Michael Turton has a good post and a lively debate on the likelihood of a Chinese attack on Taiwan. He considers my earlier post (among others) to be naive - both in its assessment of the capabilities of Taiwan and its allies and on my assessment of the Communist Party of China being a rational actor.

From many years of reading and watching history I put very little faith
in the ability of leaders to rationally manage events. Asia watchers
especially should be the first to discount the idea that leadership
will avoid war to get rich, or for some similar material goal. Prior to
WWII Japan followed policies whose goals were to bring it into war with
China, Russia, the US, and the UK, the four largest political entities
on earth, all at the same time.

This is a fair point and, to clarify, I certainly don’t think that the CPC are rational over Taiwan. On cross-straits matters, the CPC has repeatedly demonstrated its ability to be irrational. I could imagine numerous scenarios where they would launch an assault on the island. If, for instance, there were an indication from Washington that it would not intervene (or the perception that Washington would not intervene). Or if Pan-Green forces did manage to formalize the island’s independence.

However, the basis of the Gertz article (which Michael rightly characterizes as propaganda) is that China is positioning itself to attack within two years. I do not discount that there are events that would prompt China to irrationally attack Taiwan - but I do not see anything that would encourage China to do so in that timeframe. Moreover if China did attack by end 2007, it should not expect victory.

If pushed, the CPC will indeed act irrationally. For now, Hu Jintao has probably been more rational on the Taiwan issue than previous leaders. The tone of official CPC propaganda has shifted away from the threats of yesterday. Instead we are each day bombarded with flattery of Taiwan’s Pan-Blue camp and tales of cross-strait corporate co-operation. I won’t debate whether this will benefit the KMT and others, but it is paying dividends for Hu. Despite the military buildup, the trend that I’m seeing is an increasing demilitarization of the Taiwan issue.

I’m not a seasoned Sinologist and Hu plays politics with his cards close to his chest, but I think it’s safe to say that China’s senior leadership is finally getting the fact that lobbing missiles during elections is not the way to achieve unification.

But yes, counting on the CPC to remain rational is not a good basis for a defense policy. China’s military buildup does need level-headed consideration - Rumsfeld’s comments were welcome, Gertz’s paranoia isn’t.

Read Michael’s full argument (and comments) here also an initial rebuttal by Mei Zhongtai here.