Last week China launched a missile from a base in remote western China and destroyed one of its ageing weather satellites 864km into space.
It was an eloquent statement of its developing capacity to blind the entire US military system which is dependent on up to 200 satellites -- and has sent a cold shiver down the spine of the Japanese, US and Taiwanese military establishments.
If ever there is a war in Asia, this will be seen as a critical moment.
China is the second-largest military power in the world; it spends more than the UK, Germany and France combined.
And the spending is very targeted. China is building up the arsenal it would need to invade Taiwan and hold off an attempt by the US and Japanese to relieve it, igniting one of the world's great flash points. No other explanation is possible.
China protests that it wants to continue to rise peacefully and does not want to disturb the current world order. It has renounced Maoism, proclaim Western intellectuals, and its aims are surely capitalist economic growth, not mounting invasions. Thus both its neighbors and the West comfort themselves.
The problem is that China has only partially renounced Maoism; the apparatus of dictatorship and one-party rule remain firmly in place but with no viable ideology to justify it. It is a highly unstable, wasteful and inefficient system which is becoming increasingly difficult to sustain. The party's first claim to legitimacy is that so far it has worked.
And its second claim to legitimacy is its appeal to Chinese nationalism. It is the custodian of a strong China that keeps foreigners at bay.
Jobs and nationalism would be the only two pillars on which Chinese communism could sustain power, Deng Xiaoping (
Even Chinese history taught in schools plays up the threat from foreigners, eliminates any Chinese atrocities and emphasizes the role of the party as China's savior. Whenever it has suited the party's interest is has turned to nationalism; it raised 46 million e-signatures last year to oppose Japan winning a seat on the UN Security Council.
Which brings us to Taiwan, which has enormous iconic importance for China in general and the Communist Party in particular. Of all the humiliations suffered during the 19th century, Japan's seizure of Taiwan as a colony in 1895 rankles most.
To make matters worse, this is where Chiang Kai-shek's (
China has never dropped its claim for sovereignty, in 2005 passing which declared that if Taiwan attempted to gain full independent statehood China reserved the right to invade.
If Taiwan had lost US military protection, China would have done so already: Deng sold the recapture of Taiwan as one of the aims of his reform program, and the party wants to keep his promise.
But time is running out. Since 2000 the Democratic Progressive Party, pledged to a fully-fledged independent Taiwanese state, has won two presidential elections. Beijing is increasingly concerned that the possibility of recovering Taiwan is slipping away.
An invasion would be high-risk. There is only operational airspace over Taiwan for 300 fourth-generation fighters; Taiwan has 300. It would take 1,000 landing craft up to a fortnight to move 30 infantry divisions across the Taiwan Strait -- all the time exposed to US and Japanese retaliation.
But if the US' command and control satellite network could be knocked out, suddenly the risks would be dramatically reduced.
On top, the US is increasingly focusing its military effort in the Middle East. All China needs is a fortnight.
Very few in Europe understand the Bismarkian, pre-1914 Europe feel to Asian great power politics.
In February 2005, China issued an ultimatum to Japan over its occupation of the oil-rich Senkaku Islands; withdraw or face the consequences, sending a five-strong fleet to the islands. Japan responded by putting 55,000 men on alert. Both sides backed off. But China distrusts renascent Japanese nationalism, especially with Japan's now stated wish to change its pacifist Constitution.
Asia is a powder keg of competing nationalisms, battles for scarce energy resources and unresolved mutual enmities.
China says it wants treaties -- it claims to want a treaty to prevent the militarization of space -- while pursuing balance-of-power politics. It will block India and Japan winning seats on the UN Security Council, thereby guaranteeing the ongoing dysfunctionality of the UN.
China is the rogue state par excellence, all the while claiming it is quite the opposite.
Its unintended ally is US President George W. Bush. China can make its plea for international treaties knowing that the unilateralist US will refuse.
Bush then plays Bismarkian politics in Asia, backing Japan -- but with dwindling military power.
Talk of building a defense mechanism against a Chinese attack on US satellites is for the birds; the expense, given Iraq, and technological complexity make it impossible.
The pass has been sold. China can do what it wants. If there is unrest within, the party will turn increasingly to nationalism and perhaps even war.
It shows that every aspect of globalization, from space to trade, has to be governed by international treaty and the rule of law.
The US reaction to last week should not be a Star Wars arms race, but to comprehend the new realities and to respond by multilateral engagement.
It won't, so it is no longer scaremongering to warn of the small, but growing risk, of a devastating Asian war.
The international women’s soccer match between Taiwan and New Zealand at the Kaohsiung Nanzih Football Stadium, scheduled for Tuesday last week, was canceled at the last minute amid safety concerns over poor field conditions raised by the visiting team. The Football Ferns, as New Zealand’s women’s soccer team are known, had arrived in Taiwan one week earlier to prepare and soon raised their concerns. Efforts were made to improve the field, but the replacement patches of grass could not grow fast enough. The Football Ferns canceled the closed-door training match and then days later, the main event against Team Taiwan. The safety
There are moments in history when America has turned its back on its principles and withdrawn from past commitments in service of higher goals. For example, US-Soviet Cold War competition compelled America to make a range of deals with unsavory and undemocratic figures across Latin America and Africa in service of geostrategic aims. The United States overlooked mass atrocities against the Bengali population in modern-day Bangladesh in the early 1970s in service of its tilt toward Pakistan, a relationship the Nixon administration deemed critical to its larger aims in developing relations with China. Then, of course, America switched diplomatic recognition
The National Immigration Agency on Tuesday said it had notified some naturalized citizens from China that they still had to renounce their People’s Republic of China (PRC) citizenship. They must provide proof that they have canceled their household registration in China within three months of the receipt of the notice. If they do not, the agency said it would cancel their household registration in Taiwan. Chinese are required to give up their PRC citizenship and household registration to become Republic of China (ROC) nationals, Mainland Affairs Council Minister Chiu Chui-cheng (邱垂正) said. He was referring to Article 9-1 of the Act
Strategic thinker Carl von Clausewitz has said that “war is politics by other means,” while investment guru Warren Buffett has said that “tariffs are an act of war.” Both aphorisms apply to China, which has long been engaged in a multifront political, economic and informational war against the US and the rest of the West. Kinetically also, China has launched the early stages of actual global conflict with its threats and aggressive moves against Taiwan, the Philippines and Japan, and its support for North Korea’s reckless actions against South Korea that could reignite the Korean War. Former US presidents Barack Obama
RSS