The US, in its "global war on terror," has apparently overlooked one of the hubs of international terrorism: Taiwan.
At least, so says China's state media.
Last week, various Chinese Communist Party mouthpieces published editorials attacking the "independence terrorists" in Taiwan.
These pieces were written in response to a single line in the US Department of Defense's Fiscal Year 2004 Report to Congress on the People's Republic of China's Military Power.
In the Pentagon's analysis of Taiwan's military capabilities, it noted that, "Since Taipei cannot match Beijing's ability to field offensive systems, proponents of strikes against the mainland apparently hope that merely presenting credible threats to China's urban population or high-value targets, such as the Three Gorges Dam, will deter Chinese military coercion."
The Pentagon was clearly not suggesting that Taiwan attack the Three Gorges Dam. It was simply reporting that some people, who might accurately be described as "China hawks," were advocating such actions to prevent an invasion of Taiwan.
It is absurd to claim that the Pentagon was advocating a first strike against China -- but absurdity did not prevent dozens of commentators from saying that it had.
The ensuing debate on the feasibility of a Taiwan attack on the Three Gorges Dam quickly entered the realm of nonsense. On June 16, People's Liberation Army (PLA) Lieutenant General Liu Yuan (劉源) wrote in the China Youth Daily that the PLA would be on the lookout for "Taiwan independence terrorists."
He then promised to "blot out the sky and cover up the earth" if Taiwan ever attacked the dam. In any case, he noted, the dam "cannot be destroyed."
Next, the China Daily joined the chorus of raucous voices on June 18. The paper ran an opinion piece by "a Beijing-based military expert" entitled "Terrorism part of Taiwan separatist agenda."
In this piece, the author said the Pentagon's report indicated that "pro-independence forces in Taiwan are turning to terrorist measures to help pursue their political goals."
If these polemics weren't so disturbing, they'd be laughable.
After all, no mainstream political party or figure in Taiwan has advocated terror tactics against China.
But several PLA officers and Chinese military experts have advocated terror tactics -- as part of Beijing's strategy to forcefully unify with Taiwan.
For example, in the book Unrestricted Warfare, two PLA senior colonels, Qiao Liang (喬良) and Wang Xiangsui (王湘穗), championed the adoption and employment of various types of asymmetric and non-traditional warfare -- including terror attacks and the use of nuclear weapons -- to compensate for the intrinsic weaknesses of the PLA.
Notably, Qiao claimed in an interview that "the first rule of unrestricted warfare is that there are no rules, nothing forbidden."
Since Beijing finds the threat of terror and first-strike tactics so distasteful, it should ban its own use of such tactics. It could start by dismantling the short- and medium-range ballistic missiles it has aimed at Taiwan.
After all, these weapons have been deployed with the sole purpose of being used in a saturation attack, which would result in thousands of civilian casualties.
There are any number of definitions of terrorism, but China shouldn't be misled into thinking that the international community -- whatever that may be -- is likely to accept China's claim that it is being targeted by "Taiwan independence terrorists" at face value.
Indeed, if anyone can claim to be in danger of state-sponsored terror, it is the people of Taiwan.
Mac William Bishop is an editor at the Taipei Times.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of