logo
China is at a 'rapid boil' in its preparations for a military attack on Taiwan, US admiral warns

China is at a 'rapid boil' in its preparations for a military attack on Taiwan, US admiral warns

Daily Mail​07-05-2025

China are hastily escalating preparations for a military attact on Taiwan, a top US commander has warned.
Admiral Samuel Paparo, who heads up the US Indo-Pacific Command, said his forces had noticed a 'quick change' in the manoeuvres of the People's Liberation Army (PLA).
Chinese forces have continued to hold naval drills around the island following a major 'live fire' drill last month, prompting fears of a full-scale assault on the territory.
Admiral Paparo has now warned that Beijing 's military escalation show they are ready to become a 'global force'.
He told a conference last week: 'You know the metaphor of boiling the frog. Well, it's a rapid boil. We notice quick change.
'I think the rates of change on the depth and breadth of their exercises is the one nonlinear effect that I've seen in the last year that wakes me up at night, that keeps me up at night.'
It is understood that President Xi Jinping has requested the military be prepared for an invasion of Taiwan by 2027.
In 2005 Beijing imposed an 'anti-secession' law, promising an annexation of Taiwan if it declares formal independence or is seen moving further away from mainland control.
Admiral Paparo suggested that recent Chinese drills were done in 'earnest' and represented the 'entire range of military operations, providing every option that they would want.'
'There are certain conditions where they might affect an invasion or some kind of coercive behavior before they believe they're fully ready,' he added.
Last month's exercises, called 'Strait Thunder 2025A', saw the PLA rehearsing the bombing of ports and energy facilities.
In one propaganda video, a PLA official says: 'If Taiwan loses its maritime supply lines, its domestic resources will quickly be depleted, social order will fall into chaos and people's livelihoods will be severely impacted.'
The commander's warnings were echoed by General Ronald P Clark, the newly appointed Commanding General of US Army Pacific,, who said Beijing's action in the South China Sea had left him and fellow officers 'speechless'.
'These are extraordinary times,' he told the Wall Street Journal.
'To think that you could execute a mission like that over a contested space that's roughly 80 nautical miles - it would be a challenge.
'We just have to make sure that they understand that our efforts to deter that type of activity is exactly what we're willing to do.'
The US has committed to defending Taiwan's sovereignty, with a Pentagon strategy document leaked in April stating that preventing 'a Chinese seizure of Taiwan' is Washington's most important military task.
Admiral Paparo also warned that China were expanding their military reach beyond the Taiwan Strait - as far as Australia and New Zealand.
Ships seen circumnavigating Australia earlier this year were akin to the military 'stretching their legs,' he said.
'They're becoming a global force bit by bit,' he added.
Asked about the balance of power between the US and China, Admiral Paparo said he is convinced that Washington would prevail in a war, based on American military advantages in submarine warfare and counterspace and the ability to strike Chinese forces 'from the surface to the Karman line,' a zone 62 miles above Earth.
However, the trend for matching forces against the PLA is 'a bad trajectory.'
He said China is producing two submarines a year versus 1.4 for the United States and six warships for every 1.8 U.S. naval combatant.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Key US-China trade talks set for Monday in London
Key US-China trade talks set for Monday in London

Reuters

timean hour ago

  • Reuters

Key US-China trade talks set for Monday in London

LONDON, June 9 (Reuters) - Top U.S. and Chinese officials will sit down in London on Monday for talks aimed at defusing the high-stakes trade dispute between the two superpowers that has widened in recent weeks beyond tit-for-tat tariffs to export controls over goods and components critical to global supply chains. At a still-undisclosed venue in London, the two sides will try to get back on track with a preliminary agreement struck last month in Geneva that had briefly lowered the temperature between Washington and Beijing and fostered relief among investors battered for months by U.S. President Donald Trump's cascade of tariff orders since his return to the White House in January. "The next round of trade talks between the U.S. and China will be held in the UK on Monday," a UK government spokesperson said on Sunday. "We are a nation that champions free trade and have always been clear that a trade war is in nobody's interests, so we welcome these talks." Gathering there will be a U.S. delegation led by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, and a Chinese contingent helmed by Vice Premier He Lifeng. The second-round of meetings comes four days after Trump and Chinese leader Xi Jinping spoke by phone, their first direct interaction since Trump's January 20 inauguration. During the more than one-hour-long call, Xi told Trump to back down from trade measures that roiled the global economy and warned him against threatening steps on Taiwan, according to a Chinese government summary. But Trump said on social media the talks focused primarily on trade led to "a very positive conclusion," setting the stage for Monday's meeting in London. The next day, Trump said Xi had agreed to resume shipments to the U.S. of rare earths minerals and magnets. China's decision in April to suspend exports of a wide range of critical minerals and magnets upended the supply chains central to automakers, aerospace manufacturers, semiconductor companies and military contractors around the world. That had become a particular pain point for the U.S. in the weeks after the two sides had struck a preliminary rapprochement in talks held in Switzerland. There, both had agreed to reduce steep import taxes on each other's goods that had had the effect of erecting a trade embargo between the world's No. 1 and 2 economies, but U.S. officials in recent weeks accused China of slow-walking on its commitments, particularly around rare earths shipments. "We want China and the United States to continue moving forward with the agreement that was struck in Geneva," White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt told the Fox News program "Sunday Morning Futures' on Sunday. "The administration has been monitoring China's compliance with the deal, and we hope that this will move forward to have more comprehensive trade talks." The inclusion at the London talks of Lutnick, whose agency oversees export controls for the U.S., is one indication of how central the issue has become for both sides. Lutnick did not attend the Geneva talks, at which the countries struck a 90-day deal to roll back some of the triple-digit tariffs they had placed on each other since Trump's inauguration. That preliminary deal sparked a global relief rally in stock markets, and U.S. indexes that had been in or near bear market levels have recouped the lion's share of their losses. The S&P 500 Index (.SPX), opens new tab, which at its lowest point in early April was down nearly 18% after Trump unveiled his sweeping "Liberation Day" tariffs on goods from across the globe, is now only about 2% below its record high from mid-February. The final third of that rally followed the U.S.-China truce struck in Geneva. Still, that temporary deal did not address broader concerns that strain the bilateral relationship, from the illicit fentanyl trade to the status of democratically governed Taiwan and U.S. complaints about China's state-dominated, export-driven economic model. While the UK government will provide a venue for Monday's discussions, it will not be party to them but will have separate talks later in the week with the Chinese delegation.

Indira Gandhi: The forgotten story of India's brush with presidential rule
Indira Gandhi: The forgotten story of India's brush with presidential rule

BBC News

time3 hours ago

  • BBC News

Indira Gandhi: The forgotten story of India's brush with presidential rule

During the mid-1970s, under Prime Minister Indira Gandhi's imposition of the Emergency, India entered a period where civil liberties were suspended and much of the political opposition was jailed. Behind this authoritarian curtain, her Congress party government quietly began reimagining the country - not as a democracy rooted in checks and balances, but as a centralised state governed by command and control, historian Srinath Raghavan reveals in his new Indira Gandhi and the Years That Transformed India, Prof Raghavan shows how Gandhi's top bureaucrats and party loyalists began pushing for a presidential system - one that would centralise executive power, sideline an "obstructionist" judiciary and reduce parliament to a symbolic in part by Charles de Gaulle's France, the push for a stronger presidency in India reflected a clear ambition to move beyond the constraints of parliamentary democracy - even if it never fully materialised. It all began, writes Prof Raghavan, in September 1975, when BK Nehru, a seasoned diplomat and a close aide of Gandhi, wrote a letter hailing the Emergency as a "tour de force of immense courage and power produced by popular support" and urged Gandhi to seize the moment. Parliamentary democracy had "not been able to provide the answer to our needs", Nehru wrote. In this system the executive was continuously dependent on the support of an elected legislature "which is looking for popularity and stops any unpleasant measure".What India needed, Nehru said, was a directly elected president - freed from parliamentary dependence and capable of taking "tough, unpleasant and unpopular decisions" in the national interest, Prof Raghavan model he pointed to was de Gaulle's France - concentrating power in a strong presidency. Nehru imagined a single, seven-year presidential term, proportional representation in Parliament and state legislatures, a judiciary with curtailed powers and a press reined in by strict libel laws. He even proposed stripping fundamental rights - right to equality or freedom of speech, for example - of their urged Indira Gandhi to "make these fundamental changes in the Constitution now when you have two-thirds majority". His ideas were "received with rapture" by the prime minister's secretary PN Dhar. Gandhi then gave Nehru approval to discuss these ideas with her party leaders but said "very clearly and emphatically" that he should not convey the impression that they had the stamp of her approval. Prof Raghavan writes that the ideas met with enthusiastic support from senior Congress leaders like Jagjivan Ram and foreign minister Swaran Singh. The chief minister of Haryana state was blunt: "Get rid of this election nonsense. If you ask me just make our sister [Indira Gandhi] President for life and there's no need to do anything else". M Karunanidhi of Tamil Nadu – one of two non-Congress chief ministers consulted - was Nehru reported back to Gandhi, she remained non-committal, Prof Raghavan writes. She instructed her closest aides to explore the proposals further. What emerged was a document titled "A Fresh Look at Our Constitution: Some suggestions", drafted in secrecy and circulated among trusted advisors. It proposed a president with powers greater than even their American counterpart, including control over judicial appointments and legislation. A new "Superior Council of Judiciary", chaired by the president, would interpret "laws and the Constitution" - effectively neutering the Supreme sent this document to Dhar, who recognised it "twisted the Constitution in an ambiguously authoritarian direction". Congress president DK Barooah tested the waters by publicly calling for a "thorough re-examination" of the Constitution at the party's 1975 annual idea never fully crystallised into a formal proposal. But its shadow loomed over the Forty-second Amendment Act, passed in 1976, which expanded Parliament's powers, limited judicial review and further centralised executive amendment made striking down laws harder by requiring supermajorities of five or seven judges, and aimed to dilute the Constitution's 'basic structure doctrine' that limited parliament's also handed the federal government sweeping authority to deploy armed forces in states, declare region-specific Emergencies, and extend President's Rule - direct federal rule - from six months to a year. It also put election disputes out of the judiciary's was not yet a presidential system, but it carried its genetic imprint - a powerful executive, marginalised judiciary and weakened checks and balances. The Statesman newspaper warned that "by one sure stroke, the amendment tilts the constitutional balance in favour of the parliament." Meanwhile, Gandhi's loyalists were going all in. Defence minister Bansi Lal urged "lifelong power" for her as prime minister, while Congress members in the northern states of Haryana, Punjab, and Uttar Pradesh unanimously called for a new constituent assembly in October 1976."The prime minister was taken aback. She decided to snub these moves and hasten the passage of the amendment bill in the parliament," writes Prof December 1976, the bill had been passed by both houses of parliament and ratified by 13 state legislatures and signed into law by the Gandhi's shock defeat in 1977, the short-lived Janata Party - a patchwork of anti-Gandhi forces - moved quickly to undo the damage. Through the Forty-third and Forty-fourth Amendments, it rolled back key parts of the Forty Second, scrapping authoritarian provisions and restoring democratic checks and was swept back to power in January 1980, after the Janata Party government collapsed due to internal divisions and leadership struggles. Curiously, two years later, prominent voices in the party again mooted the idea of a presidential 1982, with President Sanjiva Reddy's term ending, Gandhi seriously considered stepping down as prime minister to become president of India. Her principal secretary later revealed she was "very serious" about the move. She was tired of carrying the Congress party on her back and saw the presidency as a way to deliver a "shock treatment to her party, thereby giving it a new stimulus".Ultimately, she backed down. Instead, she elevated Zail Singh, her loyal home minister, to the serious flirtation, India never made the leap to a presidential system. Did Gandhi, a deeply tactical politician, hold herself back ? Or was there no national appetite for radical change and India's parliamentary system proved sticky? There was a hint of presidential drift in the early 1970s, as India's parliamentary democracy - especially after 1967 - grew more competitive and unstable, marked by fragile coalitions, according to Prof Raghavan. Around this time, voices began suggesting that a presidential system might suit India better. The Emergency became the moment when these ideas crystallised into serious political thinking."The aim was to reshape the system in ways that immediately strengthened her hold on power. There was no grand long-term design - most of the lasting consequences of her [Gandhi's] rule were likely unintended," Prof Raghavan told the BBC."During the Emergency, her primary goal was short-term: to shield her office from any challenge. The Forty Second Amendment was crafted to ensure that even the judiciary couldn't stand in her way."The itch for a presidential system within the Congress never quite faded. As late as April 1984, senior minister Vasant Sathe launched a nationwide debate advocating a shift to presidential governance - even while in power. But six months later, Indira Gandhi was assassinated by her Sikh bodyguards in Delhi, and with her, the conversation abruptly died. India stayed a parliamentary democracy.

US attacks on science and research a ‘great gift' to China on artificial intelligence, former OpenAI board member says
US attacks on science and research a ‘great gift' to China on artificial intelligence, former OpenAI board member says

The Guardian

time10 hours ago

  • The Guardian

US attacks on science and research a ‘great gift' to China on artificial intelligence, former OpenAI board member says

The US administration's targeting of academic research and international students is a 'great gift' to China in the race to compete on artificial intelligence, former OpenAI board member Helen Toner has said. The director of strategy at Georgetown's Center for Security and Emerging Technology (CSET) joined the board of OpenAI in 2021 after a career studying AI and the relationship between the United States and China. Toner, a 33-year-old University of Melbourne graduate, was on the board for two years until a falling out with founder Sam Altman in 2023. Altman was fired by the board over claims that he was not 'consistently candid' in his communications and the board did not have confidence in Altman's ability to lead. The chaotic months that followed saw Altman fired and then re-hired with three members of the board, including Toner, ousted instead. They will soon also be the subject of a planned film, with the director of Challengers and Call Me By Your Name, Luca Guadagnino, reportedly in talks to direct. The saga, according to Time magazine – which named her one of the Top 100 most influential people on AI in 2024 – resulted in the Australian having 'the ear of policymakers around the world trying to regulate AI'. At CSET, Toner has a team of 60 people working on AI research for white papers or briefing policymakers focused on the use of AI in the military, workforce, biosecurity and cybersecurity sectors. 'A lot of my work focuses on some combination of AI, safety and security issues, the Chinese AI ecosystem and also what gets called frontier AI,' Toner said. Toner said the United States is concerned about losing the AI race to China and while US chip export controls make it harder for China to get compute power to compete with the US, the country was still making a 'serious push' on AI, as highlighted by the surprise success of Chinese generative AI model DeepSeek earlier this year. The Trump administration's attacks on research and bans on international students are a 'gift' to China in the AI race with the US, Toner said. 'Certainly it's a great gift to [China] the way that the US is currently attacking scientific research, and foreign talent – which is a huge proportion of the USA workforce – is immigrants, many of them coming from China,' she said. Sign up for Guardian Australia's breaking news email 'That is a big … boon to China in terms of competing with the US.' The AI boom has led to claims and concerns about a job wipeout caused by companies using AI to replace work that had otherwise been done by humans. Dario Amodei, the CEO of Anthropic, the company behind the generative AI model Claude, told Axios last week that AI could reduce entry-level white-collar jobs by 50% and result in 20% unemployment in the next five years. Toner said Amodei 'often says things that seem directionally right to me, but in terms of … timeline and numbers often seem quite aggressive' but added that disruption in the jobs market had already started to show. 'The kind of things that [language model-based AI] can do best at the moment … if you can give them a bite-size task – not a really long term project, but something that you might not need ages and ages to do and something where you still need human review,' she said. 'That's a lot of the sort of work that you give to interns or new grads in white-collar industries.' Experts have suggested companies that invested heavily in AI are now being pressed to show the results of that investment. Toner said while the real-world use of AI can generate a lot of value, it is less clear what business models and which players will benefit from that value. Dominant uses might be a mix of different AI services plugged into existing applications – like phone keyboards that can now transcribe voices – as well as stand-alone chatbots, but it's 'up in the air' which type of AI would actually dominate, she said. Sign up to Breaking News Australia Get the most important news as it breaks after newsletter promotion Turner said the push for profitability was less risky than the overall race to be first in AI advancements. 'It means that these companies are all making it up as they go along and figuring out as they go how to make trade-offs between getting products out the door, doing extra testing, putting in extra guardrails, putting in measures that are supposed to make the model more safe but also make it more annoying to use,' she said. 'They're figuring that all out on the fly, and … they're making those decisions while under pressure to go as fast as they can.' Turrner said she was worried about the idea of 'gradual disempowerment to AI' – 'meaning a world where we just gradually hand over more control over different parts of society and the economy and government to AI systems, and then realise a bit too late that it's not going the way that we wanted, but we can't really turn back'. She is most optimistic about AI's use in improving science and drug discovery and for self-driving services like Waymo in reducing fatalities on the roads. 'With AI, you never want to be looking for making the AI perfect, you want it to be better than the alternative. And when it comes to cars, the alternative is thousands of people dying per year. 'If you can improve on that, that's amazing. You're saving many, many people.' Toner joked that her friends had been sending her options on who might play her in the film. 'Any of the names that friends of mine have thrown my way are all these incredibly beautiful actresses,' she said. 'So I'll take any of those, whoever they choose.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store