China Practicing for Attack?

Practice makes perfect, or so the saying goes….

When it comes to the US Navy SEALs, their philosophy is “We expect to lead and be led. In the absence of orders I will take charge, lead my teammates and accomplish the mission.” Successful interoperability depends on enacting this type of philosophy among our military personnel and units. It permits military the flexibility in selecting the best individual for a task and leads to a high percentage of reports to the Pentagon stamped “mission accomplished.” China may reverse engineer, indigenously design, and own advanced weapons systems, but the People Liberation Army (PLA), its navy, and air force lack the political culture, real-time battle experience, and the know how earned and practiced by America’s military elite. There are, however, differing opinions in Washington about China’s real intentions leading up to next year’s presidential elections in the US and Taiwan.

This week Beijing is attempting to intimidate Taiwan with its “Joint Sword” exercise in response to Taiwan’ President Tsai Ing-wen’s recent US visit and meeting with House Speaker Kevin McCarthy in California. It is the largest rehearsal of a future invasion of Taiwan since the August 2022 PLA exercise practicing the blockade of Taiwan. While Xi Jinping may not have selected what option to use to take back Taiwan, this week’s military exercise sheds light on what China is and is not capable of in the near future, despite its recent provocative behavior. Ely Ratner, assistant secretary of Defense for the Indo-Pacific, at a Thursday event at the Hoover Institution, argued that China won’t invade Taiwan due to the high cost it would incur. He added “Deterrence is real; deterrence is strong.” While admitting that China is the only country with the capability and intent to overthrow the world order, he noted that in the past 12 months the US and America’s allies have had a regional “breakthrough year for alliance and partnerships” in countering PRC military and territorial ambitions.

Japan has increased its military spending and Washington and Manila have signed an agreement to establish four new sites for the deployment of US forces. Ratner also pointed out that Australia, the United Kingdom, and the US have made progress on a technology sharing agreement which will further strengthen cooperation in the region, more co-development, and co-production activities “that make our defense industrial bases more compatible.” At the same time, the US is expanding its regional exercises to increase security and allied cooperation and offset any Chinese military aggressiveness in the Indo-Pacific.

China’s August 2022 exercise tested PLA joint force operations by employing coordinated use of space, cyber, air, army and naval forces and rehearsed firing ballistic missiles in the waters surrounding Taiwan. It served as one element of Beijing’s Taiwan Invasion Strategy joint landing campaign. Some analysts in Washington suggest that China’s aim with these exercises is to ensure it can neutralize Taiwanese ground troops and allied air forces. Other military analysts argue that China still is behind on information dominance and just beginning the real work to integrate an overall invasion strategy and joint logistics.

Xi Jinping may be open to hearing from the Central Military Commission that they are ready to execute the final order to launch an invasion of Taiwan, but the ground truth dictates a different reality. HE will be facing off with joint forces from a number of Asian nations, along with the United States’ military. Ratner says the US and its allies will not be deterred by Xi’s speeches. “We will sail, fly, and operate” in international waters and airspace. He adds that “We’re focused on readiness.” Last year Defense Daily reported that the initiative by the Quad countries, made up of the US, Australia, Japan, and India, is providing flexibility and provides Pacific countries the ability to work together to ensure stability in the region without forcing any to make a choice between the US and China.

The situation between China and Taiwan is more complex than comparing the size of each state’s military. Admittedly, Xi is ramping up the rhetoric and his military’s aggressive behavior, but that doesn’t tell the whole story. China has not faced a shooting war since its short border conflict with Vietnam in 1979. Xi Jinping and the Chinese leadership employ long-term strategic thinking in foreign policy. The work of the Quad and other Asian states over the last year appear to have dulled China’s urge to take imminent military action. Add to this that Russia’s war in Ukraine also has taught China lessons about what happens when a “special military action” becomes prolonged. Beijing’s reaction to Speaker McCarthy’s recent meeting with Taiwan’s president was tame compared to a year ago when then House Speaker Nancy Pelosi visited Taiwan

Hopefully, Xi is considering the events and conclude the cost to take Taiwan through the use of military force is too great a risk.

Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.

Photo: Chinese aircraft carrier training

Quick Analysis

Judge Merchan continues to deny justice to Donald Trump

In August of 2024, we discussed the US Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. United States. We described the three tiered system enunciated by Chief Justice Roberts to determine whether or not the actions taken by the President of the United States are entitled to immunity from criminal prosecution or not. The first tier are acts within the President’s constitutionally mandated authority which are subject to “absolute immunity.” The next are acts that may have “presumptive immunity,” and are subject to examination with evidence that rebuts the presumption of immunity. The third are acts which are unofficial, and which enjoy no immunity. In September, we also discussed the effect this decision should have on the New York County criminal case currently pending against President-elect Trump before Judge Juan Merchan. We cited to a CNN report, which described the evidence used against Donald Trump at the trial of that matter: “Trump’s lawyers pointed to testimony at trial – including from White House officials Hope Hicks and Madeleine Westerhout – they argued should not have come before the jury…'[a]ll of Hicks’s testimony concerning events in 2018, when she was serving as the White House Communications Director, concerned official acts based on [Presidential] authority for which President Trump is entitled to absolute immunity,’ Trump’s attorneys argued. ‘[the Supreme Court’s ruling] specifically forbids prosecutors from offering ‘testimony’ from a President’s ‘advisers’ for the purpose of ‘probing the official act.’” Sure enough, as Chief Justice Roberts stated in the Presidential Immunity decision, “[a]llowing prosecutors to ask or suggest that the jury probe official acts for which the President is immune would thus raise a unique risk that the jurors’ deliberations will be prejudiced by their views of the President’s policies and performance while in office. The prosaic tools on which the Government would have courts rely are an inadequate safeguard against the peculiar constitutional concerns implicated in the prosecution of a former President.” At the time, we stated that “Judge Merchan allowed testimony regarding Donald Trump’s official acts as President, acts which enjoy absolute immunity and which cannot be used against him, or even be entered into evidence in a criminal trial, a situation which could have been avoided had Judge Merchan delayed the trial until he’d received the guidance of the US Supreme Court.” Nonetheless, we predicted that Judge Merchan “will find a way to justify his actions once again, and let stand the unlawful conviction of former President Donald Trump.” You know how much we hate to say we were right…but…we were right. “This Court…finds that the evidence related to the [President-elect’s] claims relate entirely to unofficial conduct and thus, receive no immunity protections,” Judge Merchan wrote in his December 16, 2024 decision. “Further, even if this Court were to deem all of the contested evidence…as official conduct falling within the outer perimeter of Defendant’s Presidential authority, it would still find that the People’s use of these acts as evidence of the decidedly personal acts of falsifying business records poses no danger of intrusion on the authority and function of the Executive Branch, a conclusion amply supported by non-motive-related evidence.” In so ruling, the Court denied Donald Trump’s motion to dismiss his New York County conviction. Let us examine these findings, in light of the evidence admitted at the President-elect’s trial, and then compare that evidence to the acts granted absolute immunity by the US Supreme Court. In his decision, Judge Merchan discusses the testimony of Hope Hicks, who served as the Communications Director for the Trump White House. “Defendant argues that in her roles at the White House, any communications between Ms. Hicks and Defendant must receive absolute immunity…as Defendant’s ability to speak freely to Ms. Hicks was a core function of the Executive. According to Defendant, because Ms. Hicks wielded executive power on his behalf, authority that exists pursuant to Article II of the Constitution, any communications [President Trump] had with [Hicks] are subject to absolute immunity,” the Court wrote. Judge Merchan also noted that “[t]he People argue that the communications Defendant had with Ms. Hicks…constitute unofficial acts not entitled to any level of immunity.” In his inevitable agreement with the arguments presented by Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg’s office, Judge Merchan wrote “Defendant’s argument that any communication he had with Ms. Hicks is subject to absolute immunity by virtue of the position she held in the White House is mistaken…the President himself may speak in his unofficial capacity as a candidate or party leader, and certainly he can do so in his private capacity as well. Any argument that private conduct transforms into official conduct by communicating about the same to an individual with a particular title is without merit.” Thus, it is Judge Merchan’s position that the conversations Donald Trump had with his Communications Director are not entitled to immunity, even though those discussions were held at the White House, while Donald Trump was serving as President of the United States, merely because those discussions were not related to official Executive Branch activities. Sounds possibly reasonable – until you examine the Presidential Immunity decision more closely. In September, we wrote that “the statement made by Chief Justice Roberts in his majority opinion in the Presidential Immunity case [is significant]; ‘Presidents cannot be indicted based on conduct for which they are immune from prosecution…[t]estimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing such conduct may not be admitted as evidence at trial.’” This statement by Chief Justice Roberts points to a blanket immunity for ANY discussions had between the President and his advisors, regardless of the nature of those communications. Further, we noted that the Supreme Court issued the following warning: “[t]he government…contends that a jury could ‘consider’ evidence concerning the President’s official acts ‘for limited and specified purposes,’ and that such evidence would ‘be admissible.’” In rejecting that argument, Chief Justice Roberts states “[t]hat proposal threatens to eviscerate the immunity we have recognized. It would permit a prosecutor to do indirectly what he cannot do directly – invite the jury to examine acts for which a President is immune from prosecution […]