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
Taiwan stands at the epicenter of a seismic shift that will determine the Indo-Pacific’s future security architecture. Whether deterrence prevails or collapses will reverberate far beyond the Taiwan Strait, fundamentally reshaping global power dynamics. The stakes could not be higher. Today, Taipei confronts an unprecedented convergence of threats from an increasingly muscular China that has intensified its multidimensional pressure campaign. Beijing’s strategy is comprehensive: military intimidation, diplomatic isolation, economic coercion, and sophisticated influence operations designed to fracture Taiwan’s democratic society from within. This challenge is magnified by Taiwan’s internal political divisions, which extend to fundamental questions about the island’s identity and future
The narrative surrounding Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s attendance at last week’s Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit — where he held hands with Russian President Vladimir Putin and chatted amiably with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) — was widely framed as a signal of Modi distancing himself from the US and edging closer to regional autocrats. It was depicted as Modi reacting to the levying of high US tariffs, burying the hatchet over border disputes with China, and heralding less engagement with the Quadrilateral Security dialogue (Quad) composed of the US, India, Japan and Australia. With Modi in China for the
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has postponed its chairperson candidate registration for two weeks, and so far, nine people have announced their intention to run for chairperson, the most on record, with more expected to announce their campaign in the final days. On the evening of Aug. 23, shortly after seven KMT lawmakers survived recall votes, KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) announced he would step down and urged Taichung Mayor Lu Shiow-yen (盧秀燕) to step in and lead the party back to power. Lu immediately ruled herself out the following day, leaving the subject in question. In the days that followed, several
The Jamestown Foundation last week published an article exposing Beijing’s oil rigs and other potential dual-use platforms in waters near Pratas Island (Dongsha Island, 東沙島). China’s activities there resembled what they did in the East China Sea, inside the exclusive economic zones of Japan and South Korea, as well as with other South China Sea claimants. However, the most surprising element of the report was that the authors’ government contacts and Jamestown’s own evinced little awareness of China’s activities. That Beijing’s testing of Taiwanese (and its allies) situational awareness seemingly went unnoticed strongly suggests the need for more intelligence. Taiwan’s naval
RSS