On Wednesday, Zhang Mingqing (
It is generally observed that China has managed to maintain "unprecedented calm" -- in comparison to its typical behavior -- in the face of the March election and the controversies surrounding the referendum legislation (which all agree will have a decisive impact on the outcome of the election).
Perhaps China has finally realized after multiple experiments that whomever it has lashed out against has ended up winning brownie points from Taiwanese voters. However, with the popular support of President Chen Shui-bian (
Last Tuesday, Wang Daohan (
These two officials seemingly read from the same script.
Wang Daohan, who is typically considered more dovish when it comes to Taiwan, played the "good cop," while Wang Zaixi, perhaps due to his military background, played the "bad cop."
Wang Daohan first indicated respect for the democratic spirit underlying enactment of a national referendum law, but accused Taiwan of pushing for independence through the passage of the referendum bill, which would give a legal basis to a declaration of "Taiwan independence," pushing Taiwan toward a "dangerous edge."
Wang Zaixi spoke in a highly coercive tone, indicating that if Taiwan openly declared independence, then China's line would be crossed and the "use of force is inevitable."
They did not say if China considers a referendum law equivalent to "Taiwan independence." But Zhang Mingqing's statement on Wednesday offers the answer to this question. According to Zhang, if a referendum law is enacted "without any restrictions" on the issues of the national flag, name and territory, China will "react strongly." As for what kind of "strong reactions" he was referring to, Zhang said "[we'll] know in a few days."
However, he also commented that there was no basis to the rumor that former president Jiang Zemin (
Based on Zhang's talk, it is obvious that China equates changing the national flag, name and territory through national referendums as "Taiwan independence," and as actions that would cross its line.
But because a referendum law by itself does not rise to that standard, and because China realizes that passage of a referendum law is inevitable, it had to attempt to more clearly delineate its so-called "line."
This attempt was of course laughable, because self-determination is a universally accepted human right, and China has no right to interfere with the rights of Taiwanese people.
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic