I think the point is that PRC considers Taiwan as part of broader China, and this move makes that statement less likely to be taken seriously. Which is good.
Xi's views are of limited relevance to you and me, perhaps, but they are not of limited relevance to how PRC operates. Of course they're relevant, and then by extension that makes them relevant for how global politics plays out.
>Taiwan is a sovereign country boasting a military alliance with America.
Yep, this is certainly true, and part of maintaining that military alliance will be further entangling things like high tech manufacturing.
>But safeguarding global assets in Taiwan from Beijing pulling a Falklands is also savvy.
I actually don't know as much as I should about the Falkland Islands War, other than the UK took a decent amount of losses surprisingly. I think PRC actually invading Taiwan is extremely unlikely, given the terrain and weather aspects of how that war would go, but doing something like launching some missiles is definitely within the realm of possibility.
> I actually don't know as much as I should about the Falkland Islands War, other than the UK took a decent amount of losses surprisingly.
Good summary, actually! :)
Argentina and Britain lost about the same number of ships, with Britain having an edge on the air war. British troops marched into Port Stanley with dysentery from drinking bog water, but defeated the Argentine conscripts.
Ignoring Argentine military and etiquette lapses, the modern war lessons were:
1) Although subsonic, Harriers were ok ish for defending the fleet against an inferior force.
2) Argentine pilots used terrain masking (fly in on the deck at the bow, similar to "crossing the T") to sink some ships, so good tactics are always in style:
3) Without first-rate satellite intelligence, the British tried and failed to find and sink Argentine's aircraft carrier using subs. (Argentina withdrew their carrier to preserve it, after the traumatic sinking of the Belgrano. So tactically the British achieved the same result, but there's always uncertainty with a ship that's still floating.)
4) A British troop carrier was bombed at anchor with the soldiers ordered to remain onboard. That was a command mistake on par with US amphibious landing mistakes in the WW2 Italy campaign. Anzio, anybody?
5) Aluminum ships burn, like the Sheffield.
Having said that, the result could have been very different considering how few Harriers Britain had, or if Argentina had 10 more Exocet missiles.
(Little-known fact: An Exocet destroyed one British ship without the warhead even detonating, just the rocket fuel. The watch saw it coming, and couldn't do anything about it.)
You can watch a few videos on Youtube and piece things together.
The most fascinating interviews are with the Argentine mechanics, who because of the French embargo, mounted the Exocets on hand-made launch rails, and the Argentine pilots who used them to devastating effect.
Some subjects:
0. The failed diplomatic effort to avoid war (the Argentine diplomats were too busy drinking cocktails to negotiate with the British diplomats. Very macho!)
> Xi's views are of limited relevance to you and me, perhaps, but they are not of limited relevance to how PRC operates
Fair enough. I amend my earlier statement to Xi’s messaging on Taiwan is of limited relevance to American economic, foreign and military policy. He’s playing to a domestic audience.
It could become more relevant in the future. But for day to day policymaking, it can usually be ignored.
> China's government can't be so easily be dismissed as illegitimate
I believe the U.S. government is legitimate. That doesn’t mean I believe its every view is so.
Xi’s government’s legitimacy can exist alongside his statements on Taiwan being ridiculous. (I’ll note, too, that Xi and the CPC are outsiderS to Taiwan’s affairs.)
My point isn't on whether or not all his views are legitimate—that's a pointless argument to make. My point is that quite a lot of people (probably the majority of Chinese) are on his side regarding his viewpoints on that.
> I think the point is that PRC considers Taiwan as part of broader China, and this move makes that statement less likely to be taken seriously. Which is good.
Well, you should tell that to the US government, who believes there's One China and the capital is Beijing.
When Trump got elected he actually took a congratulatory call from Tsai Ing-wen (president of Taiwan) which utterly incensed the PRC. That aside, it's been the position of America since 1972.
For what it's worth Taiwan also believes there's One China, including all territory claimed by the PRC and that the capital is in fact Taipei.
With that all in mind, any major world power has been paying lip service to One China and practically ignoring it, but the PRC exerts its influence over smaller/weaker countries such as recently flipping Sao Tome and Principe in violation of the no-poaching agreement in the One China accords. In reality, no big power believes they're one country, and operates accordingly. No small power does either, but substantially all back the PRC because the West has largely ceded its influence over smaller nations to the PRC.
Someone should really say something to the US military. They’ve been selling top tier military equipment to and coordinating with illegitimate rebels for decades!
Politically yes, Taiwan is de facto independent, but economically they are deeply intertwined; although they have their own currency, stock exchange etc., a lot of major companies operating in China are under Taiwanese ownership (Foxconn and Pegatron for example) and the commerce between China and Taiwan is significant; China is Taiwan's largest trading partner at 30% of Taiwan's total trade.
By contrast, China is the US' third largest trading partner (after Canada and Mexico) at 10% of US trade. Taiwan is much more intertwined with China economically. Which makes sense given the geographic proximity and linguistic and cultural ties.
