Brian Hioeby Brian Hioe
語言:
English
Photo Credit: Solomon203/WikiCommons/CC BY-SA 4.0
FIVE TAIWANESE COMPANIES have been singled out by Chinese state-run media with allegations that they work together with the military in conducting psychological warfare operations targeting China. This proves a new development, when it comes to the fact that the Chinese government has, in recent times, continuously lashed out at Taiwan with the claim that Taiwan conducts psychological warfare against it. The five companies–EZTrust, LargitData, DiTV, DigiMiracle, and Master Concept–are tech companies that have taken tenders for app and digital tool development from the Chinese government.
Some have taken the view that China is seeking to construct a narrative of Taiwanese aggression against China, so as to justify future action against it. An alternative view is that China is trying to mirror Taiwan’s claims regarding China, in that the Tsai and Lai administrations have criticized China for “cognitive warfare” designed to influence domestic elections in Taiwan.
Either way, such claims from China have become increasingly commonplace. China has also tried to emphasize that there will be consequences for participating in such activities.
Last month, China issued cash rewards for information on eighteen members of what it claims to be members of a “psychological warfare unit”, responsible for tasks such as disseminating propaganda, shoring up the morale of Taiwanese troops, and intelligence gathering. In a similar timeframe, the Chinese government also issued bounties on three lieutenant colonels in the Military Intelligence Bureau, claiming that they ran a propaganda outfit called the “Taiwan Independence Navy.”
Such cash rewards were mostly symbolic, in that they were only 10,000 yuan. And members of Taiwanese military intelligence are already cautious in most cases about travel to China or to countries aligned with China.
This was not the first time that China had issued cash bounties for members of the military. In June, the Chinese government publicized the names and issued bounties for individuals it claimed to be Taiwanese hackers who are members of the Information, Communications, and Electronic Force Command (ICEFCOM), publicizing their national identification numbers. The Chinese government claimed that the hackers were responsible for cyberattacks on a technology company in Guangzhou, which took place as part of a larger series of attacks, according to Chinese authorities. Disclosing private information about members of the military, such as their national identification numbers, is likely aimed at psychological warfare in conveying the perception that the Chinese military has penetrated Taiwan’s computer systems and that resistance is futile.
In issuing bounties for the military, this follows up on the pattern that had previously been seen in which the Chinese government had issued bounties targeting Hong Kong pro-democracy activists and Taiwanese politicians that it had labeled “diehard” pro-independence separatists.
But it proves interesting to observe the Chinese government trying to emphasize the message that Taiwanese companies will face consequences if they work with the Taiwanese military.
This is hardly the first time that China has targeted Taiwanese companies over their political stance. Fines imposed on Far Eastern and Asia Cement over mining violations in 2021 were claimed to be because the companies were “pro-independence,” although the two companies are not in fact known to have such a stance in Taiwan. More prominently, the Chinese government has also enforced bans on Taiwanese agricultural products ranging from pineapples, custard apple, to grouper, as well as iconic Taiwanese snacks as Kuai Kuai and beverages from companies ranging from HeySong to Taihu Brewing. Such bans are carried on the basis of claimed food safety violations, but are probably also intended to send a political message.
It is to be seen if China will continue with measures targeting Taiwanese companies, then. When China has targeted Taiwanese companies in a scattershot manner in the past, even when they are not genuinely pro-independence, this may discourage Taiwanese companies from operating in the Chinese market with the view that they may be arbitrarily targeted irrespective of political stance. If that were to lead to more Taiwanese companies leaving the Chinese market, counter to China’s aims, this would remove a key means by which China seeks to influence Taiwan. Yet even though such moves may be aimed at making Taiwanese companies unwilling to work with the Taiwanese military, at a time when the Taiwanese military has aimed to decouple its supply chains from China, it would be ironic if China inadvertently accelerates this process. This is to be seen.