Let's stop legitimizing the CCP's threats against Taiwan
It's time for IISS to invite Taiwanese leaders to the Shangri La Dialogue
Friends,
Before we jump into the 35th Anniversary of the Tiananmen Massacre, the Shangri La Dialogue, and the growing concern that Cold War II is rapidly deteriorating towards World War III, let’s take a look at news that broke just as I was boarding a plane to Singapore.
Pandas are Coming Back to Washington DC
Source: Smithsonian video on YouTube.
No less than First Lady, Dr. Jill Biden, made the announcement in a cutesy video from the Smithsonian.
So, did we get these pandas as a gift from the PRC? Maybe marking 45 years of formal relations between the two countries? Perhaps something similar to the gift of 250 cherry trees Prime Minister Kishida of Japan announced in April to commemorate the upcoming 250th anniversary of America’s independence?
Nope.
The PRC Government extracted a $10 million fee to “rent” these pandas for 10 years.
***
35th Anniversary of the Tiananmen Massacre
I recommend reading this great article from ten years ago in The Guardian about the photographer that took one of history’s most iconic photographs.
Below I’ve got a number of the public statements and Tweets posted this week about the 35th Anniversary of the Tiananmen Massacre, but I still think that Secretary Mike Pompeo’s statement in 2019 on the 30th Anniversary is the most powerful.
Here it is quoted in full:
On June 4, we honor the heroic protest movement of the Chinese people that ended on June 4, 1989, when the Chinese Communist Party leadership sent tanks into Tiananmen Square to violently repress peaceful demonstrations calling for democracy, human rights, and an end to rampant corruption. The hundreds of thousands of protesters who gathered in Beijing and in other cities around China suffered grievously in pursuit of a better future for their country. The number of dead is still unknown. We express our deep sorrow to the families still grieving their lost loved ones, including the courageous Tiananmen Mothers, who have never stopped seeking accountability, despite great personal risk. The events of thirty years ago still stir our conscience, and the conscience of freedom-loving people around the world.
Over the decades that followed, the United States hoped that China’s integration into the international system would lead to a more open, tolerant society. Those hopes have been dashed. China’s one-party state tolerates no dissent and abuses human rights whenever it serves its interests. Today, Chinese citizens have been subjected to a new wave of abuses, especially in Xinjiang, where the Communist Party leadership is methodically attempting to strangle Uighur culture and stamp out the Islamic faith, including through the detention of more than one million members of Muslim minority groups. Even as the party builds a powerful surveillance state, ordinary Chinese citizens continue to seek to exercise their human rights, organize independent unions, pursue justice through the legal system, and simply express their views, for which many are punished, jailed, and even tortured.
We salute the heroes of the Chinese people who bravely stood up thirty years ago in Tiananmen Square to demand their rights. Their exemplary courage has served as an inspiration to future generations calling for freedom and democracy around the world, beginning with the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of communism in Eastern Europe in the months that followed.
We urge the Chinese government to make a full, public accounting of those killed or missing to give comfort to the many victims of this dark chapter of history. Such a step would begin to demonstrate the Communist Party’s willingness to respect human rights and fundamental freedoms. We call on China to release all those held for seeking to exercise these rights and freedoms, halt the use of arbitrary detention, and reverse counterproductive policies that conflate terrorism with religious and political expression. China’s own constitution stipulates that all power belongs to the people. History has shown that nations are stronger when governments are responsive to their citizens, respect the rule of law, and uphold human rights and fundamental freedoms.
This week deserves some time to reflect on those “heroes of the Chinese people.”
***
Shangri La Dialogue
I could focus on a number of different remarks or questions raised during the Dialogue, but I’ll highlight just one because it drove home a point to me: we must stop legitimizing and rationalizing the CCP’s threats to use force against Taiwan.
During the last session on Sunday, right before Ukrainian President Zelenskyy took the stage, Singapore’s long-serving Defense Minister, Dr. Ng Eng Hen, gave some prepared remarks and one passage made me perk up as it struck me as in conflict with the principled positions I’ve come to expect from Singaporean leaders:
First, Taiwan is a red line. Against the backdrop of Russia's attack on Ukraine, it is tempting but misplaced to conflate that with Taiwan and China.
Taiwan is not Ukraine, and neither is China Russia.
In 2020, Russia accounted for 1.9% of global exports. China, in comparison, accounted for over 14%. Ukraine is a member of the United Nations, but Taiwan is not.
I have a lot of personal respect for Dr. Ng Eng Hen, I’ve heard him speak on a number of occasions and had a chance to have a conversation with him five weeks ago in Singapore over lunch.
But I disagree with his effort to dismiss any connect between Ukraine and Taiwan, Russia and China. These two situations are so incredibly similar, and scream for principled consistency, as to discredit his other remarks.
Let me lay out the alternative case.
Putin and his cronies in the Kremlin assert that Ukraine has always been a part of Russia going back centuries and that it is completely illegitimate for the people of Ukraine to claim their independence, express their unique Ukrainian identity, or choose their own leaders and form of government.
Xi and his cronies in Zhongnanhai assert that Taiwan has always been a part of China going back centuries (Admiral Dong Jun, PRC Defense Minister, falsely claimed during his remarks that “China has exercised jurisdiction [over Taiwan] for over 1,000 years”) and that it is completely illegitimate for the people of Taiwan to claim their independence, express their unique Taiwanese identity, or choose their own leaders and form of government.
Putin accuses President Zelenskyy and other Ukrainians that stand up for Ukrainian sovereignty as “Nazis” that are seeking to destroy Russia and Russian identity.
Xi accuses President Lai and other Taiwanese that stand up for Taiwanese sovereignty as “Separatists” that are seeking to destroy China and Chinese identity. [Quote from Admiral Dong Jun: "Those separatists recently made fanatical statements that show their betrayal of the Chinese nation and their ancestors. They will be nailed to the pillar of shame in history."]
Putin portrays Russia as the victim of an aggressive Ukraine and evil foreigners who are anti-Russia. Putin refuses to take responsibility for his own aggression and coercion against his neighbors.
Xi portrays China as the victim of an aggressive Taiwan and evil foreigners who are anti-China. Xi refuses to take responsibility for his own aggression and coercion against his neighbors.
In Putin’s warped reality, he alone dictates what qualifies as a Russian identity and what belongs to a neo-Russian Empire. Russia is a “great power” and that means that Russian desires (as defined by Putin) count more than the aspirations of others. Russia’s neighbors are vassals that only exist as appendages of Russian civilization or buffer zones between Russia and other “great powers.” He denies the existence of a unique Ukrainian identity and is waging a war of aggression to “reunify” Ukraine with Russia. Putin intends to colonize Ukraine, killing its people and leaders, kidnapping its children to brainwash them, erasing Ukrainian identity.
In Xi’s warped reality, he alone dictates what qualifies as a Chinese identity and what belongs to a neo-Chinese Empire. China is a “great power” and that means that Chinese desires (as defined by Xi) count more than the aspirations of others. China’s neighbors are vassals that only exist as appendages of Chinese civilization or buffer zones between the PRC and other “great powers.” Xi denies the existence of a unique Taiwanese identity and openly threatens to wage a war of aggression to “reunify” Taiwan with the PRC. Xi intends to colonize Taiwan (just as the Chinese Communist Party has done in Tibet, Xinjiang and Hong Kong). That war would kill Taiwanese people and their leaders, would kidnap their children to brainwash them, erasing Taiwanese identity.
Putin’s main argument for why Ukraine belongs to him is that Ukraine once belonged to a now vanished Romanov dynasty (1613-1917) and empire that ceased to exist a century ago. In Putin’s mind that empire was stolen from the Russians by evil foreigners and reunifying that lost empire justifies wars of aggression and violating the UN Charter because this is supposedly an internal affair.
Xi’s main argument for why Taiwan belongs to him is that Taiwan once belonged to a now vanished Qing dynasty (1644-1911) and empire that ceased to exist a century ago. In Xi’s mind that empire was stolen from the Chinese by evil foreigners and reunifying that lost empire justifies wars of aggression and violating the UN Charter because this is supposedly an internal affair.
Why do we rationalize and legitimize CCP threats?
I’m disturbed to hear Singaporean leaders take this unprincipled position of refusing to see the glaring similarities, especially considering that their own independence came about from the collapse of another empire and has been protected, and unique identity formed, over the last six decades due to the international system that dismantled those empires and ended colonialism.
That international system should safeguard the same things for Ukrainians and Taiwanese. The only reason why Taiwan cannot access the protections of UN Member State status is that Beijing exercises its veto to prevent it. However, a close reading of the UN Charter reveals that being protected from invasion and wars of aggression is guaranteed to states regardless of their status as members of the United Nations. To deny the same dignity and benefits to their cousins in Taiwan only consigning them to threats, coercion, intimidation and violence.
Later during the question-and-answer portion, Dr. Ng had an opportunity to clarify himself and make clear that the Chinese Communist Party is NOT justified in using force to annex Taiwan… but unfortunately he didn’t:
“China doesn't need any advice about Taiwan from ASEAN. You just heard this before this session Minister Dong Jun, he would have gone on for half an hour about Taiwan if you let him, so they don't need any advice, but let me give an anecdote.
Earlier this year at the Munich Security Conference, their foreign minister Wang Yi was speaking as a as a plenary speaker on his own and I think in the Munich Security Conference they are milder and quite kind in their question time. The first question came out after his session is “Will China invade Taiwan?” and his answer was instructive.
He's an accomplished Diplomat so he was unfazed and he said in the Chinese Constitution there are three reasons for justified force against Taiwan so all ears pricked up.
First if Taiwan declares independence;
Second if another country fights on behalf for Taiwan's Independence, and;
Third if all means peaceful means have been exhausted.
I suggest that's a very useful framework for us to keep the peace.”
A principled position would be to throw the bullshit flag every time a PRC official asserts that Taiwan belongs to the PRC, or that the use of force to annex Taiwan could be justified under the Party’s reasoning and domestic laws, or that Beijing gets to determine when “all peaceful means have been exhausted,” or that the 1943 Cairo Declaration (a statement of intent, not a treaty) grants Taiwan to the PRC (a declaration that took place six years before the creation of the PRC), or that UN Resolution 2758 says Taiwan is a province of China (as Admiral Dong did that morning with his statement that “UN Resolution 2758 confirmed that Taiwan is an inalienable part of China”).
[On UN Resolution 2758 from October 25, 1971, I recommend reading all 150 words of that resolution, if you can find where its states that “Taiwan is an inalienable part of China,” you have a much more creative understanding of the English language than I do.]
I suspect Singaporean leaders would change their tune if the PRC “found” some historical documents that “proved” that the Malay Peninsula has always belonged to China because Chinese people have been living there for centuries [for those of you who think that is far-fetched, that is exactly what Beijing has done with the entire South China Sea].
There are two explanations I can come up with for why Singaporean leaders would disregard their own strongly held principles.
First is that Singapore is terrified of retaliation by Beijing.
I suspect they know Beijing would undermine and subvert their own Singaporean independence and unique identity since nearly 75% of Singaporeans are of Chinese descent. Taking a principled stand on Ukraine is relatively easy compared with taking a similar stand on Taiwan.
The other rationale came out at the end of the Minister’s remarks on the topic. He observed that the Russian economy only made up 1.9% of global GDP, while the PRC’s was nearly ten times that.
I guess might makes right.
***
Before we get to it, a quick reminder that the fast fashion retailer, Shein, is getting ready for its IPO in London in the next few days or weeks.
Before folks get too excited about all the wonderful money they will make off of a retailer that depends on slave labor and a loophole in U.S. law, they should watch this satirical SNL skit from two weeks ago.
Thanks for reading!
Matt
MUST READ
Tom Mahnken, Foreign Affairs, June 5, 2024
Under Presidents Barack Obama, Donald Trump, and Joe Biden, U.S. defense strategy has been premised on the optimistic notion that the United States will never need to fight more than one war at a time. During the Obama administration, in the face of fiscal austerity, the Defense Department abandoned its long-standing policy of being prepared to fight and win two major wars to focus on acquiring the means to fight and win just one. That move accelerated the trend toward a smaller U.S. military. It also narrowed the options available to U.S. policymakers, given that committing the United States to war in one place would preclude military action elsewhere.
This switch was misguided then, but it is especially out of step today. The United States is currently involved in two wars—Ukraine’s in Europe and Israel’s in the Middle East—while facing the prospect of a third over Taiwan or South Korea in East Asia. All three theaters are vital to U.S. interests, and they are all intertwined. Past efforts to deprioritize Europe and disengage from the Middle East have weakened U.S. security. The U.S. military drawdown in the Middle East, for instance, has created a vacuum that Tehran has filled eagerly. A failure to respond to aggression in one theater can be interpreted as a sign of American weakness. Allies across the world, for example, lost faith in Washington after the Obama administration failed to enforce its “redline” against chemical weapons use by Syria. And the United States’ adversaries are cooperating with one another: Iran sells oil to China, China sends money to North Korea, and North Korea sends weapons to Russia. The United States and its partners face an authoritarian axis that spans the Eurasian landmass.
Washington is fortunate to have capable allies and friends in East Asia, Europe, and the Middle East. Collectively, they have the power to help it constrain the authoritarian axis. But to succeed, they must do a better job of working together. Washington and its allies need to be what military planners call interoperable: capable of quickly sending resources across an established system to whichever ally needs them most. The West, in particular, must create and share more munitions, weapons, and military bases. The United States also needs to formulate better military strategies for fighting alongside its partners. Otherwise, it risks being overwhelmed by its increasingly capable and intertwined enemies.
COMMENT – I have tons of respect for Tom and I suspect we largely agree on this stuff, but simply relying on friends to do more is completely insufficient at this point.
The United States must undertake its own crash program of national military mobilization AND expect its allies to do the same.
We have wasted two years as wars rage across the Eurasian landmass and have done almost nothing to improve our collective positions. Our government spending is overwhelming focused on priorities that pale in comparison to the threats we face from Beijing, Moscow, Tehran, and Pyongyang (all nuclear or near nuclear powers who are bent on overturning the post-1945 order).
War, not climate change, remains humanity’s most dangerous threat.
Defense companies won’t make investments, hire more employees, or build additional capacity until the President leads by telling the American people what is at stake and Congress enacts legislation and appropriates funding that is sufficient to the need.
Our allies have neither the size, nor leadership, to do what Tom recommends WITHOUT Washington going first.
And in terms of deterrence, our adversaries are unlikely to be persuaded that they face serious obstacles so long as the United States fails to mobilize itself.
We must end the doctrine of “leading from behind.”
2. A Clarion Call for Rearmament
The Editorial Board, Wall Street Journal, June 2, 2024
At last, a political leader gets honest about declining U.S. power.
President Biden’s greatest abdication has been his willingness to let U.S. defenses erode even as American adversaries are on the march. Too many Republicans, including Donald Trump, have acquiesced with their silence. So it’s worth applauding the marker put down last week by Sen. Roger Wicker that the U.S. needs to return to spending 5% of the economy on national defense to deter those adversaries.
Sen. Wicker, ranking Republican on the Armed Services Committee, rolled out a report detailing why America’s military budget is inadequate for the “world in which we find ourselves.” America’s military isn’t equipped to deal with potential wars on two continents at once, much less the new threats in space and from artificial intelligence. Mr. Wicker proposes an additional $55 billion for the Pentagon in 2025, a total of $950 billion, as part of a new “generational investment.”
Mr. Biden talks about a world at risk from autocracies, but he acts like this is 1992 and the Soviet Union just collapsed. The world today is more like the late 1930s, as dictators build their militaries and form a new axis of animosity, while the American political class sleeps.
China, Russia and Iran are working together against the West in multiple ways. China is providing Russia with enough smokeless powder to produce 80 million rounds of ammunition, and Vladimir Putin is returning the favor with joint naval patrols in the Pacific. Russia is furnishing combat training jets to Iran, which is instructing Russian troops on how to operate its drones to pummel Ukraine. North Korea provides missiles to Russia, which helps Pyongyang dodge United Nations sanctions.
For all the talking points that America spends more than its competitors, U.S. defense spending is slipping below 3% of the economy, heading toward 1930s territory. Beijing is spending far more than advertised on a military force clearly designed to defeat the U.S. in the Pacific. China’s real defense spending may approach $700 billion annually, by one recent estimate. Beijing pays its soldiers a fraction of what the U.S. pays its troops, so it can focus on buying ships and missiles. Its doctrine of close civilian and military cooperation is a force multiplier, especially in ship building and technology.
Meanwhile, the U.S. is still living off Ronald Reagan’s military buildup from the 1980s, and everything from fighters to the nuclear triad is wearing out at the same time. The Air Force needs to purchase 340 more aircraft above its current plans over the next five years to avoid what the Wicker paper rightly describes as a “death spiral,” with nearly 1,000 aircraft retirements planned over the next five years. The U.S. Navy will have to produce three attack submarines a year to deter Chinese aggression in the Taiwan Strait and grow the fleet from the oldest and smallest in 80 years.
The report suggests $7 billion to $10 billion annually for a decade to deepen munitions stocks that include antiship missiles, air-defense interceptors, torpedoes and cruise-missile rocket engines. The Pentagon has for years purchased some missiles at the minimum number needed to keep production lines open. The wars in Ukraine and Israel have exposed the inadequacy of the U.S. industrial base.
Also urgent: Hardening U.S. Pacific bases and a missile defense for Guam and American bases in Japan. Ditto for building a pre-positioned arsenal in Taiwan on the model of U.S. weapons stored in Israel, and quickly expanding an archipelago of Pacific bases the U.S. last needed in World War II.
***
Yes, we know, what about the deficit and debt? Some $55 billion for defense in 2025 is a fraction of what Congress has blown on social programs over the past three years. The Inflation Reduction Act alone is shoveling out subsidies that will total more than $1 trillion for a green energy subsidy-fest. Republicans should start a debate about priorities.
If Mr. Trump wants to pivot from his guilty verdict, he would be wise to stop focusing on his legal tormentors and start telling Americans what he would do in the next four years. He could pick up Mr. Wicker’s plan as a campaign theme and a contrast to Mr. Biden’s four consecutive years of proposed cuts in the military.
Rebuilding U.S. defenses is cheaper than defeat or pre-emptive surrender. “Behind all the numbers,” as Reagan put it selling his defense increase in 1983, “lies America’s ability to prevent the greatest of human tragedies and preserve our free way of life in a sometimes dangerous world.” The choice is whether to rebuild the military to restore our lost deterrence or face defeat in the war that may be coming.
COMMENT – I echoed Senator Wicker’s call two weeks ago in this newsletter and made the point again in an interview at the Shangri La Dialogue with the German outlet Deutsche Welle (#19 below).
Unless we begin a significant military mobilization, I fear that our adversaries will conclude that the benefits of using military force to achieve their goals outweighs the costs.
More on that below in my commentary on article #18, (How America Inadvertently Created an ‘Axis of Evasion’ Led by China).
3. The Pandemic Probably Started in a Lab. These 5 Key Points Explain Why.
Alina Chan, New York Times, June 3, 2024
On Monday, Dr. Anthony Fauci returned to the halls of Congress and testified before the House subcommittee investigating the Covid-19 pandemic. He was questioned about several topics related to the government’s handling of Covid-19, including how the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, which he directed until retiring in 2022, supported risky virus work at a Chinese institute whose research may have caused the pandemic.
For more than four years, reflexive partisan politics have derailed the search for the truth about a catastrophe that has touched us all. It has been estimated that at least 25 million people around the world have died because of Covid-19, with over a million of those deaths in the United States.
Although how the pandemic started has been hotly debated, a growing volume of evidence — gleaned from public records released under the Freedom of Information Act, digital sleuthing through online databases, scientific papers analyzing the virus and its spread, and leaks from within the U.S. government — suggests that the pandemic most likely occurred because a virus escaped from a research lab in Wuhan, China. If so, it would be the most costly accident in the history of science.
COMMENT – We must get to the bottom of this if we ever hope to avoid another devastating pandemic.
If, as the evidence seems to suggest, that the virus escaped a coronavirus research lab in Wuhan, PRC and then turned into a global pandemic because the Chinese Communist Party willfully disregarded the protocols established after SARS, then our policy and global governance responses will be different than if it simply happened naturally.
The challenge of dealing with this has become confused with the partisan contest that unfolded in the United States around the 2020 Presidential Election.
4. Prospect of peaceful 'reunification' with Taiwan being 'eroded', China says
Xinghui Kok and Fanny Potkin, Reuters, June 2, 2024
The prospect of peaceful "reunification" with Taiwan is being increasingly "eroded" by Taiwanese separatists and external forces, Chinese Defence Minister Dong Jun said on Sunday, drawing an angry response from the government in Taipei.
China views democratically governed Taiwan as its own territory, over the strong objections of the government there, and last month staged war games round the island in anger at the May 20 inauguration of President Lai Ching-te, whom Beijing calls a "separatist".
Speaking at the Shangri-La Dialogue conference in Singapore, Dong said Taiwan was the "core of core issues" for China, but Taiwan's ruling Democratic Progressive Party is incrementally pursuing separatism and bent on erasing Chinese identity.
"Those separatists recently made fanatical statements that show their betrayal of the Chinese nation and their ancestors. They will be nailed to the pillar of shame in history," he said.
After his speech, Dong was asked several questions by delegates but he remained focused on Taiwan and had to be prompted by the moderator to address other issues.
He accused foreign powers of interfering in "domestic issues", and "emboldening Taiwan separatists".
Dong added that while China was committed to peaceful reunification with Taiwan, the People's Liberation Army "will remain a strong force for upholding national reunification".
"We will take resolute actions to curb Taiwan independence and make sure such a plot never succeeds," he said. "We're very confident in our capability to deter Taiwan independence."
Taiwan’s presidential office said China had misrepresented the Taiwan government’s position at the forum, where Taiwan was not allowed to send representatives.
"China lacks the confidence to engage in dialogue with the Taiwan government, and its irrational remarks cannot gain international recognition," the office said in a statement.
Taiwan's Mainland Affairs Council, which makes policy concerning China, said it deeply regretted the "provocative and irrational" comments, and reiterated that the People's Republic of China has never ruled the island.
China has repeatedly threatened force against Taiwan at international venues, and its threats were in violation of the United Nations charter, the council said in a statement.
"It is an objective fact that the two sides of the Taiwan Strait are not subordinate to each other, and that is also the status quo in the strait," it said.
China has been repeatedly angered by U.S. support for Taiwan and arms sales to the island, even in the absence of formal diplomatic ties between Washington and Taipei.
"Every year for three years, a new Chinese defence minister has come to Shangri-La," said a U.S. official.
"And every year, they've given a speech at complete odds with the reality of the PLA's coercive activity across the region. This year was no different."
Dong called the U.S. arms sales a test of China's "red lines".
"They are selling a lot of weapons to Taiwan. This kind of behaviour sends very wrong signals to the Taiwan independence forces and makes them become very aggressive. I think we are clear that the foreign power's true purpose is to use Taiwan to contain China."
Andrew Yang, a former Taiwan defence minister, said Beijing has said it will pursue "reunification" by winning the hearts and minds of Taiwanese but "their deeds have yet to match their words". Beijing instead is "holding a big stick" and is "confrontational and contradictory", he said.
Yang said he hopes the U.S. will keep to its schedule of arms sales to Taiwan so the island can enhance its self-defence.
Taiwan has for the last two years complained of delays in deliveries of U.S. weapons, such as Stinger anti-aircraft missiles, as manufacturers supply Ukraine to support it in the war against Russia.
Taiwan's president, Lai, has repeatedly offered talks with Beijing, but been rebuffed. He says only Taiwan's people can decide their future.
COMMENT – I heard Admiral Dong Jun make his remarks live and was struck by his filibuster about Taiwan.
At the end of the Defense Minister’s session, I turned to a PRC colleague and remarked that I was quite happy with the message the Minister delivered.
Admiral Dong was very effective at reinforcing the points that other leaders had made throughout the region about the necessity of strengthening collective security, conducting military exercises more often and in greater complexity, and in reinvigorating American and Allied defense spending.
Recommendation: we should stop pretending that Beijing is serious about “peaceful unification” with Taiwan. That term is simply a rhetorical device to make Beijing appear reasonable. If the Chinese Communist Party were in fact serious about peace, they would begin a dialogue with Taiwan’s constitutionally elected government, as former President Tsai asked for over the last eight years and as President Lai asked for again during his inaugural address two weeks ago.
Rather than respond in good faith and in the spirit of peace, the Chinese Communist Party responded with both vitriol, coercion (further economic punishments), and aggression (a massive military exercise surrounding the island of Taiwan).
Given that Beijing refuses to interact directly with Taiwan’s leaders, we can’t help but conclude that they are not serious about peace and that the Party only seeks to use coercion and threats to force a capitulation from Taipei.
Instead of acting as a responsible great power, the Chinese Communist Party throws tantrums because it doesn’t get its way.
Appeasing those tantrums will only invite further aggression.
5. Zelenskyy accuses China of helping Russia sabotage peace summit
Zoya Sheftalovich, Suzanne Lynch, and Stuart Lau, Politico, June 2, 2024
Ukrainian president unleashes on Beijing, saying it’s helping Moscow threaten countries with higher food and fuel prices to convince them not to attend June 15-16 meeting.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy hit out at China, accusing the country of helping Russia derail a peace summit this month in Switzerland.
"Russia, using Chinese influence on the region, using Chinese diplomats also, does everything to disrupt the peace summit," Zelenskyy said Sunday during a press conference after delivering an address at the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore.
In a rare public rebuke of China — after years of careful attempts to court Beijing and peel it away from its "no limits" friendship with Russia — Zelenskyy's frustration appeared to boil over in Singapore. He said Ukraine had evidence that China was assisting Moscow's war efforts, despite the fact that Chinese President Xi Jinping had promised him in a phone call a year ago that Beijing would not get involved.
"We do not expect military support from China. We have never asked them ... But we do not expect China to provide defense support to Russia," Zelenskyy said. "That is what we discussed with the Chinese leader by phone. He promised me China would stand aside, would not support Russia with weapons. Today, there is intelligence that somehow, some way, some things come to Russia’s markets via China … elements of Russia’s weaponry come from China."
Earlier Sunday, China’s Defense Minister Dong Jun had insisted that Beijing wasn't fueling Russian President Vladimir Putin's war effort.
China "has not provided weapons to either side, and has strict control over exports of dual-use goods," Dong said during his own speech at the Shangri-La summit. “We stand firmly on the side of peace and dialogue.”
It comes after the second most senior figure in the U.S. State Department, Kurt Campbell, told media outlets including POLITICO last week: "It is fair to say that China's general goal has been not only to support Russia — in our view, to the hilt — but to downplay that publicly and try to maintain normal diplomatic and commercial ties with Europe."
Zelenskyy also accused China of refusing to meet with Ukraine.
“Many times, we have wanted to meet Chinese representatives," including Xi, he said. "Unfortunately, Ukraine does not have any powerful connections with China because China does not want it.”
He confirmed he had not met with any Chinese officials while in Singapore.
Peace summit call
Earlier, on the Shangri-La main stage, Zelenskyy called on Asia-Pacific countries to show their commitment to peace by attending the June 15-16 summit in Switzerland.
“I urge your leaders to join,” an impassioned Zelenskyy said. “By uniting against one war, we create for the world the real experience of overcoming any war, and of diplomacy that does work."
Zelenskyy said 106 countries had so far confirmed they would send representatives to the Swiss summit, but added that the Kremlin and some of its allies — one of which he later identified as China — have been pressuring others not to attend.
“Russia is trying to disrupt the peace summit,” Zelenskyy said. “What Russia is doing ... it is now traveling around many countries in the world and threatening them with the blockade of agricultural goods, of food products, it is threatening to increase prices for energy, and it is pushing countries around the world so they are not present at the summit.”
He added: “And now there is information that certain states are assisting it."
China has opted not to send a delegation to the Swiss summit, saying it would not attend because Russia wasn't invited. Instead, Beijing has floated the idea of hosting its own peace conference with both Russia and Ukraine to be represented. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov indicated last week that Moscow would be amenable to that idea.
Asked during the press conference Sunday whether Ukraine would attend China's proposed summit, Zelenskyy said it was not Beijing's place to call such a meeting.
"Ukraine is the victim of the war. It is us who have to initiate everything ... Nobody else is fully aware of what Russia has brought with this war to our state," he said. "It is Ukrainians who have died, Russians were raping our women, they have stolen tens of thousands of our children. No one else has the right to dictate how this war should end."
COMMENT – This was the most important development out of the Shangri La Dialogue. Beijing seeks to scuttle the Global Peace Summit on behalf of Putin.
6. Special Report on Foreign Interference in Canada's Democratic Processes and Institutions
National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, June 2024
This week, the Canadian Parliament’s committee on national security and intelligence released a report on Chinese interference in Canadian domestic politics during the 2019 and 2021 national elections.
The committee concluded that prominent elected officials and members of the current Canadian Government had been lackadaisical in its response to these threats to Canadian democracy.
COMMENT – When will Canadian voters hold Prime Minister Justin Trudeau responsible for enabling the CCP’s interference in Canadian elections in 2019 and 2021 which aided his Liberal Party?
7. Chinese who lost money in bank fraud detained for months after protest
Reuters, June 4, 2024
When Ou Yangyun travelled to the Chinese city of Zhengzhou in February to demand recompense after his bank account containing tens of thousands of dollars was frozen, his family expected him to be home two days later to celebrate the Lunar New Year with his five-year-old twins.
The small-business owner from Changsha never returned.
Ou, 39, and more than a dozen other victims of one of China's biggest banking scandals had gathered outside a train station in Henan's provincial capital. "Henan banks, return our savings!" they shouted, footage of the protest obtained by Reuters shows.
Dressed in winter coats, the group wandered the streets for about 30 minutes, until one of several unidentified men who had been tailing them shouted "Close the net!" and the protesters were pushed onto a bus and delivered to a police station, according to two people with direct knowledge of the matter.
Most were released after several days in detention, during which they were served mouldy food and had limited sleep, but Ou and two other defrauded depositors are still being held by Zhengzhou police, the two people said.
This account, based on a Reuters review of protest footage, previously unreported arrest notices and interviews with five people with direct knowledge of the matter, examines one of the economic protests that have proliferated in China since 2022, a period in which hundreds of thousands of Chinese have lost homes in a property bust and fallen victim to investment scams.
The people spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of official retribution.
COMMENT – Unless and until there is an independent judiciary in the PRC, beyond the reach of the Chinese Communist Party, and space for independent journalists who can investigate and criticize the Party, regular Chinese citizens will live in fear of these consequences.
“If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – forever.”
George Orwell, 1984, Part III, Chapter III
8. Dwindling investments become more concentrated - Chinese FDI in Europe: 2023 Update
Agatha Kratz, Max J. Zenglein, et al, Rhodium Group and MERICS, June 6, 2024
Building on a long-standing collaboration between Rhodium Group and MERICS, this report summarizes China's investment footprint on the EU-27 and the UK in 2023, analyzing the shifting patterns in China's FDI, as well as policy developments in Europe and China.
Key findings
Chinese investment in Europe drops to lowest level since 2010: Chinese investment in Europe (defined here as the EU-27+UK) slipped again to EUR 6.8 billion in 2023, from EUR 7.1 billion in 2022. This was the lowest level since 2010.
Mergers and acquisitions (M&A) keep tumbling: The value of mergers and acquisitions (M&A) fell by 58 percent to just EUR 1.5 billion. China’s economic difficulties and strict capital controls, alongside increased scrutiny of foreign investment into Europe, contributed to the fall in M&A deals.
Greenfield investment keeps FDI levels from falling off a cliff: The share of greenfield investment shot up to 78 percent in 2023, a further increase from 51 percent in 2022. Top greenfield projects in 2023 came from private firms CATL, AESC and Huayou Cobalt, who invested in battery plants in Hungary, Germany and France.
EV driven investments propel Hungary as the top destination: In 2023, Hungary received 44 percent of all Chinese FDI in Europe, benefitting from the surge in electric vehicle (EV) investments. Over two thirds (69 percent) of Chinese FDI were made in the EV sector in 2023, up from 41 percent in 2022.
Investment is spreading along the EV supply chain: Chinese FDI is increasingly moving both up- and downstream along the EV value chain. Chinese suppliers of battery inputs like cathodes and anodes have announced two greenfield projects worth over a billion euros each, and which are expected to break ground in 2024. BYD has announced plans to produce EVs in Hungary by 2026.
The healthcare, consumer and ICT sectors remain relatively resilient: Europe’s healthcare, consumer products, entertainment, and information and communication technology (ICT) sectors continue to appeal to Chinese investors. They attracted EUR 3 billion in annual Chinese FDI on average during 2021 – 2023. Medical devices are a key area of interest, accounting for two thirds of investment in the healthcare sector between 2021 – 2023.
The EU proposes updated screening regulations: The geographical and sectoral scope of investment screening regimes in Europe keeps expanding. The EU is working on greater consistency and a wider remit for screening regulations. Chinese firms looking to invest in strategic sectors in Europe can expect to be the target of more regulatory scrutiny.
No significant recovery in sight: The drop in Chinese investment in Europe will continue to be cushioned by ongoing investment in the EV sector. But a substantial uptick is not expected. Instead, investment is likely to remain at low levels due to the weak financial positions of Chinese firms and increased government oversight in Europe. Chinese firms must also weigh up market opportunities in Europe against the backdrop of growing EU-China trade tensions.
COMMENT – Another important report from the teams at Rhodium Group and MERICS. We are lucky to have them!
9. Beijing’s Big Bet on the Philippines: Decoding two decades of China’s financing for development
Samatha Custer, Bryan Burgess et al, Aid Data, June 4, 2024
Beijing has become a go-to source of development finance and foreign direct investment (FDI) in the Philippines. In Beijing’s Big Bet on the Philippines, we meticulously piece together data from multiple sources to assess the money, relationships, and outcomes from two decades of PRC investment.
We follow the money to track $9.1 billion in PRC financing for more than 200 development projects from 2000-2022, spotlighting Beijing’s revealed priorities in what projects it finances, where, and when in the Philippines. We then scrutinize the relationships behind these investments to uncover the major players, their roles, and their track records.
Finally, we assess Beijing’s performance in the Philippines—to what extent does it follow through on its commitments, how does it manage the risk of public harm from its projects, and what are the downstream effects across society?
COMMENT – Similar to the Rhodium/MERICS report, here’s another great one from the team at Aid Data at William & Mary.
10. The Boiling Moat: Urgent Steps to Defend Taiwan
Matt Pottinger et al, Hoover Institution, June 4, 2024
Military and political leaders map out a workable strategy for Taiwan, the United States, and their allies to deter China from pursuing acts of aggression against Taiwan.
Chinese leader Xi Jinping has openly expressed his intention to annex Taiwan to mainland China, even threatening the use of force. An invasion or blockade of Taiwan by Chinese forces would be catastrophic, with severe consequences for democracies worldwide. In The Boiling Moat, Matt Pottinger and a team of scholars and distinguished military and political leaders urgently outline practical steps for deterrence. The authors stress that preventing a war is more affordable than waging one and emphasize the importance of learning from recent failures in deterrence, such as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
The book argues that a robust military strategy is essential for countering Beijing’s aggression. Pottinger and his team map out a workable military strategy for Taiwan, the United States, Japan, Australia, and Europe to pursue collectively, urging quick adoption to avert a devastating war. The significance of Taiwan to the world economy, semiconductor supply, and Indo-Pacific security is underscored.
The authors stress that preventing China’s coercive annexation of Taiwan requires democracies to demonstrate not just the means but also the will to effectively resist, conveying the message that a military attempt by Xi would likely lead to disastrous consequences, both for China and for the international community.
COMMENT – Former Deputy National Security Advisor Matt Pottinger pulled together a team of writers across Europe, the U.S., and Asia (including myself) for this book. You can order a hardcopy here or on Amazon here, or download the individual chapters (mine is Chapter 3 with Pottinger) at the link above.
Authoritarianism
UK Embassy in China, Twitter/X, June 3, 2024
COMMENT – I think the UK did a really good job with the video they posted to Twitter/X.
By erasing the physical issue of the People’s Daily and leaving just a blank sheet of paper, they effectively connect the massacre that took place 35 years ago with the deliberate efforts by the Party to erase the memory of that event and associate it with the white paper protests by Chinese citizens in late 2022.
Well done, Britain!
12. On the 35th Anniversary of Tiananmen Square
Secretary Anthony J. Blinken, U.S. State Department, June 4, 2024
U.S. Department of State, Twitter/X, June 4, 2024
COMMENT – The State Department’s short video clip is fine, just fine.
I don’t mean to be too critical, but it is kind of uninspired compared to what the Brits produced.
14. Tiananmen Square was a tragedy waiting to happen
Leyla Sanai, The Spectator, June 7, 2024
Lai Wen’s captivating book about growing up in China and witnessing the horrific massacre in Tiananmen Square reads like a memoir. The protagonist’s name is Lai, and her description of her parents is utterly convincing — the pretty, bitter housewife mother, jealous of the opportunities her daughter has; the father permanently cowed after being briefly interned by the government decades earlier.
15. Peng Liyuan Rises Up the Ranks: Implications for Xi’s Despotic Rule
Willy Wo-Lap Lam, Jamestown Foundation, May 24, 2024
16. Analysis: A 1950 map foreshadows what Xi Jinping has in mind today
Katsuji Nakazawa, Nikkei Asia, May 30, 2024
James Kynge, Financial Times, June 8, 2024
Just over 30 years since the cold war ended, commentators are struggling to describe a new era of great power competition, this time between China and the US-led west.
The problem is that so much about this new era is unclear. Is the growing estrangement between the west and China being driven by America or by China itself? With so many of Europe’s leading companies deeply embedded in the Chinese market, is Europe in danger of falling hostage to Beijing’s will? How should the US counter China’s magnetism to many countries in the global south?
Three new books help bring definition to the still fuzzy but emerging contours of a new type of cold war. All three take western perspectives on the challenge that China poses to the US-led world order and, specifically in one book, to the future of German industry. The overall impression created is that this round of superpower struggle — though very different from the 45-year stand-off between the Soviet bloc and the capitalist west — may prove no less consequential.
18. How America Inadvertently Created an ‘Axis of Evasion’ Led by China
Ian Talley and Rosie Ettenheim, Wall Street Journal, May 30, 2024
Western sanctions and export controls were meant to subdue America’s enemies, leveraging the power of the dollar to strong-arm governments into submission without the bloodshed of military force. They have inadvertently birthed a global shadow economy tying together democracy’s chief foes, with Washington’s primary adversary, China, at the center.
Unprecedented finance and trade restrictions on Russia, Iran, Venezuela, North Korea, China and other authoritarian regimes have squeezed those economies by curbing access to Western goods and markets. But Beijing has increasingly foiled those U.S.-led efforts by bolstering trade ties, according to Western officials and customs data. The bloc of sanctioned nations collectively now have the economy of scale to shield them from Washington’s financial warfare, trading everything from drones and missiles to gold and oil.
“China is the strategic competitor willing and able to reshape the current global order,” said Dana Stroul, a former senior U.S. defense official and now a senior fellow at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
Liu Pengyu, a spokesman for the Chinese Embassy in Washington, defended Beijing’s policies, saying that the country wasn’t providing lethal weapons to anyone involved in the Ukraine conflict.
“China carries out normal economic and trade exchanges with relevant countries on the basis of equality and mutual benefit,” he said. “The relevant trades under international law are legal and legitimate, thus should be respected and protected.”
The governments of Russia, Iran, Venezuela and North Korea, contacted through their diplomatic offices in the U.S., didn’t respond to requests for comment.
COMMENT – None of this should have been a surprise and was anticipated two years ago. The fact that the Biden Administration is still just “warning” Beijing (Reuters, “US Treasury No. 2 warns China over support for Russia,” May 31, 2024) not to provide “material support” (now more narrowly defined as “lethal aid”), suggests that we are simply not serious about responding to these challenges nor are we willing to publicly recognize the implications of what is happening.
There is a Sino-Russian alliance and both North Korea and Iran have joined as junior partners.
Those powers are fighting wars and proxy wars against us in multiple theaters and we are pretending that treating them individually and with zero mobilization is the appropriate course of action (because we don’t want an escalation).
We are no longer in the “foothills of a cold war” as Henry Kissinger observed at the Bloomberg New Economy Forum in November 2019.
We are in a full-blown cold war with Beijing, Moscow, Tehran, and Pyongyang.
We are now in the foothills of a global hot war.
Arguably the threat of a Third World War is greater now than at any time since the Cuban Missile Crisis. However, if you look at our government spending, you would conclude that the world is peaceful with few threats on the horizon.
It is imperative that we rouse ourselves from our slumbers and take this situation far more seriously than the Biden Administration appears willing to do.
I’m sympathetic to the Biden Administration’s predicament and understand why they are so reluctant to acknowledge this reality and respond appropriately. If President Biden were to address the American people tomorrow and spell out just how serious things have become and what it would take to build up necessary military power and repair the nation’s defense industrial base, it would likely come as a massive shock to most Americans. And many within his own Democratic Party would reject his call to mobilization, plunging him and his Party into even more electoral uncertainty.
Americans have not been told that these various crises are interconnected, in fact they have been told the opposite.
They have not been told that responding to these threats will entail significant sacrifice.
They have not been told that issues like the energy transition and climate change will necessarily be set aside to respond to these national security crises.
In fact the American people have been assured for years now that these things are under control and can be managed with minimal disruption to their lives or domestic policy priorities.
If President Biden were to explain these things now, a significant proportion of his base would likely turn on him politically, deteriorating his chances in November even further.
So I understand why the Administration stresses that its “managed competition” approach is sufficient. To admit that the circumstances have gotten much worse under their watch, questions the entire political rationale for the President’s re-election, that he is uniquely competent to lead the country during difficult times.
For an illustration of this see Rush Doshi’s response to the Gallagher-Pottinger article No Substitute for Victory… to summarize it says essentially:
Compare President Biden’s approach to Xi’s rhetoric for his domestic audiences. For more than a decade, Xi has been telling the Party and the Chinese people that they face an existential struggle with the United States. He has called on them to sacrifice for the greater good of the Chinese nation and to achieve the goal of “national rejuvenation” in the face of a hostile United States. He has forced painful reforms on the People’s Liberation Army and made massive investments in its modernization and training. He has sought to insulate the PRC from economic sanctions and blockades with changes to the PRC economy that have slowed growth and imposed significant economic pain. The rationale that explains these sacrifices is that the Chinese people must prepare for war.
As things get more difficult economically for Xi and the CCP, he has already conditioned the Chinese people to blame the “other” or “hostile foreign forces” for any hardships they must bear.
Xi, and Putin, have been mobilizing their societies for these enormous challenges and have established a rationale for why their citizens must sacrifice.
We have done very little of that.
The President has not used his bully pulpit to speak directly to the American people about these mounting and interconnected threats. He refuses to recognize that Beijing, Moscow, Tehran, and Pyongyang are acting in concert and that we have entered a new cold war. Most speeches seek to convince the American people that the President’s domestic political opponents pose a much greater threat than the combined alliance of Beijing, Moscow, Tehran and Pyongyang.
The most impressive pieces of legislation that the Biden Administration can point to are primarily focused on climate change and enabling an energy transition. They are only tangentially associated with winning the new cold war and deterring a global hot war.
We are pursuing half measures and contradictory priorities, as our adversaries align themselves and prepare for war.
19. VIDEO – What's the US strategy for a new Cold War?
Matt Turpin and Richard Walker, Deutsche Welle, June 3, 2024
20. Whispering advice, roaring praises: The role of Chinese think tanks under Xi Jinping
Nis Grünberg and Grzegorz Stec, Mercator Institute for China Studies, May 8, 2024
21. National Security Education in China and Hong Kong
Antonio Graceffo, Geopolitical Monitor, May 29, 2024
22. “Lying Flat-ism”: Is the Party Under Xi “Governing People to Death”?
Patricia Thornton, China Leadership Monitor, May 31, 2024
23. Hong Kong Convicts 14 Democracy Activists in Largest National Security Trial
Tiffany May, New York Times, May 29, 2024
24. 35 Years After Tiananmen, China’s Conduct Again Triggers Alarm
James T. Areddy, Wall Street Journal, June 3, 2024
25. Welcome Back, Pandas! Two Furry Diplomats Are Headed to the D.C. Zoo.
Katie Rogers and Aishvarya Kavi, New York Times, May 29, 2024
26. Washington, We Need to Talk About You and Your Pandas
Michael Schaffer, Politico, May 31, 2024
27. Australian trust in China low despite better relations, poll finds
Sophie Mak, Nikkei Asia, June 3, 2024
28. Watching China in Europe—June 2024
Noah Barkin, GMF, June 4, 2024
29. US Treasury No. 2 warns China over support for Russia
Christian Kraemer and Matthias Williams, Reuters, May 31, 2024
30. Cyber ambassador visits Taiwan despite Beijing's warnings to Australia over cooperation
Andrew Greene, ABC News, May 30, 2024
A senior Australian official has travelled to Taiwan for high-level talks on countering Chinese cyber threats, amid growing pushback from Beijing against any diplomatic contact with the democratic island.
The ABC can reveal Brendan Dowling, the ambassador for Cyber Affairs and Critical Technology, told government figures in Taipei this week that Australia wanted to increase cooperation and understanding on mutual concerns.
Mr Dowling, who joined the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) after serving in the Home Affairs Department, is believed to be the most senior Australian government representative to visit Taiwan since the 2022 federal election.
In a keynote speech at the Global Cooperation Training Framework (GCTF) conference, the ambassador noted that "security and prosperity of the region that Taiwan and Australia share rests on a foundation of shared cyber security".
"This should not be viewed as a technology issue, but as a core foreign and strategic policy issue," the DFAT official told the international gathering, according to diplomatic figures familiar with the presentation.
"We are in a potentially dangerous new phase of cyber security – the scale and sophistication of threats is increasing," Mr Dowling warned during a workshop discussion entitled Resilience in Telecommunications and Cybersecurity.
Diplomatic sources have confirmed Mr Dowling also discussed Beijing's growing use of grey zone warfare during meetings with members of Taiwan's National Security Council and officials from the country's cyber agency.
Under the long-standing and bipartisan One China Policy, successive Australian governments have not recognised Taiwan as a country but have maintained unofficial contacts with the democratic island promoting economic, trade and cultural interests.
A DFAT spokesperson declined to comment on which officials Mr Dowling had met with in Taipei but told the ABC the visit was consistent with past diplomatic practice.
"Australia values its deep and productive unofficial relationship with Taiwan, which includes exchanges on trade and investment, people-to-people ties and regional security," a DFAT spokesperson said.
"Australian officials regularly travel to Taiwan to support and advance our relationship in areas of mutual interest."
Last year, Mr Dowling was confronted by a representative of the Chinese embassy after he told a gathering of diplomats in Canberra that Beijing was responsible for a series of damaging cyber-attacks on Australia.
Earlier this month, a bipartisan delegation of Australian politicians attended the inauguration of Taiwan's President Dr Lai Ching-te, drawing a forceful warning from China about risking relations with Beijing, over the territory it claims as its own.
Last week, the Chinese consulate in Sydney raised concerns with New South Wales politicians about their attendance at an event celebrating the election of Taiwan's new president and vice-president, prompting a strong rebuke from Premier Chris Minns.
COMMENT – Great job Australia! Beijing was not pleased with this and it is bound to retaliate in some way, but having a senior official visit Taiwan so shortly after the inauguration of President Lai helps demonstrate to the world that Taiwan is NOT isolated and the CCP coercion and intimidation will only harden the resolve of Taiwanese and other countries to do what’s right.
31. The role of China in Soviet policy
Rodric Braithwaite, The Spectator, June 5, 2024
Environmental Harms
32. Car Wars
John Cassidy, New Yorker, June 3, 2024
33. Russia-China gas pipeline deal stalls over Beijing’s price demands
Max Seddon, Anastasia Stognei, Henry Foy, and Joe Leahy, Financial Times, June 2, 2024
Foreign Interference and Coercion
34. China’s failed information offensive in Fiji
Adam Ziogas and Blake Johnson, The Strategist, May 29, 2024
On 30 March, the Chinese embassy in Fiji made an overt and concerning attempt to influence the Pacific information environment, seeking to shape perceptions around Chinese policing behaviours and reported links to organised crime in Fiji.
Responding to a 60 Minutes Australia episode aired on 24 March 2024 that investigated Chinese policing and organised crime links in Fiji, the embassy produced and published a two-part video essay muddying the waters around the allegations.
This was part of its continued efforts to undermine trust in traditional partners and Western media in the region.
35. OpenAI Says Russia and China Used Its A.I. in Covert Campaigns
Cade Metz, New York Times, May 30, 2024
36. Beijing objects after India’s Modi thanks Taiwanese leader Lai for election message
Zhao Ziwen, South China Morning Post, June 6, 2024
Beijing warns New Delhi about Taipei’s ‘political conspiracy’ following exchange between Taiwanese leader and Indian prime minister.
Beijing has protested against newly re-elected Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s response to a congratulatory message from Taiwanese leader William Lai Ching-te and urged New Delhi to be vigilant about Taipei’s “political conspiracy”.
Mainland China’s foreign ministry spokeswoman Mao Ning said on Thursday that Beijing firmly opposed any form of official exchange between the authorities in Taiwan and countries with diplomatic relations with Beijing.
COMMENT – I wonder if Beijing understands that by complaining when the leaders of sovereign countries take phone calls from the leaders of other sovereign countries, the Party invites further and closer contact with Taiwan.
By continuously throwing a hissy fit every time countries talk to leaders in Taipei, the Party is encouraging countries to do it even more. No leader with self-dignity believes that Beijing has the right to dictate who they are allowed to talk to and those leaders who cave to Beijing’s demands only make themselves and their countries look like vassals of a new Chinese Empire.
The Chinese Communist Party would be much better off agreeing to an open dialogue with President Lai.
37. VIDEO – Why CSIS believes Beijing is collecting Kompromat on both Houses of Parliament
Sam Cooper, The Bureau, June 5, 2024
38. Does NATO Have a Role in Asia?
David Sacks, Council on Foreign Relations, May 30, 2024
39. Meta Removes AI-Generated Influence Campaigns in China, Israel
Aisha Counts, Bloomberg, May 29, 2024
Meta Platforms Inc. removed hundreds of Facebook accounts associated with covert influence campaigns from China, Israel, Iran, Russia and other countries, some of which used artificial intelligence tools to generate disinformation, according to the company’s quarterly threat report.
Meta, the parent of Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp, has seen threat actors rely on AI to produce fake images, videos and text in an effort to influence users on its sites.
40. China maintains stance on disputed Gulf islands despite Iran's anger
Reuters, June 3, 2024
41. Taiwan protests as China strips preferential tariffs on 134 products
Thompson Chau, Nikkei Asia, May 31, 2024
42. China to Impose Export Controls on Aviation Equipment, Technology
Jiahui Huang, Wall Street Journal, May 30, 2024
Human Rights and Religious Persecution
Emirates 27/7, June 2, 2024
The United Arab Emirates and the People's Republic of China (PRC) have issued a joint statement on the occasion of the State Visit of President His Highness Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan to the People's Republic of China from 30 to 31 May 2024.
Following is the full text of the joint statement:
…
#14 – The United Arab Emirates commends China's efforts in caring for its Chinese Muslim citizens, including in Xinjiang region, and supporting national cohesion, stability and security. It supports all the precautionary measures to combat terrorism, violence and de-radicalization that China is taking to maintain the protection and stability of its territory, and rejects all forms of extremism, terrorism and actions that would endanger national unity.
Xi and the UAE
COMMENT – The PRC-UAE joint statement seemed pretty bland, but then I came across point #14 above… what a shameful display of obsequiousness, it is really unbecoming of a coutry that sees itself a global actor.
44. The evolution of forced labour in Xinjiang
The Economist, May 30, 2024
45. China 2023 Human Rights Report
U.S. State Department, April 22, 2024
Genocide and crimes against humanity occurred during the year in China against predominantly Muslim Uyghurs and members of other ethnic and religious minority groups in Xinjiang.
COMMENT – The first sentence says it all… why are so many business leaders, academics, and government officials so committed to “engaging” with the Chinese Communist Party?
46. The forgotten victims of the Tiananmen Square massacre
Wang Yun, Radio Free Asia, June 3, 2024
47. Hong Kong: Quash Baseless Convictions of Activists
Human Rights Watch, May 31, 2024
James Lee, Hong Kong Free Press, June 3, 2024
Hong Kong’s Catholic Diocese has axed a vigil in remembrance of the 1989 Tiananmen crackdown for a third consecutive year.
The Hong Kong Catholic Social Communication Office told HKFP it had instead held a service to pray for the Catholic church in China, and the country itself, more than a week ago.
Separately, Cardinal Stephen Chow last Thursday wrote a prayer published in the Sunday Examiner and the Kung Kau Po, weekly newspapers owned and operated by the city’s Diocese, calling for “forgiveness” days ahead of the 35th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square crackdown.
The 1989 crackdown ended months of student-led demonstrations in China. It is estimated that hundreds, perhaps thousands, died when the People’s Liberation Army dispersed protesters in Beijing.
Cancelled since 2022
The Diocese on Saturday said in an emailed reply to HKFP: “On May 24 of every year, the liturgical Memorial of our Lady, Help of Christians (observed as an obligatory memorial in our Diocese) is also a special occasion for Catholics worldwide to pray for the Church in China and China. This is also an action for the Universal Church to follow.”
The Diocese did not organise a memorial mass last year. The diocese cancelled the June 4 mass in 2022, for the first time in more than 30 years, citing concerns over a potential breach of the Beijing-imposed national security law.
“Since frontline workers and some members of the Justice and Peace Commission of the Catholic Church are concerned that holding these events would violate the national security law, memorial masses for June 4 will not be held,” the church told local media.
The mass was held at seven Catholic churches in 2021, including one hosted by Cardinal Joseph Zen, who also attended the mass for the Chinese church last month, according to the Sunday Examiner.
Zen and four others are set to appeal their convictions linked to the now-defunct 612 Humanitarian Relief Fund, which provided legal, medical and financial assistance to people arrested during the 2019 protests and unrest.
‘Forgiveness’
Cardinal Chow on Thursday said only through forgiveness would people be able to heal from events that took place “35 years ago in the capital city,” apparently referring to the 1989 crackdown.
“What happened 35 years ago has left a deep wound in parts of our psyche, though it has been buried and scarred over… However, this does not mean I can forget what I saw and felt ever so deeply on that night and the following weeks. Even though my memories are no longer vivid, my heart has feelings that remain alive, particularly around this time of the year,” Chow wrote.
“My faith, nonetheless, prompts me to forgive whoever and whatever. Maybe it is through forgiveness that the different parties can move beyond finger pointing and the painful ‘I will never forgive’ mindset. With forgiveness already available, reconciliation and healing may stand a better chance of becoming a reality,” he added.
COMMENT – How convenient that Beijing’s preferred Cardinal in Hong Kong advocates “forgiveness” for the Tiananmen Massacre… perhaps he could also encourage the Chinese Communist Party adopt a sense of forgiveness and mercy as well towards religious believers of various denominations across the PRC or to stop threatening the people of Taiwan or to stop persecuting Hong Kongers who stand up for their civil liberties.
Don’t hold your breath, that isn’t the kind of religious leader Cardinal Stephen Chow is.
49. ‘Hong Kong 47’ trial: 14 activists found guilty of conspiracy to commit subversion
Helen Davidson, The Guardian, May 30, 2024
Fourteen people have been found guilty of subversion by a court in Hong Kong in the biggest case against pro-democracy campaigners – against a group known as the “Hong Kong 47” – since China imposed a national security law to crush dissent.
A panel of judges handpicked by Hong Kong’s government found that the convicted people – one organiser and 13 candidates, almost all of them former politicians – had committed the national security offence of “conspiracy to subvert state power” by holding unofficial election primaries in 2020.
The 10-month trial finished in December, more than 1,000 days after the cohort were first arrested. Among the guilty are former lawmakers and activists including the politician Helena Wong, the veteran campaigner Leung “Long Hair” Kwok-hung, the journalist Gwyneth Ho, and the Hong Kong-Australian dual national Gordon Ng.
50. UN calls for release of those ‘arbitrarily detained’ under Hong Kong national security laws
Hong Kong Free Press, June 1, 2024
The UN rights chief on Friday decried the use of controversial national security laws in Hong Kong to among other things convict democracy advocates and demanded the release of all those “arbitrarily detained”.
“I reiterate my call to release immediately and unconditionally all those arbitrarily arrested and detained under these laws,” Volker Turk said in a statement.
His comment came after a Hong Kong court on Thursday convicted 14 people for organising an unofficial election in 2021 with the goal of paralysing the government. Two defendants were acquitted.
The verdicts were handed down under a national security law that China imposed on Hong Kong in 2020 after the city saw huge and sometimes violent democracy protests.
“My Office and other UN human rights experts have raised repeated concerns that this legislation does not comply with China’s obligations under international human rights law,” Turk said.
51. Hong Kong’s National Security Law Trial
U.S. State Department, May 31, 2024
The United States is deeply concerned by the guilty verdicts announced in the National Security Law trial of pro-democracy organizers in Hong Kong. The defendants were subjected to a politically motivated prosecution and jailed simply for peacefully participating in political activities protected under the Basic Law of Hong Kong. In response, the Department of State is taking steps to impose new visa restrictions on PRC and Hong Kong officials responsible for implementing the National Security Law, pursuant to Section 212(a)(3)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Instead of imposing harsh sentences that would further erode confidence in Hong Kong’s judicial system, Hong Kong authorities should immediately release these unjustly detained individuals. We urge the PRC government and Hong Kong authorities to uphold Hong Kong’s judicial independence, cease the use of vague national security laws to curb peaceful dissent, and restore the openness that was so crucial to Hong Kong’s vitality and competitiveness as an international business hub.
52. US imposes visa restrictions on Chinese, Hong Kong officials, State Dept says
Reuters, May 31, 2024
The United States is imposing new visa restrictions on Chinese and Hong Kong officials over guilty verdicts in the National Security Law trial of pro-democracy organizers in Hong Kong, the State Department said on Friday.
Fourteen Hong Kong pro-democracy activists were found guilty and two were acquitted on Thursday in a landmark subversion trial that critics say could deal another blow to the city's rule of law and its reputation as a global financial hub.
Industrial Policies and Economic Espionage
53. Hedge fund billionaire Ray Dalio says benefits of investing in China outweigh risks
Jiaxing Li, South China Morning Post, June 5, 2024
54. EU members split sharply over measures to de-risk China economic ties
Finbarr Bermingham, South China Morning Post, May 31, 2024
55. Singaporean, Swiss banks target Hong Kong as rivals feel geopolitical chill
Echo Wong, Nikkei Asia, June 5, 2024
56. China's underutilized factories fan export dump fears in U.S. and Europe
Cissy Zhou, Nikkei Asia, June 4, 2024
57. How Shein’s US IPO Plans Got Derailed by China Rift
Yiqin Shen, Dong Cao, and Pei Li, Bloomberg, June 4, 2024
58. Airbus in Talks to Sell More Than 100 Widebody Jets to China
Siddharth Vikram Philip, Danny Lee, and Julie Johnsson, Bloomberg, June 3, 2024
59. The Clash of Constellations
Rachel Cheung, The Wire China, June 2, 2024
60. United Arab Emirates, People's Republic of China issue joint statement on state visit of President of UAE to PRC
Emirates 24/7, June 2, 2024
61. China’s Strategy to Use Factories to Revive Growth Begins to Show Cracks
Nathaniel Taplin, Wall Street Journal, May 31, 2024
62. GenScript Biotech Shares Drop After U.S. Lawmakers Scrutinize Chinese Ties
Sherry Qin, Wall Street Journal, June 3, 2024
63. Chinese businesses target Vietnam and Mexico as trade tensions with US rise
Oliver Telling, William Langley, Andy Lin, and Chan Ho-him, Financial Times, June 2, 2024
64. ‘Bar is high’ for China deals, says EQT’s Asia private equity chair
Kaye Wiggins, Financial Times, June 3, 2024
Cyber & Information Technology
65. Chinese Hacker group targeting Africa and Caribbean in cyber espionage campaign
Times of India, June 2, 2024
A Chinese hacker group known as Sharp Dragon has expanded its cyber espionage operations to target governmental organisations in Africa and the Caribbean, according to a recent report by Check Point Research (CPR). The group, formerly referred to as Sharp Panda, has been closely monitored by CPR since 2021.
Sharp Dragon's tactics have evolved, now utilising highly tailored phishing emails to deliver malware payloads such as Cobalt Strike Beacon, which enables backdoor functionalities and minimises the exposure of their custom tools.
66. New Nvidia Blackwell GPUs put China further behind global leading edge in AI chips amid US sanctions
Che Pan, South China Morning Post, June 3, 2024
67. SMIC, China’s Chip Champion, Has This Goal in Mind: Decouple from U.S. Tech
Yoko Kubota, Wall Street Journal, June 3, 2024
68. O-RAN is overhyped as avoiding Chinese 5G influence
Manoj Harjani, The Strategist, May 29, 2024
In recent years, countries have faced a stark choice between Chinese and Western suppliers to develop their 5G cellular network infrastructure. While Chinese suppliers such as Huawei and ZTE are not trusted because of their ties and legal obligations to China’s party-state, Western suppliers have struggled to compete on cost.
The emergence of Open Radio Access Network (O-RAN) technology has promised to offer a third way by enabling RAN—the interface between users’ devices and the core infrastructure of a cellular network—to be stitched together with components and software from different suppliers.
However, the idea that O-RAN is a viable alternative to Chinese suppliers seems hollow. It’s still not cost-effective compared with traditional RAN offerings by Huawei and ZTE, and, more importantly, Chinese companies are also involved in setting O-RAN standards.
In short, O-RAN is not what it’s being made out to be.
So why is the US continuing to invest in and promote its adoption? Earlier this year, the US Department of Commerce’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration awarded US$42 million towards a new research and development centre for O-RAN technology in Dallas, Texas. The funding is part of a 10-year, US$1.5 billion effort launched in 2022 dubbed the ‘Public Wireless Supply Chain Innovation Fund’.
Furthermore, the Quad has sought to promote the adoption of O-RAN, even though its Critical and Emerging Technology Working Group in a report published last year described the standardisation effort on O-RAN security specifications led by the O-RAN Alliance as ‘incomplete’.
The O-RAN Alliance, an industry body formed in 2018 that’s working to set standards for the technology, has also been criticised due to Chinese players being heavily involved in its governance and China Mobile being a veto-wielding founding member. Under these circumstances, it’s easy to see why some have argued that O-RAN does not solve the ‘China challenge’ for 5G.
A clear example of how Chinese companies occupy a privileged position within the O-RAN Alliance was seen when Russian members of the organisation subject to US sanctions following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 were delisted from the organisation, while Chinese members facing sanctions have yet to face similar treatment.
Military and Security Threats
69. VIDEO – U.S. Typhon Missile Launcher Arrives in the Philippines
Taiwan Talk, May 9, 2024
The U.S.-made Typhon missile launcher is a weapon not before seen in the Indo-Pacific, and the U.S. Army is calling its arrival in the Philippines a landmark in regional capacity. Analysts say its presence sends a signal the U.S. can put offensive weaponry well within striking distance of Chinese installations in the South China Sea, China proper and along the Taiwan Strait. Beijing says it increases “misjudgment and miscalculation” and that Washington is seeking a “unilateral advantage.”
COMMENT - The deployment of intermediate range (500-5500 km), ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles that can sink Chinese ships in the Taiwan Strait and the South China Sea is only possible because the United States pulled out of the INF (Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces) Treaty in 2019 after its only other signatory, the Russian Federation, had been violating the treaty for a decade.
Once freed from the restrictions of the INF Treaty (which prohibited only the United States and the Russian Federation from possessing ground-launched, intermediate range (500-5500 km) ballistic and cruise missiles), the United States could deploy the same types on missiles that the PRC had been building for decades to threaten its neighbors and the United States.
Deploying previously INF-prohibited missiles allows the United States to impose the exact same kind of dilemmas on Beijing, as Beijing had been imposing on the region with its A2AD (Anti-Access, Area Denial) missile force.
Helping to withdraw from the INF Treaty, and creating the conditions for the United States to possess and deploy weapons like the Typhoon, was perhaps one of the most important policy effort I was involved with in Government.
70. University of Florida employee, students implicated in illegal plot to ship drugs, toxins to China
Matthew Cupelli, Associated Press, May 28, 2024
71. China accuses US of seeking ‘Asia-Pacific NATO’
Demetri Sevastopulo and Kathrin Hille, Financial Times, June 1, 2024
72. U.S. Considers Expanded Nuclear Arsenal, a Reversal of Decades of Cuts
Julian E. Barnes and David Sanger, New York Times, June 7, 2024
China’s expansion and Russia’s threats of using nuclear weapons in Ukraine and in space have changed a U.S. drive to reduce nuclear weapons.
COMMENT – This has to be done… and will require a significantly larger defense budget, which we appear unwilling to consider at this point.
73. The Historic Missions of the People’s Liberation Army under Xi Jinping: The Military’s Role in the “New Era”
Timothy Heath, China Leadership Monitor, May 31, 2024
74. 21st Century Peace Through Strength: A Generational Investment in the U.S. Military
Senator Roger Wicker, May 29, 2024
COMMENT - An important report that is worth reading.
75. China's defense chief threatens Taiwan, Philippines at Shangri-La Dialogue
Duncan DeAeth, Taiwan News, June 2, 2024
76. Rare earths miner targeted in cyber-attack prior to removal of Chinese investors
Andrew Greene, ABC News, June 3, 2024
77. The Boiling Moat: Urgent Steps to Defend Taiwan
Matt Pottinger, Hoover Institution, July 1, 2024
78. China Is ‘Prepositioning’ for Future Cyberattacks—and the New NSA Chief Is Worried
Niharika Mandhana and Gordon Fairclough, Wall Street Journal, June 3, 2024
79. China hits out at ‘aggressive’ Taiwan for military build-up
Kathrin Hille and Demetri Sevastopulo, Financial Times, June 1, 2024
80. Pentagon Chief Says War with China Neither Imminent nor Unavoidable
Feliz Solomon and Chun Han Wong, Wall Street Journal, June 1, 2024
81. China Claims Britain’s MI6 Recruited Chinese Couple as Spies
Daisuke Wakabayashi and Claire Fu, New York Times, June 3, 2024
One Belt, One Road Strategy
82. China’s plan to sell cheap EVs to the rest of the world
Edward White, Michael Pooler, A. Anantha Lakshmi, and Christine Murray, Financial Times, June 4, 2024
83. Why China is focused on the Moon: The Belt and Road initiative has spread to outer space
David Whitehouse, The Spectator, June 3, 2024
84. Chinese-Led Consortium to Build Massive Port Project on Georgia's Black Sea Coast
Reid Standish, Radio Free Europe, May 29, 2024
Georgia has announced that a Chinese consortium submitted the sole bid to build a sprawling deep-sea port in Anaklia, ending a multiyear political saga over the megaproject that puts Tbilisi's growing ties with Beijing in the spotlight.
Georgian Minister of Economy and Sustainable Development Levan Davitashvili made the announcement at a May 29 press conference, where he said the government had received bids from a Swiss-Luxembourg consortium and a joint offer from China Communications Construction Company Limited and the Singapore-based China Harbour Investment Pte. Ltd.
"The application is complete, the relevant bank guarantees have been presented," Davitashvili said. "In a few days, we will have clarifications, after which the Chinese consortium will be announced as the winner."
He added that China Road and Bridge Corporation and Qingdao Port International Co Ltd will serve as subcontractors to build the port.
After months of consultations with both bidders, Davitashvili said that Tbilisi only received a final proposal from the Chinese consortium, which now looks set to build the country's first deep-sea port.
The announcement brings an end to a controversial political struggle over who would build Georgia's strategically important port, while the winning Chinese bid highlights Tbilisi's burgeoning relationship with China.
A previous attempt to build the port in Anaklia by a consortium formed between Georgia's TBC Bank and U.S.-based Conti International was canceled by the government in 2020 after years of political controversy that saw TBC co-founders Mamuka Khazaradze and Badri Japaridze facing money-laundering charges.
Following the charges, the American investor pulled out and the project ground to a halt until the government canceled the $2.5 billion port contract. In 2022, a court found Khazaradze and Japaridze guilty of fraud, but they were both released without prison time.
Opinion Pieces
85. What Does America Want from China?
Rush Doshi, Jessica Chen Weiss, James B. Steinberg, Paul Heer, Matt Pottinger, and Mike Gallagher, Foreign Affairs, May 30, 2024
COMMENT - It is worth reading Rush Doshi’s critique of the Gallagher-Pottinger article and the response by Gallagher and Pollinger. It helps fill in the outlines of the debate.
As for the critique by Chen-Weiss and Steinberg, I think the debate has moved on from what they suggest.
Paul Heer’s critique is from left field, perhaps he’s living in some alternative universe where unicorns dance on rainbows. Reading him today, it is hard to believe that he was once the most senior U.S. intelligence analyst on East Asia.
86. A Chinese Economic Blockade of Taiwan Would Fail or Launch a War
Dmitri Alperovitch, War on the Rocks, June 5, 2024
Last month, China launched one of the largest military exercises in recent memory, nearly completely encircling Taiwan with dozens of warships and fighter jets. This exercise, Joint Sword 2024A, was in response to the inauguration of Taiwanese President Lai Ching-te. Its name suggests it could be merely the first of many such threatening exercises this year, prompting renewed concerns about the threat of a Chinese blockade to Taiwan’s de facto sovereignty. In recent months, multiple analysts have argued that the main threat facing Taiwan is not the possibility of an overwhelming seaborne invasion of the island, but that of gray zone coercion campaigns or a blockade forcing Taiwan to capitulate to Chinese aggression.
There are indications that this line of thinking reflects the views of Taiwanese officials themselves, such as when Taiwan’s Deputy Foreign Minister Roy Chun Lee suggested last year that China is more likely to execute an economic blockade of Taiwan than it is to proceed with a direct military attack on the island nation. In his telling, Taiwan is operating under the assumption that a blockade follows more directly from China’s desire to “[win] the war without an actual fight,” prompting Taipei to work with its allies to prepare for an economic blockade. On my recent trip to Taiwan, I found that this was the leading view in Taipei’s national security community.
However, having spent years conducting extensive wargames with senior U.S. and allied government officials on the various cross-strait threat scenarios, I am confident, as I write in my recently released book World on the Brink, that an economic blockade in lieu of a full-scale military invasion has a low probability of success and, therefore, Beijing is unlikely to pursue such an operation and, indeed, hasn’t attempted it yet even though it has had the capability to do so for decades. In fact, an attempted economic blockade would almost inevitably lead to war or a humiliating defeat by China. Therefore, if Taipei is pinning its hopes for survival on Beijing seeking options short of war, it is making a grave error.
87. A Maritime Wall Is Forming Around China – That’s Not All Bad for Southeast Asia
John Bradford, RSIS, June 5, 2024
In his keynote address to the Shangri-La Dialogue on 31 May, Philippine President Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr. focused on his plans to protect Philippine interests and preserve the rule of law in international affairs by strengthening his country’s ability to enforce its archipelagic defence concept while also investing in its alliance with the United States and other strategic partners.
Earlier that month, the defence ministers of the Philippines, Japan, Australia and the United States assembled in Honolulu, where their conversation focused on cooperative responses to PRC actions in the East and South China Seas. In April, the navies of those four nations conducted drills in the South China Sea. This team-up has gained the moniker “Security Quad”, or “Squad”. These activities all represent choices that the island nations situated along China’s maritime periphery are making to beef up their defences and collectively resist what they regard as aggressive Chinese behaviour.
No one should be overjoyed to see tensions rise or more resources being put into military power when so many socio-economic challenges lurk in Southeast Asia. Yet, few Southeast Asians would disagree with Marcos when he said, “China’s determining influence over the security situation and the economic evolution of this region is a permanent fact.” Therefore, the rise of a counterbalancing coalition will contribute to the independence and autonomy of Southeast Asian states.
In both Japan and the Philippines, a strong political consensus has emerged where Chinese power is seen as a direct threat to national security. In both cases, this consensus only developed after deep debates and the observed failure of policies designed to accommodate Chinese power and avoid confrontation.
In 2009, the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) took control of the Japanese Diet from the long-dominant Liberal Democratic Party (LDP). Critical of the LDP’s reliance on the US-Japan alliance and the support Prime Minister Koizumi Junichiro had given to American military activities in the Middle East and Central Asia, the DPJ’s first prime minister, Hatoyama Yukio, sought to re-evaluate foundational elements of the US-Japan alliance while reaching out to China.
However, the steps that China took during a 2010 crisis discredited the DPJ’s accommodation efforts. When a Chinese trawler rammed two Japan Coast Guard cutters in disputed waters of the East China Sea, Japan apprehended the crew and sought to prosecute the captain as a police action. Beijing, believing that the matter should be handled as a diplomatic rather than legal affair, escalated the matter.
At least 20 Sino-Japanese exchanges were cancelled, including the travel of a senior PRC official to Japan. Four Japanese citizens were detained in China, a Japanese school in Tianjin was vandalised, rare earth elements bound for Japan were held up in Chinese ports, and Premier Wen Jiabao threatened “further actions”. When Japan released the captain without prosecution, he returned home as a national hero and Chinese media trumpeted its presumed victory over Japan.
According to my discussions with dozens of Japanese strategists, these events gave Japan a “wake-up call” by demonstrating that the PRC was not only powerful but also inclined to use that strength against Japan. The experience was fundamental to building what scholar Andrew Oros calls “Japan’s security renaissance”. By the time the LDP returned to power in 2012, a broad consensus had formed that Japan needed to harden itself against Chinese aggression.
Japan’s expanded security budget, the development of defensive positions on the islands closest to China, decisions to acquire a “counter-strike” capability that targets weapons which strike Japan from foreign soil, and the embrace of security partnerships such as the Squad all reflect this security renaissance.
A similar story played out in the Philippines. I vividly remember sitting as the only foreigner at a lunch table of senior Philippine Navy officers in 2017 as they passionately debated the preferred strategy for facing PRC maritime aggression.
One side urged a strong line against China and expanding investment in the US alliance. The other group supported President Rodrigo Duterte’s outreach to China. They believed that China’s rise was inevitable, they had few tools to resist PRC encroachment, and the United States was an unreliable ally. They argued that the 2016 ruling of the Permanent Court of Arbitration in favour of the Philippine position on the South China Sea put the country in the best negotiating position they could ever hope for. “Now is the best time to cut a deal”, they advocated.
Today, individuals from both camps tell the same story: while Duterte shuttled to Beijing to make deals, the PRC continued to up the pressure in the South China Sea, and Chinese promises never materialised in tangible investments. Thus, Duterte’s attempt at accommodation was seen as a complete failure. A strong consensus in Manila today sees strength as the only viable option. Thus, the Philippines is investing US$35 billion in military modernisation, strengthening its international security partnerships, and internationalising the issues through diplomacy and public affairs.
Japan and the Philippines, together with Taiwan, comprise the “1st Island Chain”, a string of land features that prevents easy access from the Asian mainland into the open Pacific. When the military forces of Japan and the Philippines team up for activities such as the South China Sea patrols or when Japan observes the US-Philippine Balikatan exercise (as it has done since 2012), it appears, from a Chinese perspective, that such activities are something akin to the building of a wall that boxes the PRC in and constrains its maritime ambition.
China would have little trouble battering its way through this wall if that barrier were not buttressed by powers farther away. The United States, a treaty ally of both Japan and the Philippines that holds its own national consensus backing action to prevent China from gaining the geopolitical upper hand, has gladly responded to requests to upgrade the security arrangements. New American military capabilities tailored for this island geography are being rapidly fielded, alliance command and control arrangements are being tightened, and military facilities such as ports and airfields are being developed.
The fourth member of the Squad, Australia, is also reinforcing efforts to deter Chinese aggression. For example, the 2023 Reciprocal Assessment Agreement makes it easier for Australian forces to base out of Japan and for Japanese forces to train in Australia. Australia’s decision to develop a nuclear submarine force is about developing options to fight maritime battles farther from Australia’s homeland. China is the only potential foe that could warrant such an investment.
While consensus for a hardline response to China is less firm in Canberra than in Tokyo or Manila, China’s decision to punish Australia with economic penalties such as tariffs targeting wine and a series of dangerous incidents at sea have established a view of Chinese power as a clear threat.
In his Shangri-La intervention, Australian defence minister Richard Marles noted that “the Australian Navy has also experienced recent unsafe and unprofessional behaviour” by PRC forces, highlighting two events in the East China Sea. In the first, a Chinese warship harmed Australian divers by blasting active sonar in their vicinity. The Chinese government officially denied the act, but PRC officials also explained to the media that such things are bound to happen if Australia “provocatively” operates “near” China. The second event happened last month when a Chinese jet put fired flares in the path of an Australian helicopter. China’s national spokesman explained this happened because the chopper “deliberately approached China’s airspace”. PRC forces operating far from China have also behaved similarly. In 2022, a Chinese navy ship aimed a blinding laser at an Australian patrol aircraft during operations south of Indonesia.
Southeast Asian national strategies to handle the emergence of China as the most influential power in the region vary widely. However, no state’s interests are served by any power becoming clearly predominant. Without a counterbalance, such a power would possess too much opportunity to interfere in national affairs or set the terms for engagement.
Of course, this military balancing is not without its drawbacks. Unlike strategists in Tokyo and Manila, some Southeast Asian leaders prefer flexible responses that include elements of appeasement as they see these as offering more benefit in terms of their near-term relations with China. Furthermore, arms races divert state resources from development goals. If conflict were to break out, more weapons may mean more destruction. Yet, the situation has long been such that any open conflict would be absolutely devastating.
In an ideal world, China would stop mistreating its neighbours and the major powers would tone down competition in favour of cooperation. However, no one has proposed a reasonable route to détente, and wishful thinking is not going to bring us to a fairyland solution.
In the real world, Tokyo and Manila are closing ranks because they believe their attempts at accommodation were met with malice. Thus, they have decided to double down on deterrence. Those efforts will contribute to a more balanced regional situation. They may not be a dreamy solution, but they will ultimately benefit Southeast Asia better than other options.
COMMENT – Worth reading this commentary in full… for all the hyperventilation about increased tensions, the best way to achieve stability and peace is for countries in the region to take their security seriously, band together in collective security arrangements, and invite powers like the United States and countries in Europe to support them against an aggressive PRC.
This is how deterrence works. Oftentimes, friction is the price of peace.
88. Tariffs Are More Than Just Taxes. They Are a Tool of Geopolitics.
Greg Ip, Wall Street Journal, May 30, 2024
89. Want to stop a third world war? Pick up the phone
The Economist, May 30, 2024
90. Why Is Xi Not Fixing China’s Economy?
Scott Kennedy, Foreign Policy, June 3, 2024
91. To Beat China, US Should Stop Acting Like China
Minxin Pei, Bloomberg, May 30, 2024
92. How to Respond to China's Tactics in the South China Sea
Derek Grossman, RAND, June 3, 2024
93. Growing China-Russia alignment signifies Biden policy failure
Brahma Chellaney, Nikkei Asia, May 31, 2024
94. China's Investment Trap
Chen Guangcheng, Newsweek, May 30, 2024
95. Britain Leading Fight against Axis of Authoritarian States
Taras Kuzio, Geopolitical Monitor, May 29, 2024
96. Happy fun Cold War 2 update
Noah Smith, Noahpinion, May 29, 2024
97. The AfD and China’s Marriage of Convenience
Marcus Andreopoulos, Geopolitical Monitor, May 30, 2024
98. There is currency stress on the horizon
Gillian Tett, Financial Times, May 30, 2024