More gas is being poured on the China-Taiwan skirmish by the United States, namely by President Joe Biden and the Senate.
The WinePress reported nearly a month ago that Taiwanese military forces reportedly shot at a Chinese drone that got a little too close, and vowed to shoot down any others that dare to encroach on their territory.
Recently the Senate Foreign Relations Committee passed the Taiwan Policy Act of 2022 in a vote of 17-5, that would grant $6.5 billion worth of weaponry to aid the island nation’s “security and right of self-determination.”
More specifically, the bill also extends $2 billion as a line of credit to Taipei to help them purchase more weapons. It also allows the United States to train Taiwanese troops and amends the Foreign Assistance Act to raise yearly war reserves stockpile additions from $200 million to $500 million, in the name defending and supporting Taiwan.
Also, the bill essentially forces the U.S. to ‘sanction state-owned banks in China if it is determined that Beijing has engaged in “significant escalation in aggression” against Taiwan,’ The Trends Journal explained.
Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Mao Ning had this to say:
If the bill continues to be deliberated, pushed through or even signed into law, it will greatly shake the political foundation of Sino-US relations and cause extremely serious consequences for Sino-US relations and peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait.
China And Russia Announce They Are Ready To Create A New World Order Together
But Senator Robert Menendez, the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has a different take on this move:
The bill we passed today makes it clear that the United States does not seek war or increased tensions with Beijing. Quite the opposite.
[The U.S. is] strategically downgrading the existential threats facing Taiwan, raising the cost of taking the island by force so that it becomes too high and unattainable risk.
In mid-May The WP reported that Biden said that the U.S. would militarily defend Taiwan from China, during a visit to Japan. But the White House had to immediately walk back those remarks.
But Biden has backtracked on those comments, as he told CBS’ 60 Minutes that the U.S. would militarily defend Taiwan from Chinese aggression. But even CBS had to cut-in and report that the White House’s official stance is still in limbo and not dogmatic.
Biden: Yes, if in fact there was an unprecedented attack.
Pelley: So unlike Ukraine, to be clear, sir, US forces, US men and women would defend Taiwan in the event of a Chinese invasion?
Biden: Yes
James Holmes for 19 FortyFive published a piece yesterday titled “China Could Decide Now Is The Time For War With America,” where he discussed reasons for and against this hypothesis.
This is some of what he noted:
If Beijing reckons that now is as good as it gets for Beijing—if China’s strategic position has crested or stands poised to—Xi Jinping & Co. could well decide today is the day to take up the sword. China might try to conquer Taiwan, wrest the Senkaku Islands from Japan, or clamp down on Southeast Asian rivals in the South China Sea. If so it would follow the Athenian model, wagering everything on a bold gambit. Hence the danger zone Brands and Beckley espy.
Now-or-never logic could prevail among communist magnates, to the detriment of regional peace and security.
Or Beijing could take a Spartan tack, playing things safe while hoping circumstances boost its prospects in the future. That would be the prudent course of action. If that approach prevails—if the United States, its allies, and its friends can deter China from warfare for the next decade or so—then a prudent Spartan outlook might take hold. The strategic competition with China should prove more manageable over the long term. Brands and Beckley incline to something approximating this view, and cost-benefit logic backs them up.
We’ll see. Much depends on the character of the Chinese state, party, and society.
However things unfold, the recommendations put forth in Danger Zone are sound. For example, they urge U.S. leaders to set priorities “ruthlessly.” And indeed, setting and enforcing priorities while husbanding finite resources for what matters most is Strategy 101. They exhort Washington to be “strategically deliberate and tactically agile.” Tactical agility means devising stratagems to keep China off-balance, while deliberate strategy assures all stakeholders of American constancy. And, as in the late Cold War in particular, U.S. leaders should play some offense in the service of strategic defense.
The coauthors’ bottom line: “Think of danger-zone strategy as something that helps you win in the future by avoiding disaster in the here and now.”
But a measure of fatalism and a sense of urgency must propel U.S. policy and strategy in the Indo-Pacific over the long haul, even if the next few years constitute the time of greatest peril. Even if China’s rise tops out, as Professors Brands and Beckley foretell, it has already put in place enough implements to make serious mischief for East Asia and the world into the indefinite future. An impressive People’s Liberation Army Navy, Air Force, and Rocket Force exist now, and they will continue exist in the coming age of demographic downturn. A fraction of the U.S. armed forces will continue to face off against the whole of the Chinese armed forces bestriding their home ground. Danger will linger, then, even if Asia crosses safely through the danger zone.
Forewarned is forearmed. Read the whole thing.
AUTHOR COMMENTARY
[6] My soul hath long dwelt with him that hateth peace. [7] I am for peace: but when I speak, they are for war.Psalms 120:6-7
The U.S. and NATO have laid-out the playbook as to how they’d deal with China, per their “restrictions” and slaps on the wrist to Russia that are only hurting the West. If, and at this point when, the U.S. slaps sanctions on China, there will be literal shortages of everything, as I cannot imagine China not totally cutting off the factories and exports to the U.S.
The war with China will end before the U.S has time to tie its shoes, and the repercussions would mostly like be the nail in the coffin for the U.S.
[7] Who goeth a warfare any time at his own charges? who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not of the fruit thereof? or who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock? [8] Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also? [9] For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? [10] Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope. (1 Corinthians 9:7-10).
The WinePress needs your support! If God has laid it on your heart to want to contribute, please prayerfully consider donating to this ministry. If you cannot gift a monetary donation, then please donate your fervent prayers to keep this ministry going! Thank you and may God bless you.
Totally off topic brother Jacob but when you get time, check out this documentary on the KJB on youtube. “Thy word be verified”
Also, check out a book called “Sealed by the King” its downloadable for free.
Very interesting stuff on the KJB and numerics