As a result of the devastating Sept. 11 terrorist attacks against the US, many established notions about terrorism were changed forever. In view of this, President Chen Shui-bian (
Contrary to reports, Chen did not equate Chinese threats against Taiwan with "terrorism." What he said was that the threat "by its nature is very similar to terrorist attack." Indeed, the fear instigated by a sense of uncertainty about when and how a Chinese attack on Taiwan might take place is perhaps the greatest similarity between the two types of threats. It is probably hard for people in most other parts of the world to know what it feels like to live day after day, knowing that not only are there more than 400 ballistic missiles targeted at your nation, but that your giant neighbor is out to get you -- sooner or later, one way or the other. Those who do live under the shadow of terrorism may understand.
The opposition camp was quick to accuse Chen of "demonizing" China, pointing out that to equate Beijing's threats with terrorism defies the conventional concept of terrorism. But it is fair to say that given China's pathetic human rights record and its preference for military threats, no one can outperform Beijing in "demonizing" China.
In any event, not only is there a lack of consensus on the definition of terrorism, but the definitions are constantly evolving with the ever-changing international order, political climate and technological development. For example, even the FBI and the US Department of State have proffered different definitions of terrorism.
The concept of terrorism has come a long way since the 1900's in terms of motivations, strategies and weapons. Most terrorism these days is not inspired by the traditional political left or right -- it is based on ethnic divisions. The trend seems to be away from targeting specific government or political officials and more toward indiscrimate killing. State-sponsored terrorism has also mushroomed in recent decades. These are all reasons for keeping an open-ended definition of terrorism.
Across a broad spectrum of varying definitions for "terrorism," two basic elements are consistent -- an inability to achieve goals by conventional means and tactics intended to send ideological messages by terrorizing the general public. A close look at the cross-strait situation reveals that these two elements are present.
A conventional and open war against Taiwan is not Beijing's preferred option, at least not now, since it hopes to keep Taiwan intact in order to enjoy its abundant wealth and avoid international condemnation. Therefore it has resorted to tactics such as missile deployments and large-scale military exercises in an effort to intimidate the people of Taiwan. The message is "Taiwan is at China's disposal."
In the current issue of Newsweek, an article entitled "War Zones of 2012" boldly hypothesize a scenario in which Beijing wages an unofficial information war against Taiwan, paralyzing the nation. It is not a far-fetched scenario. It comes very close to the type of information warfare that experts predict will be the future of terrorism. What the article did not say is that Beijing may then attempt to take over Taiwan with a lightening strike before international intervention can take place.
The Chinese threat toward Taiwan in no way pales in comparison to terrorism. The world should not be caught napping.
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
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.
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