It was a little more than a display of fireworks in this year's Independence Day celebrations. While US citizens enjoyed the most important holiday of the year, halfway across the Pacific Ocean North Korea paid tribute with perhaps the splashiest display of their military fireworks to date -- launching seven missiles, including the long-range Taepodong-2 which can reach as far as Alaska.
Accused by the US, Japan and South Korea as "an act of provocation," the world has once again witnessed the erratic, petulant Kim Jong-il's larger-than-life personality on full display.
Although the tests failed disastrously as the long-range missiles exploded just moments after launch, confirming suspicions regarding North Korea's capacity to build a functional intercontinental missile system, there is no doubting Kim's ability to surprise and create an atmosphere of instability.
The missile incident sparked an outcry from the international community, yet the words of the US and its friends seem to carry no weight with the irresponsible, attention-seeking dictator.
Given the longstanding links between China and North Korea, the international community placed great store in China's ability to talk reason to Kim.
The Chinese response was muted. The leadership in Beijing said that they were "seriously concerned" by the events, but called for calm on all sides. No more than a tiny spank on the bottom for naughty Kim.
For years, China has exaggerated talk of Japanese military expansion. But this time their good friend Kim gave the Japanese every legitimate reason to become more aggressive.
What were the Chinese thinking? Did they really believe that protecting Kim and bailing out his bankrupt regime would provide them with leverage over the US and Japan in the six-party talks? Or perhaps Beijing had other more serious concerns that made an open condemnation of the missile tests too difficult?
In my opinion, North Korea, the only Stalinist country left, is by far the biggest threat to the region -- but not the most immediate one.
Dismissed by one US senator as a "paper tiger," Kim's regime seriously lacks the capacity to launch a full-scale attack on Japan or South Korea, as more than 8 million North Koreans are suffering from famine and malnutrition, and its energy sources are running dry. Trains and public transport have been dysfunctional for so long that no one can remember when they actually operated properly.
On the other hand, China has been expanding its military capacity at a rapid pace, with the view of one day competing with the US. Therefore, could it be that China's refusal to condemn the North's missile tests was part of a broader reluctance to raise questions about the overall balance of power in the region, which in turn would expose Beijing's own military buildup and prolonged aggression against Taiwan?
It is important that the world realizes the immediate danger China poses to the Asia-Pacific region. And while the international community can do little to conceal its anger toward North Korea, it should turn its attention to the 800 ballistic missiles aimed at Taiwan.
With the barrage of M-9 and M-11 missiles China has deployed, Taiwan could be bombed in as little as seven minutes without any prior warning. Isn't this more frightening than the flawed missiles produced by the North Koreans?
Some day, North Korea may actually be able to build a missile that can cross the Pacific. Some day, it may actually be able to build the nuclear weapons which it has been pursuing tirelessly. These are all grave concerns to us, and the world.
Yet today, China already has the functional missiles in place directed toward Taiwan, and Beijing has never given up the option of military invasion to force Taiwan to acquiesce. The world community will always be at risk if China does not stop its pursuit of global military supremacy. This is the real issue that confronts us.
James Tu
Taipei
The conflict in the Middle East has been disrupting financial markets, raising concerns about rising inflationary pressures and global economic growth. One market that some investors are particularly worried about has not been heavily covered in the news: the private credit market. Even before the joint US-Israeli attacks on Iran on Feb. 28, global capital markets had faced growing structural pressure — the deteriorating funding conditions in the private credit market. The private credit market is where companies borrow funds directly from nonbank financial institutions such as asset management companies, insurance companies and private lending platforms. Its popularity has risen since
The Donald Trump administration’s approach to China broadly, and to cross-Strait relations in particular, remains a conundrum. The 2025 US National Security Strategy prioritized the defense of Taiwan in a way that surprised some observers of the Trump administration: “Deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving military overmatch, is a priority.” Two months later, Taiwan went entirely unmentioned in the US National Defense Strategy, as did military overmatch vis-a-vis China, giving renewed cause for concern. How to interpret these varying statements remains an open question. In both documents, the Indo-Pacific is listed as a second priority behind homeland defense and
Every analyst watching Iran’s succession crisis is asking who would replace supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Yet, the real question is whether China has learned enough from the Persian Gulf to survive a war over Taiwan. Beijing purchases roughly 90 percent of Iran’s exported crude — some 1.61 million barrels per day last year — and holds a US$400 billion, 25-year cooperation agreement binding it to Tehran’s stability. However, this is not simply the story of a patron protecting an investment. China has spent years engineering a sanctions-evasion architecture that was never really about Iran — it was about Taiwan. The
In an op-ed published in Foreign Affairs on Tuesday, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) said that Taiwan should not have to choose between aligning with Beijing or Washington, and advocated for cooperation with Beijing under the so-called “1992 consensus” as a form of “strategic ambiguity.” However, Cheng has either misunderstood the geopolitical reality and chosen appeasement, or is trying to fool an international audience with her doublespeak; nonetheless, it risks sending the wrong message to Taiwan’s democratic allies and partners. Cheng stressed that “Taiwan does not have to choose,” as while Beijing and Washington compete, Taiwan is strongest when
RSS