The revelation this week that Jacqueline Liu (劉姍姍), the former head of the nation’s representative office in Kansas City, Missouri, hired a Chinese national as a housekeeper late last year after her second Philippine maid had fled is as sad as it is worrying. What it is not, though, is surprising, given how lax this administration has become on national security.
As if the alleged mistreatment of two housemaids, which sullied the nation’s image abroad, were not enough, Liu also broke Ministry of Foreign Affairs regulations by hiring Xie Dengfeng (謝登鳳), a Chinese national, and concealing Xie’s identity from the ministry. Such actions could have endangered national security.
In her defense, the embattled Liu says she was unaware of the ministry regulations on hiring Chinese nationals. It is hard to imagine which possibility is worse — that she is lying, or that she was indeed unaware of the rules, which raises serious questions about internal security and counterintelligence at the ministry.
As any Taiwanese official should know, the Chinese intelligence apparatus is monitoring Taiwanese diplomatic missions abroad, and there is no reason to believe that the office in Kansas was any different. It can be assumed that Chinese agents were aware of the crisis that was developing at Liu’s residence, which would have provided a perfect opportunity to direct a source like Xie at her and task her with collecting intelligence.
An investigation is needed to determine whether this was the case, but in the past decades, there have been dozens of instances of Chinese espionage in the US involving defense officials, government agencies, high-tech firms and universities.
The mere possibility that Liu could be the target of such an operation should have been enough for her to avoid doing what she did. Heads must roll over this lapse, and possibly not just Liu’s.
For let us not kid ourselves: However much the administration of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) likes to say that cross-strait relations have improved, and despite the “love and peace” theme and the cuddly panda used as a backdrop at a recent cross-strait conference in Greater Kaohsiung, Beijing remains very much on a war footing. Beyond missiles, destroyers and aircraft, this also means aggressive intelligence collection.
Unless the Ma administration starts taking counterintelligence seriously by acknowledging the nature of the threat, allocates sufficient resources to meet the challenge and provides appropriate training on international security to all government employees, China will continue to penetrate Taiwanese security wherever it wants. Opportunities for China to conduct espionage against Taiwan have increased dramatically amid growing exchanges between the two sides.
Failing to make the appropriate changes signals that Taiwan has all but given up on resisting aggression.
The analogies between Austria on the eve of World War II and Taiwan today, with Ma playing the role of former Austrian chancellor Kurt Schuschnigg, are disturbing. While Ma and Schuschnigg were undoubtedly well-intentioned, Nazi Germany then, like Beijing now, used a “policy of peaceful penetration” that heightened pressure on independence movements while isolating their targets internationally.
The first point of the Nazi program, we must remember, demanded “the merger of all Germans ... in a Greater Germany,” with Adolf Hitler adding in his hate-filled Mein Kampf: “One blood demands one Reich” — language ominously familiar to Taiwanese.
We all know what an ugly fate befell Austria. Now that “one blood demands ‘one China,’” should not this administration, if it indeed intends to ensure its survival, take the problem of continued Chinese aggression as seriously as it warrants, starting with the security of its missions abroad?
The small Baltic nation of Lithuania last week announced that it would accept a Taiwanese representative office in its capital, Vilnius, and that it would establish its own trade office in Taiwan by the end of the year. This was more than a welcome announcement to Taiwan and goes far beyond the normal establishment of trade relations. Lithuanian Minister of Foreign Affairs Gabrielius Landsbergis summed it up succinctly, boldly saying: “Freedom-loving people should look out for each other.” With these words, Landsbergis was purposefully going beyond normal diplomacy; he was also presenting a moral challenge and reminder to other democratic nations. A look
On a peaceful day in the open Pacific Ocean to the east of Taiwan, a US carrier and five accompanying warships were slowly sailing to guard the western Pacific. Another carrier battle group had just returned to its home port in San Diego. Suddenly, alarms went off as many intercontinental ballistic missiles were launched from the interior of China, flying toward Taiwan. Numerous Chinese warships, carriers, fighter jets, bombers and submarines were fast converging on the US ships. Not too long after, missiles, bombs and torpedoes were fired at the US carrier. The surprise to Americans was the number of
I was a bit startled last week when Legislative Yuan Speaker You Si-kun (游錫堃) suggested that the United States could extend official recognition to an independent Taiwan if China were to launch an invasion. While I think Speaker You is correct, I am not sure it is a helpful point of view. Naturally, there are contingency plans in Washington on diplomatic actions that could deter Chinese military action, but they contemplate the continuity of a democratic Taiwanese government that could survive offshore in exile if part or all of Taiwan is occupied by communist Chinese forces. China’s threat that “Taiwan
Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) unscheduled visit to Tibet on July 20 attracted extensive international attention. Although Chinese media said that Xi’s visit was meant to celebrate the 70th anniversary of the accession of Tibet to China, Tibet has remained a politically charged issue for China as well as the international community. The genesis of the turbulent ties between Tibet and China dates back to 1951, when the Chinese regime annexed Tibet through a seven-point agreement. China has used this agreement as proof of its sovereignty over Tibet. Tibetans argue that they were forced to sign the agreement, leading them