Late last month, during a speech at the East Asia summit in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, US President Barack Obama said that in the Asia-Pacific region, Taiwan, Australia, Canada, Japan, Malaysia, New Zealand, Singapore and South Korea are among the members of its coalition against the Islamic State group. Several days later, the extremists released a video featuring the flags of the members of Obama’s coalition that included a Republic of China (ROC) flag.
Some observers have said that the US only thinks of Taiwan in bad times, not good times. This is the knee-jerk response of some muddleheaded people.
This kind of thinking is typical of Chinese culture: “Sweep the snow from your own doorstep, and do not bother about the frost on your neighbor’s roof,” as the old saying goes.
It is a product of the small-farmer economy and can easily be employed by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in its anti-US propaganda.
The crimes committed by terrorists working with, or inspired by, the Islamic State group are crimes against humanity. Regardless of whether Taiwanese have been injured in them, the nation should support the fight against terrorism without fearing the increase in risk that might be caused by the rise in its international profile. The international situation facing Taiwan is forcing the nation to fulfill its obligations before striving for its rights. This problem is caused by China, not the US. Since Taiwan is protected by the US-Japan security treaty, it should support the anti-terrorism campaign.
The Islamic State group should never be conflated with Islam. Nevertheless, China uses the threat of terrorism as an excuse to crack down on its Uighur minority. After several Chinese were beheaded or died in terrorist explosions overseas, China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs only issued a vague response, saying it would “bring the terrorists to justice.”
Is killing Uighurs the same as “bringing them to justice?”
The anti-terrorism approach of President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration follows the “Chinese mode.” On the eve of the World Games in Kaohsiung in 2009, the Ministry of Justice’s Investigation Bureau asked me for information regarding terrorists secretly entering Taiwan. Am I associated with terrorists just because I am in contact with World Uyghur Congress president Rebiya Kadeer? This is China’s anti-terrorism logic. One can only hope that Ma did not take his orders from Beijing.
Since we founded the Taiwan Youth Anti-Communist Corps (台灣青年反共救國團) in 2009, the group’s computers have often been hacked, and we have even received letters and telephone calls from people asking us to provide weapons. I wonder if these calls came from the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) or the Chinese Communist Party. As a “registered target” on the government’s list, a wrong answer would have put me in the frame and I could have been arrested. After hiring a specialized company to check my home telephones, we found that both lines were wiretapped.
The Islamic State and al-Qaeda are not the only groups committing terrorist acts; there is also the “state terrorism” of national governments against their own citizens. North Korea and China are both examples of this kind of government. A Chinese attack against Taiwan is currently the most serious terrorist threat facing the nation.
Taiwan should redefine its understanding of terrorism to include life-threatening military attacks, cyberattacks and even trade wars.
International order can only be maintained if countries engaged in fighting terrorism cooperate with and support each other.
Paul Lin is a political commentator.
Translated by Eddy Chang
In the US’ National Security Strategy (NSS) report released last month, US President Donald Trump offered his interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine. The “Trump Corollary,” presented on page 15, is a distinctly aggressive rebranding of the more than 200-year-old foreign policy position. Beyond reasserting the sovereignty of the western hemisphere against foreign intervention, the document centers on energy and strategic assets, and attempts to redraw the map of the geopolitical landscape more broadly. It is clear that Trump no longer sees the western hemisphere as a peaceful backyard, but rather as the frontier of a new Cold War. In particular,
When it became clear that the world was entering a new era with a radical change in the US’ global stance in US President Donald Trump’s second term, many in Taiwan were concerned about what this meant for the nation’s defense against China. Instability and disruption are dangerous. Chaos introduces unknowns. There was a sense that the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) might have a point with its tendency not to trust the US. The world order is certainly changing, but concerns about the implications for Taiwan of this disruption left many blind to how the same forces might also weaken
As the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) races toward its 2027 modernization goals, most analysts fixate on ship counts, missile ranges and artificial intelligence. Those metrics matter — but they obscure a deeper vulnerability. The true future of the PLA, and by extension Taiwan’s security, might hinge less on hardware than on whether the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) can preserve ideological loyalty inside its own armed forces. Iran’s 1979 revolution demonstrated how even a technologically advanced military can collapse when the social environment surrounding it shifts. That lesson has renewed relevance as fresh unrest shakes Iran today — and it should
On today’s page, Masahiro Matsumura, a professor of international politics and national security at St Andrew’s University in Osaka, questions the viability and advisability of the government’s proposed “T-Dome” missile defense system. Matsumura writes that Taiwan’s military budget would be better allocated elsewhere, and cautions against the temptation to allow politics to trump strategic sense. What he does not do is question whether Taiwan needs to increase its defense capabilities. “Given the accelerating pace of Beijing’s military buildup and political coercion ... [Taiwan] cannot afford inaction,” he writes. A rational, robust debate over the specifics, not the scale or the necessity,
RSS