WI: 21st Century China faces 9/11 scale terrorist attacks

21st century China has been shown to being extremely averse to using large scale military intervention (in areas outside of its own borders) to achieve its foreign policy goals, at least in comparison to the other large military powers of the world (Just look at the long list of military interventions by Russia, the US, Britain and France in the last decade and a half). True there is the tension in areas such as the South China Sea, but the military overmanning in these areas are more in line with posturing then any sort of serious planning for a major military conquest (eg. invading Taiwan). Indeed aside from small scale support operations in Mali and West Pakistan there doesn't seem to have been a major Chinese foreign conflict since the Sino-Vietnamese Conflict. From my (admittedly ill-informed) point of view it seems that China has taken significant pains to avoid getting entangled in major international interventions, at least in a military sense (eg. the Libyan War, the Civil War in Syria, the War on ISIS). So I wonder what the Chinese Government would do if it faced a terrorist attack of such scale that the people (and Chinese prestige) would demand a military response (eg. if the China World Trade Center or another major symbolic building were destroyed in a terrorist attack with significant loss of life). How would the Chinese government respond? Would China try to engage in some sort of joint venture in the mid-east with a power already there (eg. USA or Russia)? Would China even have the military infrastructure and equipment necessary to support a significant military force (even if it is a Libyan style no fly-zone or a limited ground operation a la Russia in Syria rather than a full USA-in-Iraq style invasion) that far outside their borders? I imagine there would have to be some sort of military retaliation for such an event to prevent China from looking weak and impotent to the world and (of particular importance to the Communist Party) its own citizens. So what would China do in this situation if such an event forced a major foreign military intervention?
 
If the attack was carried out by Muslim terrorists, they'd likely claim symapathy with the Uyghurs and other Chinese Muslims. So Beijing would probably just rain holy-hell upon those groups within China's borders, in order to make the terrorists think "Gee, this really isn't working out to the benefit of our brothers in Xinjiang", and forego any future attacks on China.

And, yes, I realize that Muslim terrorists who attack the West don't really seem to care how many Muslims die when the USA and Europe fire back at the Islamic world. But I think the dynmaics would be a little bit different in an attack on China.
 
Would that alone satisfy the Chinese people themselves? Because I have heard from several Chinese friends living here in Canada that the Chinese government has a deep fear of their own people turning on the Communist Party and hence the leadership does a lot of posturing for domestic crowds (eg. I would guess that Xi Jinping much publicized crackdown on corruption would fall into this category of being largely intended to mollify the public). It appears that above all else the Communist Party would have to avoid looking weak to its own people in response to a terrorist attack, and I am not sure a domestic witch-hunt would cut it.

There is also the international angle: If Russia, the USA and even the UK and France are able to flex their muscles in the mid-east in response to an attack on their soil by Islamic extremists, wouldn't preserving China's reputation as the next Global Superpower demand a commiserate response?
 
Would that alone satisfy the Chinese people themselves? Because I have heard from several Chinese friends living here in Canada that the Chinese government has a deep fear of their own people turning on the Communist Party and hence the leadership does a lot of posturing for domestic crowds (eg. I would guess that Xi Jinping much publicized crackdown on corruption would fall into this category of being largely intended to mollify the public). It appears that above all else the Communist Party would have to avoid looking weak to its own people in response to a terrorist attack, and I am not sure a domestic witch-hunt would cut it.

There is also the international angle: If Russia, the USA and even the UK and France are able to flex their muscles in the mid-east in response to an attack on their soil by Islamic extremists, wouldn't preserving China's reputation as the next Global Superpower demand a commiserate response?

Valid points. It's just that an overseas anti-terrorism campaign by the Chinese government would be so out of character at the present time, it's hard for me to get my head around how it would work.

I guess they could find a way to somehow hitch a ride with some already-ongoing anti-terror campaigns, maybe tag along with the Americans, or more easily, the Russians, and try to sell that to their people as "a big stick" approach in the international arena. That would require a bit of P.R. finesse.

Here's something from Seymour M. Hersh you might find interesting...

Moustapha’s concerns were echoed by a Washington foreign affairs analyst who has closely followed the passage of jihadists through Turkey and into Syria. The analyst, whose views are routinely sought by senior government officials, told me that ‘Erdoğan has been bringing Uighurs into Syria by special transport while his government has been agitating in favour of their struggle in China. Uighur and Burmese Muslim terrorists who escape into Thailand somehow get Turkish passports and are then flown to Turkey for transit into Syria.’ He added that there was also what amounted to another ‘rat line’ that was funnelling Uighurs – estimates range from a few hundred to many thousands over the years – from China into Kazakhstan for eventual relay to Turkey, and then to IS territory in Syria. ‘US intelligence,’ he said, ‘is not getting good information about these activities because those insiders who are unhappy with the policy are not talking to them.’ He also said it was ‘not clear’ that the officials responsible for Syrian policy in the State Department and White House ‘get it’. Anthony Davis of IHS-Jane’s Defence Weekly estimated in October that as many as five thousand Uighur would-be fighters have arrived in Turkey since 2013, with perhaps two thousand moving on to Syria. Moustapha said he has information that ‘up to 860 Uighur fighters are currently in Syria.’


China’s growing concern about the Uighur problem and its link to Syria and Islamic State have preoccupied Christina Lin, a scholar who dealt with Chinese issues a decade ago while serving in the Pentagon under Donald Rumsfeld. ‘I grew up in Taiwan and came to the Pentagon as a critic of China,’ Lin told me. ‘I used to demonise the Chinese as ideologues, and they are not perfect. But over the years as I see them opening up and evolving, I have begun to change my perspective. I see China as a potential partner for various global challenges especially in the Middle East. There are many places – Syria for one – where the United States and China must co-operate in regional security and counterterrorism.’ A few weeks earlier, she said, China and India, Cold War enemies that ‘hated each other more than China and the United States hated each other, conducted a series of joint counterterrorism exercises. And today China and Russia both want to co-operate on terrorism issues with the United States.’ As China sees it, Lin suggests, Uighur militants who have made their way to Syria are being trained by Islamic State in survival techniques intended to aid them on covert return trips to the Chinese mainland, for future terrorist attacks there. ‘If Assad fails,’ Lin wrote in a paper published in September, ‘jihadi fighters from Russia’s Chechnya, China’s Xinjiang and India’s Kashmir will then turn their eyes towards the home front to continue jihad, supported by a new and well-sourced Syrian operating base in the heart of the Middle East.’

If this rat-line really is a thing, a Chinese crackdown on its own Muslim regions could possibly be spun as a de facto attack on external plotters in Turkey and elsewhere.

link
 
Valid points. It's just that an overseas anti-terrorism campaign by the Chinese government would be so out of character at the present time, it's hard for me to get my head around how it would work.


That's kinda my point with this thread: a large scale foreign intervention is something very much outside the current playbook of the Chinese Communist Party and something their military really doesn't have much experience in and yet it is possible to see a scenario where largely internal pressures would compel them to consider such an option if for nothing else but to just keep their power-base intact. In a weird way, the survival of the Chinese Communist Party much more perilous and is more dependent on keeping its image of strength and stability intact among its own people than any other major power (eg. If America didn't respond militarily after 9/11 there is probably a good chance Bush isn't able to win a Second term in 2004 but there would never be a chance that the whole American political system would be severely undermined).

Additionally we already know exactly what happens when the other Great Powers face such a situation because they all have already. China is by far the most powerful country that hasn't really faced the situation of having to deal with responding to a large scale foreign-based terrorist attack in the 21st century and it is arguably the country which is both least prepared militarily to respond, yet whose government would be under the most internal pressure to launch a major military retaliation.

PS: Erdoğan is certainly turning out to be a nightmare for the rest of us in the West: progressively turning Turkey (a NATO member and EU candidate) into his own authoritarian dictatorship, getting into direct military conflict with Russia and now, according to what you posted, antagonizing China as well. Also undermining the Kurds at the expense of increasing the strength of both ISIS and Assad is supremely unhelpful. God forbid he unilaterally does something really stupid in the mid-east and then tries to drag in the US and the rest of NATO (ie along the lines of him getting in over his head and invoking Article 5).
 
......

PS: Erdoğan is certainly turning out to be a nightmare for the rest of us in the West: progressively turning Turkey (a NATO member and EU candidate) into his own authoritarian dictatorship, getting into direct military conflict with Russia and now, according to what you posted, antagonizing China as well.
What incident did Turkey do that antagonize Mainland China ??
 
What incident did Turkey do that antagonize Mainland China ??

I think he was referring to the Seymour M. Hersh quote in my second post. You can draw your own conclusions about how accurate it might be.

Remember when Charlie Hebdo replied to the terrorist attack with the cover saying that all is forgiven? A Turkish satirical magazine fired back with this.

I would conclude from that that Chinese Muslims, many of them of Turkish descent, are a popular cause in Turkey. In the general run of pro-Muslim political discourse globally, it is rare to see Chinese Muslims given such prominence.
 
If ISIS (For example) were to do this China would get US backing for its intervention. Although we probably wouldn't help with troops we would probably help with intelligence and logistics. The Jihadists are far more unpopular in the US than the Chinese.
 
If ISIS (For example) were to do this China would get US backing for its intervention. Although we probably wouldn't help with troops we would probably help with intelligence and logistics. The Jihadists are far more unpopular in the US than the Chinese.


I am not sure China could really do this intervention and sustain it long term without direct support on the ground as their army and navy really isn't equipt to launch, transport and land a substantial invasion force on the other side of Asia. There really are only one or two militaries on earth capable of doing that on their own (with the US military being by far the most capable) and probably only a couple more that can do such a thing on a more limited scale (or potential on a large scale as part of a coalition). For that matter, how do you think would China gain substantial US material support? Obviously China has plenty of tools it can use to entice US backing (issues like North Korea, the South-China Sea, Cyber-espionage and above all else trade would prove tasty carrots to dangle in front of the US government) but I doubt the Chinese government would want to appear dependent on American support to achieve its ends (China wont want to be seen as just the junior partner in a mid-east intervention in a similar lens as the UK in 2003), so framing the optics of this potential partnership would be interesting. Any ideas on how this potential partnership would manifest itself?

Also would China try to work with/through the US or with Russia, as they also have a substantial base of operations in the region? I have a feeling given how the US and Russia are on opposite sides of the current conflict in Syria China would likely have to choose only one of them to be the main partner in its venture, so who do you think represents the best potential partner for the CCP? Russia may not be able to offer the military capabilities the US could as a partner but the risk to Chinese prestige of partnering with Russia is probably a lot less than with America (ie. No one would suggest that Russia is or at any foreseeable time in the future would be a serious commercial or cultural rival to China or that Russia would seriously pose any real threat to preventing a Chinese centered world economy whereas the same certainly cannot be said of the USA).
 
Last edited:
I am not sure China could really do this intervention and sustain it long term without direct support on the ground as their army and navy really isn't equipt to launch, transport and land a substantial invasion force on the other side of Asia. There really are only one or two militaries on earth capable of doing that on their own (with the US military being by far the most capable) and probably only a couple more that can do such a thing on a more limited scale (or potential on a large scale as part of a coalition). For that matter, how do you think would China gain substantial US material support? Obviously China has plenty of tools it can use to entice US backing (issues like North Korea, the South-China Sea, Cyber-espionage and above all else trade would prove tasty carrots to dangle in front of the US government) but I doubt the Chinese government would want to appear dependent on American support to achieve its ends (China wont want to be seen as just the junior partner in a mid-east intervention in a similar lens as the UK in 2003), so framing the optics of this potential partnership would be interesting. Any ideas on how this potential partnership would manifest itself?

Also would China try to work with/through the US or with Russia, as they also have a substantial base of operations in the region? I have a feeling given how the US and Russia are on opposite sides of the current conflict in Syria China would likely have to choose only one of them to be the main partner in its venture, so who do you think represents the best potential partner for the CCP? Russia may not be able to offer the military capabilities the US could as a partner but the risk to Chinese prestige of partnering with Russia is probably a lot less than with America (ie. No one would suggest that Russia is or at any foreseeable time in the future would be a serious commercial or cultural rival to China or that Russia would seriously pose any real threat to preventing a Chinese centered world economy whereas the same certainly cannot be said of the USA).

The Chinese government controls their media so I think it would downplay the US connection and since the US would be providing intel/logistics and not troops it could do so. I think the Chinese would also play Russia and the US against each other. Both want influence in China and the Chinese aren't stupid while the US and Russian governments are fully aware that is how the game is played. Neither the US or Russia would want China to be too closely tied with China and so both would probably help in one way or another.
 
The Chinese government controls their media so I think it would downplay the US connection and since the US would be providing intel/logistics and not troops it could do so. I think the Chinese would also play Russia and the US against each other. Both want influence in China and the Chinese aren't stupid while the US and Russian governments are fully aware that is how the game is played. Neither the US or Russia would want China to be too closely tied with China and so both would probably help in one way or another.


I am not sure how much you could play Russia and the US against each other in this situation. China would ideally prefer for both of them to cooperate with China in achieving China's goals in response to the terrorist attack but the US and Russia have mutually opposing interests in the region right now and China would likely have to at least tacitly throw its weight behind the goals of one of them to get a real military partnership in the region.
 
China borders afghanistan. So it wouldn't need naval transportation.


That depends if the base was in Afghanistan. The OP says 9/11 scale attack not "What if Al Qaeda attacked China instead of the US". If it were to happen now it would most likely be ISIL not AQ which means Syria/Iraq which China does not border.
 
I am not sure how much you could play Russia and the US against each other in this situation. China would ideally prefer for both of them to cooperate with China in achieving China's goals in response to the terrorist attack but the US and Russia have mutually opposing interests in the region right now and China would likely have to at least tacitly throw its weight behind the goals of one of them to get a real military partnership in the region.

Does it? China matters more to the US or Russia than Syria does.
 
That depends if the base was in Afghanistan. The OP says 9/11 scale attack not "What if Al Qaeda attacked China instead of the US". If it were to happen now it would most likely be ISIL not AQ which means Syria/Iraq which China does not border.


Thats correct: This isn't really about lets just do 9/11 but reset the target in 2001 from New York to Beijing. The whole social, diplomatic and foreign policy conventions, especially about dealing with mid-east terrorism has been through a seismic shift since 2001. I was referencing 9/11 in terms of scale: a devastating attack not just in terms of loss of life but on a major symbol of the country and one that requires a major response. Blowing up the World Trade Center was a major blow as much for the symbolism as for the human cost and material damage in a way that something like the more typical terrorist killing spree (eg. the 2000s London Bombings or the attack in Paris or the Boston Marathon bombing) simply are not. In this scenario I am referencing 9/11 as a kind of terrorist attack on a major symbol of China that produces a lasting cultural response in China that reverberates for not just years but decades in a way a mass shooting simply doesn't. That's not to say mass shooting terrorist attacks aren't horrible but they don't really have the lasting symbolism that burns a unforgettable mark in the history of the victim country. A lot of things are measured by either being in the pre-9/11 or post 9/11 era in the way very few other terror events are ever (arguably none in the US since Pearl Harbor). That is the magnitude of the hypothetical situation I am referencing in this scenario happening to China.
 
Thats correct: This isn't really about lets just do 9/11 but reset the target in 2001 from New York to Beijing. The whole social, diplomatic and foreign policy conventions, especially about dealing with mid-east terrorism has been through a seismic shift since 2001. I was referencing 9/11 in terms of scale: a devastating attack not just in terms of loss of life but on a major symbol of the country and one that requires a major response. Blowing up the World Trade Center was a major blow as much for the symbolism as for the human cost and material damage in a way that something like the more typical terrorist killing spree (eg. the 2000s London Bombings or the attack in Paris or the Boston Marathon bombing) simply are not. In this scenario I am referencing 9/11 as a kind of terrorist attack on a major symbol of China that produces a lasting cultural response in China that reverberates for not just years but decades in a way a mass shooting simply doesn't. That's not to say mass shooting terrorist attacks aren't horrible but they don't really have the lasting symbolism that burns a unforgettable mark in the history of the victim country. A lot of things are measured by either being in the pre-9/11 or post 9/11 era in the way very few other terror events are ever (arguably none in the US since Pearl Harbor). That is the magnitude of the hypothetical situation I am referencing in this scenario happening to China.

The US would help , if asked. How much help depends on what China is willing to do to get it. However even if all it does is accept it , China would at least get intelligence reports on the terrorists and possibly some logistical help.
 
Top