If this were any normal country in any ordinary neighborhood, the computer crashes that affected four international airports in Taiwan (Taoyuan, Kaohsiung, Kinmen and Nangan) on Monday would not be of major concern. But when they occur in a country such as Taiwan, which faces, about 130km away, a major military power that has relentlessly stated its ambitions to annex it — by force if necessary — the “glitch” turns into a major security problem.
Even more troubling than the “hard drive” failure itself is the fact that three National Immigration Agency (NIA) systems simultaneously went offline at rush hour. This either indicates that all airports rely on the same, centralized computer system without the redundancy (ie, a system that runs in parallel to ensure continuity when failure occurs) that one would expect for such critical infrastructure or that the systems were somehow victims of sabotage or electronic attack, domestic or foreign.
That a problem of this magnitude should occur mere months after direct daily cross-strait flights with China were implemented raises serious questions.
In light of various reports by the US and Western intelligence agencies warning that China has been modernizing and intensifying its electronic attacks on critical computer systems in the West — military, government and business — it is not impossible that Monday’s failures were the result of such an attack.
It has yet to be determined whether Monday’s failure was the result of such action, but the NIA should nevertheless be requesting help from the Ministry of the Interior as well as domestic intelligence agencies in ascertaining the nature of the problem, which they called “faulty hard drives.”
In November 2007 this newspaper carried news about Maxtor hard disks that came with a Chinese-designed Trojan Horse that automatically uploaded information to Chinese Web sites. Where the faulty hard drives were manufactured, therefore, could be of interest. If a security breach is found, agencies will have to work together to enhance security.
Equally alarming has been the NIA’s slow response — two full days of operations at Taiwan Taoyuan Airport — during which time immigration officials documented people entering and exiting the country the old-fashioned way, in handwriting. This left the officials virtually blind as they could not access the various databases and cross-referencing software that are so crucial in identifying criminals, wanted individuals and people who represent a threat to national security. The NIA itself admitted on Monday that it would not be able to determine whether people had entered or exited the country illegally.
Monday’s quadruple failure may just have been a very bad coincidence, but that is unlikely. Still, if that is the case, the NIA must invest in redundancy systems. Now. It also highlights the need for front-end screening (FES) by Taiwanese immigration officials at Chinese airports, who could detect security threats before they even enter Taiwanese territory. FES would involve challenges of its own, including systems links ensuring information integrity on Chinese territory, but such problems are not insurmountable.
Perhaps Monday was a trial run by the Chinese military-intelligence apparatus to see how Taiwan’s borders can be breached. Given the ease with which three airports were shut down simultaneously, the chaos that ensued and the NIA’s snail-paced response, China could conclude that it can blind Taiwanese border officials long enough to introduce saboteurs, intelligence operatives and military officials whenever it wants, with little chance of detection.
Any other country on a war footing would have reacted with far more alarm to the shutdown, including, in the worst situation, the cancellation of flights (at least from “high-risk” countries, such as China), disgruntled travelers notwithstanding. The NIA’s — and Taipei’s — knee-jerk handling of the case so far is evidence, yet again, that the administration of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) does not handle the security of Taiwan with the seriousness that the country’s position warrants.
Lastly, at a time when the US government begins to worry publicly that rapprochement between Taiwan and China could result in espionage against advanced US military technology sold to Taiwan, the bad publicity engendered by Monday’s catastrophic failure cannot be understated, Chinese cyber attack or not.
J. Michael Cole is a writer based in Taipei.
In September 2013, the armed wing of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) quietly released an internal document entitled, “Coursebook on the Military Geography of the Taiwan Strait.” This sensitive, “military-use-only” coursebook explains why it is strategically vital that China “reunify” (annex) Taiwan. It then methodically analyzes various locations of interest to People’s Liberation Army (PLA) war planners. The coursebook highlights one future battlefield in particular: Fulong Beach, in New Taipei City’s Gongliao District, which it describes as “3,000 meters long, flat, and straight,” and located at “the head of Taiwan.” A black and white picture of Fulong’s sandy coastline occupies the
US President Joe Biden’s first news conference last month offered reassuring and concerning insights regarding his administration’s approach to China. Biden did not mention the contentious meeting in Alaska where US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and US National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan confronted China’s top two foreign policy officials. The Americans implicitly affirmed the administration of former US president Donald Trump’s direct pushback against communist China’s repressive domestic governance and aggressive international behavior. Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs Wang Yi (王毅) and Chinese Central Foreign Affairs Commission Director Yang Jiechi (楊潔篪) had explicitly demanded a return to the policies of
Early last month, China’s rubber-stamp legislature, the National People’s Congress (NPC), officially approved the country’s 14th Five-Year Plan. The strategy was supposed to demonstrate that China has a long-term economic vision that would enable it to thrive, despite its geopolitical contest with the US. However, before the ink on the NPC’s stamp could dry, China had already begun sabotaging the plan’s chances of success. The new plan’s centerpiece is the “dual-circulation” strategy, according to which China would aim to foster growth based on domestic demand and technological self-sufficiency. This would not only reduce China’s reliance on external demand; it would also
Interrupting the assimilation of Xinjiang’s Uighur population would result in an unmanageable national security threat to China. Numerous governments and civil society organizations around the world have accused China of massive human rights abuses in Xinjiang, and labeled Beijing’s inhumane and aggressive social re-engineering efforts in the region as “cultural genocide.” Extensive evidence shows that China’s forceful ethnic assimilation policies in Xinjiang are aimed at replacing Uighur ethnic and religious identity with a so-called scientific communist dogma and Han Chinese culture. The total assimilation of Uighurs into the larger “Chinese family” is also Beijing’s official, central purpose of its ethnic policies