On March 20, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice met with China's leaders in Beijing. Prior to her arrival, Rice had already set the tone for Sino-US relations over the next few years through subtle handling of the media and in her public pronouncements: the US sees China as a national security threat.
Two days before Rice's arrival in Beijing, on March 18, Ukraine's Prosecutor General Svyatoslav Piskun revealed that Ukrainian arms dealers had exported 12 strategic X-55 cruise missiles to Iran and six to China in 2001. He stressed that the missiles weren't equipped with nuclear warheads.
In Seoul two days later, Rice said that the US was concerned about China's increasing military strength. She also warned the EU over helping China use European technology to advance its military modernization, bluntly saying that it, in fact, is the US, not Europe, that protects the Pacific.
These two incidents are closely related to each other. Rice's March 20 statement can be seen as a strategic assessment of the March 18 information, the release of which was intended to have an impact on Rice's visit to Beijing.
According to the first Strategic Arms Reductions Treaty (START 1) between Russia and the US, the X-55 missiles should have been transported back to Russia. Still, China and Iran have spent several million US dollars each on the illegal purchase of such missiles, components and Russian teams to keep them operational.
The X-55 has a range of 3,000km, can carry a nuclear warhead and be fired from a commercial aircraft. The missile defense system under development by the US and Japan is not capable of stopping it.
By illegally obtaining the X-55, Iran and China have revealed their true intentions: Iran's goal is to obtain nuclear weapons, and China's is to punch a hole in the defensive net provided by the US' missile defense system. What's more, the range of these missiles is sufficient to bring Japan within China's reach, while it gives Iran the ability to attack Israel or US military bases in the Middle East.
The X-55 smuggling incident is no small matter. Both the US and Japan are being forced to treat it seriously and to re-evaluate the Chinese military threat, as past assessments may now be too conservative. Rice's statement in Seoul was a reflection of this re-assessment. She mentioned China's military modernization and the US's Pacific defenses. Reading between the lines, Rice is saying that China's military modernization poses a threat to the US.
The Taiwanese people, who see no further than the Taiwan Strait, should not rashly interpret Rice's statements as a reaction to the passage of China's "Anti-Secession" Law. First, Rice was talking about Pacific defenses, not the defense of Taiwan. Second, she confirmed that China is the main geopolitical threat to the US in the Pacific.
This fundamental approach will define Pacific politics over the next few years. Geopolitical confrontation, not the mirage created by talk of economics and peace, is what really holds the centerstage in our time, and it revolves around the US-China conflict. Although the US-China relationship still hasn't reached breaking point, both sides are pushing in that direction. China has to decide how far it really wants to push this stand-off with the US, while the US must decide whether it can afford a conflict with China at a time when it is involved in a global war on terror.
It is precisely the restrictions on the US resulting from the war on terror in combination with the weak-willed Taiwanese people that may cause China to think it has an opportunity. This is the root cause of any future misjudgments and what makes the East Asian geo-political situation exceptionally dangerous.
Chang Hsi-mo is an assistant professor at the Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies at National Sun Yat-sen University.
Translated by Perry Svensson
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