National Security Bureau Director-General Chen Ming-tong (陳明通) has made two public appearances over the past week to answer questions from lawmakers, mostly about the Russia-Ukraine war and its implications for Taiwan.
During a meeting of the legislature’s Foreign Affairs and National Defense Committee on Monday, Chen said he believed the US would be “more deeply involved” in a war across the Taiwan Strait than in Ukraine, due to its commitments to Taipei under the US’ Taiwan Relations Act (TRA).
“The current situation [in Ukraine] has given China much to think about, as the US has given much support to Ukraine, even without a law similar to the TRA,” he said.
The news media focused on these comments, which, if taken out of context, could mean that the government is counting on Washington to intervene militarily in a conflict between Taiwan and China.
However, the opposite is true.
Chen was responding to a lawmaker’s question about Chinese cognitive warfare operations, which have sought to cast US assistance to Ukraine as lackluster and sow the idea in the minds of Taiwanese that they would be “abandoned” to their fate by a “fickle Uncle Sam.”
Since the US’ withdrawal from Afghanistan last year, Chinese bots have flooded social media with posts such as: “Today Afghanistan, tomorrow Taiwan,” “Today Vietnam, tomorrow Taiwan” and, more recently, “Today Ukraine, tomorrow Taiwan.”
The intention behind such cognitive warfare is to create a sense of inevitability among Taiwanese — that there is no point in resisting China, so it would be better to sue for peace now rather than mount a futile resistance and suffer immense bloodshed while the US does nothing.
Cognitive warfare aims to gradually erode a person’s mental defenses and alter their perceptions without them being aware it is happening, which is why it is so dangerous and must be taken seriously.
Chen was probably seeking to rebut Chinese propaganda, and reassure lawmakers and the public that Washington is providing Kyiv with significant assistance, including detailed intelligence and vast quantities of weapons, and that it would likely do the same — if not more — for Taiwan under similar circumstances.
However, Chen was careful not to mention the prospect of direct military intervention. His assessment that Washington would likely be “more deeply involved” probably referred to enhanced intelligence sharing, shipments of sophisticated weaponry, economic sanctions and other forms of non-direct military assistance.
Moreover, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) has repeatedly said the government’s national defense policy is centered around the concept of “defense self-reliance.” This means training and equipping the military to independently defend the nation against an attack and building a self-sustaining domestic defense industry, focused on supplying asymmetric warfare capabilities.
Meanwhile, the Ministry of National Defense is pursing a policy of “defense self-deterrence” — fielding a range of sophisticated medium-range, conventionally armed cruise missiles that can penetrate Chinese air defenses and strike deep into China.
The government and the military’s thinking on defense has for some time been predicated on the assumption that Taiwan cannot rely on the US or any other country coming to its rescue.
During questioning by lawmakers, Chen said that Ukraine’s resistance against a far larger and superior Russian force has greatly inspired Taiwan’s military and defense establishment. The government must strike while the iron is hot and use this moment to push through difficult reforms. It is time for Taiwan to stand on its own two feet.
China badly misread Japan. It sought to intimidate Tokyo into silence on Taiwan. Instead, it has achieved the opposite by hardening Japanese resolve. By trying to bludgeon a major power like Japan into accepting its “red lines” — above all on Taiwan — China laid bare the raw coercive logic of compellence now driving its foreign policy toward Asian states. From the Taiwan Strait and the East and South China Seas to the Himalayan frontier, Beijing has increasingly relied on economic warfare, diplomatic intimidation and military pressure to bend neighbors to its will. Confident in its growing power, China appeared to believe
After more than three weeks since the Honduran elections took place, its National Electoral Council finally certified the new president of Honduras. During the campaign, the two leading contenders, Nasry Asfura and Salvador Nasralla, who according to the council were separated by 27,026 votes in the final tally, promised to restore diplomatic ties with Taiwan if elected. Nasralla refused to accept the result and said that he would challenge all the irregularities in court. However, with formal recognition from the US and rapid acknowledgment from key regional governments, including Argentina and Panama, a reversal of the results appears institutionally and politically
Legislators of the opposition parties, consisting of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), on Friday moved to initiate impeachment proceedings against President William Lai (賴清德). They accused Lai of undermining the nation’s constitutional order and democracy. For anyone who has been paying attention to the actions of the KMT and the TPP in the legislature since they gained a combined majority in February last year, pushing through constitutionally dubious legislation, defunding the Control Yuan and ensuring that the Constitutional Court is unable to operate properly, such an accusation borders the absurd. That they are basing this
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) was on Monday last week invited to give a talk to students of Soochow University, but her responses to questions raised by students and lecturers became a controversial incident and sparked public discussion over the following days. The student association of the university’s Department of Political Science, which hosted the event, on Saturday issued a statement urging people to stop “doxxing,” harassing and attacking the students who raised questions at the event, and called for rational discussion of the talk. Criticism should be directed at viewpoints, opinions or policies, not students, they said, adding
RSS