Much has been said in recent days about plans between Taipei and Beijing to establish branches of the semi-official agencies in charge of cross-strait negotiations in their respective countries, with critics comparing the move to allowing an enemy into one’s house.
Building upon years of cross-strait dialogue on trade, culture and tourism, the agencies that have served as the platforms for negotiations since 2008 — the Straits Exchange Foundation (SEF) and the Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Straits (ARATS) — are looking to build a permanent presence in each other’s country. This is not an unusual move and it makes sense in the context of the ongoing liberalization of cross-strait ties.
However, as the Taiwan Solidarity Union warned on Monday, the presence of ARATS offices in Taiwan comports risks, and could certainly facilitate intelligence gathering and united front work in the country, much like the Xinhua news agency office in Hong Kong served as a base for Chinese spies in the years prior to the handover from Britain in 1997.
That said, there might also be advantages to having ARATS offices in Taiwan. For one thing, intelligence gathering and united front work have been taking place in Taiwan without the presence of such offices. We already know that Chinese who want to visit Taiwan on an individual basis must apply with China’s Ministry of Public Security, which creates a perfect opportunity for recruitment and direction by Chinese handlers. It is also known that minders in the employment of the state regularly accompany Chinese tour groups in Taiwan, where they can also engage in collection.
Meanwhile, the number of Chinese businesspeople and students who come to Taiwan continues to grow. Even if only a small fraction of that number conducts espionage on behalf of China, it is enough to overwhelm Taiwan’s finite counterintelligence capabilities.
If, as one would expect, ARATS offices become spies’ nests in our midst, it might become easier for Taiwanese agencies, not to mention foreign intelligence agencies that operate on Taiwan’s territory, to identify and monitor Chinese spies in the country. As with embassies, consulates and semi-official agencies, the ARATS offices would serve as a center of gravity for spy activity. As the only Chinese with a permanent presence in the country, a number of its officials would inevitably serve as handlers and conduits for intelligence collected for transmission back to Beijing.
By closely monitoring what goes on at the offices, who visits them and who leaves, it would be possible for Taiwanese intelligence agencies, foreign governments and journalists to see patterns and draw what is known as a link chart of possible Chinese agents in Taiwan (ARATS officials will likely receive immunity and so on, but there is nothing that says Taiwanese intelligence would be barred from monitoring them, much like foreign diplomats in other countries).
Rather than seek to accomplish the impossible by monitoring every single Chinese who enters the country, counterintelligence officers can simply focus on the semi-official missions to determine the kind of intelligence gathering that Chinese are engaged in.
Another benefit for counterintelligence officers would be the fact that, unlike Chinese tourists, who can only stay in the country for a short period, or journalists, who must be rotated, ARATS officials would be stationed here permanently. It would therefore be easier to get to know them and identify those who strictly engage in the activities they are expected to conduct under the agreement, and those who go beyond that and recruit, direct, handle and collect — in other words, the intelligence officers.
Chinese espionage is a fact of life and a threat that must be managed. Anything that helps us identify who the bad guys are is welcome. Ironically, ARATS offices could do just that.
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
“I compare the Communist Party to my mother,” sings a student at a boarding school in a Tibetan region of China’s Qinghai province. “If faith has a color,” others at a different school sing, “it would surely be Chinese red.” In a major story for the New York Times this month, Chris Buckley wrote about the forced placement of hundreds of thousands of Tibetan children in boarding schools, where many suffer physical and psychological abuse. Separating these children from their families, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) aims to substitute itself for their parents and for their religion. Buckley’s reporting is
As Taiwan’s domestic political crisis deepens, the opposition Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) have proposed gutting the country’s national spending, with steep cuts to the critical foreign and defense ministries. While the blue-white coalition alleges that it is merely responding to voters’ concerns about corruption and mismanagement, of which there certainly has been plenty under Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and KMT-led governments, the rationales for their proposed spending cuts lay bare the incoherent foreign policy of the KMT-led coalition. Introduced on the eve of US President Donald Trump’s inauguration, the KMT’s proposed budget is a terrible opening
RSS