It took a while for the news to come out, but on Thursday last week the Chinese military showed its true colors and fired a missile into space, destroying an obsolete Chinese weather satellite.
In what must rank as the funniest comment to come out of China in some time, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao (
Apart from the political repercussions, the missile test represents grotesque carelessness on the part of the Chinese. The wreckage from the destroyed satellite -- a spray of tiny metallic parts -- has the small but very real potential to damage other satellites and even the International Space Station, and for a long period of time.
The US has been joined by Japan, Australia and other countries in demanding some form of accountability from the Chinese for their extraordinary behavior, but regardless of how Beijing responds, this incident demolishes the suggestion that the Chinese military and its Communist Party bosses can behave in an accountable, let alone responsible, manner in military and space affairs.
In the wake of the North Korean nuclear test, this missile test suggests that Beijing has, if anything, taken on Pyongyang has a role model.
The myth of the peaceful rise of China has many subscribers who romanticize the history of Chinese civilization. What is surprising about the destruction of the satellite, however, is that the Chinese could so summarily reduce to myth the idea that it can act as a force for regional peace and mediation.
In tandem with this, it has become clearer that the Chinese military is growing more confident and playing the Pentagon for a pack of fools. It defies common sense that the Chinese could launch this missile without informing Washington and international scientific organizations beforehand, yet this is just what appears to have happened.
Almost as worrying as the missile test is the fact that the Bush administration sat on the news of this development for a week before bringing it to public attention.
Washington's delay suggests that it has frighteningly little comprehension of the need for an immediate and unequivocal response -- if not retaliation -- over Beijing's misuse of space technology and its ramping up of military tensions in what is already a tense region.
The theory that the Middle East quagmire is compromising the security interests of the US by giving the Chinese diplomatic room to maneuver and allowing it to expand its military capabilities with impunity is gaining more currency. Of greatest concern for Taiwan, therefore, is the possibility that the US government's ability to retaliate against symbolic and technical advances in China's military capabilities has been dulled.
The US State Department, and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in particular, must denounce the Chinese launch in the strongest terms and prepare a practical response if they are to be taken seriously in the region.
Tongue-clucking and muted expressions of regret from the State Department will not wash. The Chinese can destroy satellites from ground-based missiles and they want the world to know it. Beijing must be made to understand that responsible nations will not tolerate the direction in which it has chosen to travel.
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS