Two reports issued this weekend provided a stunning glimpse into the extent of China’s espionage operations using the Internet. Tracking GhostNet: Investigating a Cyber Espionage Network and The Snooping Dragon: Social-Malware Surveillance of the Tibetan Movement, served as clear warnings — especially to the Tibetan movement — that Chinese authorities are watching, listening, collecting and acting on the information obtained.
The second report said that the malware is “well written” and has been “devastatingly effective,” targeting, among others, foreign ministries, NGOs, news organizations, NATO and the Tibetan government-in-exile. The first report says GhostNet infected at least 1,295 computers in 103 countries, “of which close to 30 percent can be considered as high-value diplomatic, political, economic, and military targets.”
Beyond collecting information, the software developed in China, known as gh0st RAT, allows attackers to gain full, real-time control of, send instructions to and retrieve information from the targeted computer.
In the private realm, the implications of cyber espionage as a tool of repression are devastating. In one instance, a woman working for Drewla, a group that uses online chatting forums to reach out to Chinese and educate them on the plight of Tibetans, was arrested at the Nepalese-Tibetan border as she was returning to her village in Tibet. She was interrogated by Chinese intelligence officers, held incommunicado and presented with the full transcripts of her Internet chat activity. She was then banned from Tibet.
While the Tracking GhostNet report is careful not to attribute all cyber attacks to intelligence-gathering operations by Beijing, it is active in that domain and has used actionable intelligence collected electronically to pursue its objectives.
Although the reports paid special attention to Chinese spying on Tibetans, in the process the authors determined that of 986 known infected IP hosts in 93 countries, Taiwan had the most — 148 — including its embassy in Swaziland, the Institute for Information Industry, Net Trade, the Taiwan External Trade Development Council and the Government Service Network.
Coupled with evidence that, despite President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) cross-strait peace initiative, China has not taken the military option off the table, revelations of China’s cyber espionage network raise questions about the wisdom of intensifying relations with China. If, as can be assumed, China remains committed to targeting Taiwan for intelligence collection, then the more electronic contact there is between the two sides, the greater the opportunities will be for the transmission of malware. The repercussions in the banking and high-tech sectors, not to mention defense and public safety, could be huge.
China could target individuals, especially in pro-independence groups and opponents of cross-strait agreements. As fear of, and opposition to, agreements with China that risk undermining the sovereignty of Taiwan increases, China can be expected to monitor dissidents in ways that recall its treatment of Tibetans, as outlined in the reports.
Chinese intelligence has a long history of such activity but until recently its espionage was done through human intelligence. Now that communication is mostly electronic, however, espionage can be carried out remotely and with greater efficiency. Given the stakes, Taiwan should conduct its own study on the matter.
Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) has created a dilemma that could soon cause him to be hoisted with his own petard, bringing his leadership of China to an end. His threatening rhetoric over the unification of Taiwan with China, in which he has said, “we are willing to draw blood if necessary,” has placed Xi in a corner. Xi is portrayed as a strong world leader, yet he has created a scenario for himself that most likely would have an unfavorable outcome. With the 20th National Congress of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) scheduled to convene this month, Xi cannot
I was privileged to meet with many of Taiwan’s leaders and leading thinkers during a study tour visit in August. One theme I heard several times during that trip was that bad relations between the United States and China benefit Taiwan. At first thought, I empathize with the argument. After all, there is a troubling record of America’s leaders negotiating with Beijing over the heads of Taiwan’s leaders. For example, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt returned Taiwan to China after World War II. President Richard Nixon surprised Taiwan leaders with his 1972 trip to China. President Jimmy Carter unilaterally chose to normalize
Washington’s “one China” policy has not changed and the US does not take a position on Taiwan’s sovereignty issue, a US Department of State spokesperson has said. He said that this has been the principle of US policy toward Taiwan since 1979, and the policy has remained in effect. He also said that US Secretary of State Antony Blinken has privately made this clear to Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs Wang Yi (王毅). The US’ “one China” policy and China’s “one China” principle recognize China as the “representative of China.” The two diverge on the issue of Taiwan: Beijing asserts sovereignty
I live in Taiwan because, like many foreigners, I fell in love with and chose to align my life with a Taiwanese. In an era where personal freedoms are mandatorily ceded to government decree, I am thankful to the Taiwanese government for the spousal visa, as well as the lack of demeaning bureaucratic hoops and hurdles needed to get a work permit, residency permit and healthcare. However, if I then choose to attempt citizenship, this enlightened attitude spasms to seizure, culminating in what appears to be blatant xenophobia. In contrast to Western countries, the path to citizenship mandates a protracted period