A theory has emerged in discussion on cross-strait relations, which claims that the whole problem has nothing to do with China and is really all President Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁) fault.
Advocates of this theory say that the result of the recent legislative elections, in which the pan-blue camp held on to its majority, was a great relief to both the US and China, for the pan-blue camp was seen as a balancing force in the legislature, preventing the pan-green camp from going too far with calls for changing the national title and constitutional re-engineering. Looked at in this light, it would not be far-fetched to say that the pan-blue camp's ability to hold on to its majority was the result of international pressure.
But the pan-blue camp's so-called victory was shown to be totally hollow when People First Party (PFP) Chairman James Soong (
That's why Taiwan should protect itself on the legal front and pass an "anti-annexation law," which should, on the premise that Taiwan is a sovereign and independent nation, concern itself with any action that seeks to infringe on or reduce its current level of sovereignty. For example, the legislature should establish a system of levels of military threat, so that if the number of missiles targeting Taiwan exceeds a certain level, or if China uses some other method to strike Taiwan militarily, then this would trigger a red alert for annexation, and would immediately activate measures outlined in the "anti-annexation law."
A threat to Taiwan's sovereignty might not necessarily take a military form, for there is also the problem of Taiwan's isolation and marginalization on the international scene. As Beijing is poaching Taiwan's diplomatic allies, the "anti-annexation law" should provide for a minimum threshold of allies. If the number of allies falls below the threshold, then Taiwan's freedom to participate in international organizations and maneuver on the international stage will have reached a point so compromised that the provisions of the "anti-annexation law" should be activated.
Drawing red lines that others cannot cross should not be the preserve of the Americans and the Chinese. They should not always be the ones holding us by the throat and telling us that we are making trouble. Taiwan should also draw its own red line beyond which its survival is threatened. When this red line is crossed, then Taiwan is in danger of being annexed, and as a nation, it should use every method at its disposal to protect itself.
As to the actual provisions that would come into force as part of this law, these would have three levels. First would be persuasion. A legislative process would take effect and legislators would establish that the red line for Taiwan's survival had indeed been crossed and we would seek international recognition of this fact. On the legal front, we need to expand the provisions for a defensive referendum under the Referendum Law as a public defense mechanism against annexation. The third level is psychological preparation of the public: a social, economic and cultural early-warning system. Through the provision of information serving as the foundation of a social education program, the public will become increasingly aware of any changes to the status of Taiwan's sovereignty.
An "anti-annexation law" would transcend the issue of unification or independence, for its premise would be that Taiwan is currently a sovereign nation, and whether it eventually unifies with China is not something with which it would be concerned. The main purpose of the law would be the preservation of Taiwan's current sovereign status, so that the international community does not fall victim to the misconception that Taiwan is in any way seeking to change the status quo or forget the fact that Beijing is pushing forward relentlessly to counterbalance the passive role that Taiwan plays within the scope of the US Taiwan Relations Act.
This is the first challenge that must be faced by the new legislature in which the pan-green camp does not have a majority. It is not a question of which party has the right to form a government, nor how the positions of premier and vice premier will be allocated, but simply a question of how a new legislature, representing recent public opinion, is going to protect Taiwan's sovereignty.
The question is what kind of "anti-annexation law" we need in order to counter Beijing's use of the law as a means of annexing Taiwan. This is something that the pan-blue camp also needs to respond to as a matter of urgency. The pan-blue camp's tactics of frightening the public into believing there would be a war if the pan-green camp won a legislative majority were fine as a campaign strategy. But now that Taiwan is faced with the pressure that China can bring to bear through its anti-secession law, the pan-blue camp and its leaders must make their position clear about whether they think it is necessary to protect Taiwan's sovereignty. If this is not made clear, fighting over who gets to form a government is simply meaningless.
This is really the question the people of Taiwan are concerned about. Whoever can get the work done that is required for responding to the threat of China's anti-secession law will be the main force within the new legislature and will grab the initiative within the new political environment. We must avoid letting the other side make an incorrect judgement and believe that the people of Taiwan are uncertain about Taiwan's identity, and that Taiwan's leaders are hesitant to protect the country's sovereignty.
Hsu Yung-ming is an assistant research fellow at the Sun Yat-sen Institute for Social Sciences and Philosophy at Academia Sinica.
TRANSLATED BY Ian Bartholomew
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS