Even before the tension generated by China's "Anti-Secession" Law has settled, Beijing is at odds with another neighbor. It has initiated a succession of anti-Japanese activities to protest history textbook revisions and Tokyo's ambitions to become a permanent member of the UN Security Council. Tens of thousands of people have protested outside Japan's embassy, burnt Japanese flags and damaged Japanese businesses. Tokyo has protested to China, but there is no sign of the anti-Japanese mood abating.
Beijing usually takes a hard line with demonstrations and unauthorized assemblies, and the fact that the protests have reached a point where even the Japanese embassy is threatened has led the Japanese media to suggest that these demonstrations have tacit government approval.
Why does the Chinese government tolerate these protests? Beijing is using the situation as a valve to release tensions over political and economic issues. The textbook revisions and the visits by Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi to the Yasukuni Shrine are being exploited to this end. So is the constant friction over rights to Siberian oil, shipping lanes in the East China Sea, sovereignty over the Diaoyutai and the operation of the Chunxiao gas fields west of Okinawa. It is all just a means of diverting attention away from domestic issues.
Since taking power, Chinese President Hu Jintao (
Another major reason is China's economy. As the economy booms, the income gap between rich and poor is widening. Meanwhile, a flood of foreign capital has aggravated competition between domestic and foreign-owned companies. China has become Japan's largest trade partner, but with their financial resources and experience, Japanese companies are putting enormous pressure on Chinese enterprises. With the survival of Chinese enterprises at stake, in addition to traditional historical resentment, Japanese businesses become the first targets when China wishes to express its dissatisfaction or launch boycotts.
The two countries have a close political and economic relationship, but at the level of public opinion, they are uneasy partners and suspicious of one another. A conflagration may break out if hatred is cultivated. Therefore, even as the Chinese government allows its public to vent their emotions, it also worries that it may lose control over nationalistic fervor. There is always the risk that public protests could turn into a movement similar to the 1989 Tiananmen Square rallies. This is why Beijing has made some attempts to cool down the anti-Japanese rumblings.
Such an upsurge of anti-Japanese nationalism will necessarily rouse Japanese nationalism. China's and South Korea's joint protests against Japan have made Tokyo feel isolated and threatened. This is likely to make it more determined to secure its security relationship with the US. Japan's rearmament, therefore, seems inevitable.
With the expansion of the Sino-Japanese conflict, Taiwan's security and regional stability could suffer. Taiwan and Japan are both threatened by China. Washington and Tokyo have noted their concerns over Taiwan and the Taiwan Strait in their joint declaration on security. However, recent incidents, such as the Anti-Secession Law and Taiwan Solidarity Union Chairman Shu Chin-chiang's (
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS