Chinese Aggression (eg. Taiwan) & Quad Security Discussers

The following is my response to the first comment from Anonymous  (of August 16, 2021) concerning Submarine Matters Second Report to Donors.

First, thank you for your fulsome praise. I appreciate it.

What the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue discussers may or may not do if/when China invades Taiwan cannot be gamed, because the Quad is only a dialogue, not a solid organisation. I over-egged the status of the Quad in the Second Report, because I want it to expand into an Indo-Pacic NATO eventually.

In the academic and intelligence world looking for clarity is frequently frustrated by realities. Understanding complex world events is less a science and more an art based on experience – of which I humbly have 40 years in both worlds. The surprise fall of the Warsaw Pact Iron Curtain defied the best laid expectations, arguments and imaginations of many thousands of PhD Kremlinologists in Western academia and “intelligence”. In 1989 (fall of the Berlin Wall) I was 28 and everyone was surprised even though Poland’s Solidarity had been active for almost a decade.

The US may be even less likely to strike Chinese territory than in 1953 when Chinese and US/UN troops were actually fighting each other in Korea. Ever since Truman sacked MacArthur (when Mac was seeking to hijack Presidential policy in wanting to fight China on Chinese territory) China has grown vastly more powerful economically and militarily (in conventional and nuclear terms).

That said China is an even more complex case than Cold War Soviet Russia ever was, because not only is China on the way to being a conventional and nuclear military Superpower perhaps within 10 years, it is it may even have the world’s largest economy in 10 years. Many countries may forgive China its military transgressions if Belt and Road enriches their economies.

The Quadrilateral Security discussers are nowhere near being a NATO. The Quad does not constitute an alliance or a treaty even if I implied it in the Second Report. Nothing is written down. No formal members, no guarantees, no tripwires or promises that a Chinese attack on one country will be considered an attack on all.

The Quad Dialogue is aspirational – a vague warning to China that countries may band together against Chinese military aggression. China’s ecomic power might always buy countries off instead of going to war.

In my Second Report I subscribe to increasing US Government moves in 2020-2021 that there should be an Indo-Pacific (aka "Asian") NATO. The Quad demonstration of ambiguous solidarity has found expression in the US Trump and Biden administrations organising Indo-Pacific countries to do Freedom of Navigations Operations (FONOPs) in the South China Sea (SCS). US administrations have also persuaded NATO countries to “pivot” to the Indo-Pacific by also doing FONOPs in the SCS. While India has been mentioned as the second most powerful Quad discusser it has never seen itself as a junior ally of the US (like Australia and Japan are) and won’t surrender its freedom of action if/when China attacks Taiwan.

“A major question here is does China have further ambitions?” Maybe, maybe not.

The Quad Dialogue is a Dialogue – nothing solid with credibility to “retain”.

America may be unique in having a Presidency that can literally be bought by a non-politician, who, once he lost his inherited $100,000,000s relied on Russian-Putin money to bail him out of bankruptcy. I hope the other Five Eye countries and Japan have higher democratic standards.

Unlike Tibet and Hong Kong, Taiwan is likely to be a tougher domino, but China could still buy it.

I think Chinese territory should only be damaged or its ports and sea lanes blockaded if China proves itself that aggressive first.

My second response will be to Anonymous's second comment of August 16, 2021, which is pitched more at the tactical and weapon (submarines, mines, UUVs, etc) level.