taiwan will require both political and military
vigilance. (SIGNED)
NEB/EW/RAE
01-Nov-1999 12:53 PM EDT (01-Nov-1999 1753 UTC)
NNNN
Source: Voice of America
.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
