The Beijing regime, which practices one-party dictatorship and has absolutely no concept of law and order, had indicated an intention to draft a national unification law right before Taiwan's legislative elections. Recently, it has changed its mind and said it intends to draft an anti-secession law, which may be used as the legal basis for using force against Taiwan.
Presumably, under the law, Taiwan's autonomous acts will fall within the definition of "separatist" or "secession" conduct, and then Beijing will have a ground for "legally" using force or taking other actions against Taiwan. In the past, Beijing has repeatedly rejected requests to renounce using force against Taiwan. Now, China has suddenly discovered that doing so seems to lack any legal basis, and therefore hopes to draft the anti-secession law, so as to justify taking action against Taiwan's moves to protect its own sovereignty.
Taiwan and China -- each a country on either side of the Taiwan Strait -- have followed international law in their interactions and exchanges. The so-called anti-secession law has nothing to do with Taiwan. From the perspective of the Republic of China (ROC), the People's Republic of China (PRC) established in 1949, rather than the ROC established in 1912, was the one guilty of a "separatist" movement.
Taiwan, on the other hand, has absolutely nothing to do with the PRC established in 1949. In fact, under international law, before the San Francisco Peace Treaty came into force in 1952, Taiwan was still part of Japanese territory. Therefore, Taiwan has never been part of the PRC, and the people of Taiwan have never paid a cent in taxes to the Chinese government, while the Chinese government has never held effective rule over Taiwan for even one day.
How can Taiwan possibly be seeking secession or separation from the PRC? Since the two were never one, how can there be any secession issue?
So, even if China enacted the anti-secession law, it would have legal force within the PRC territory only, and have nothing to do with Taiwan. The Chinese Constitution explicitly states that Taiwan is part of the "sacred" territory of the PRC, and that PRC citizens are obligated to ensure national unification.
However, such a purely "illusory" command of the constitution is completely incapable of being implemented in real life. If this is the case with the supreme law of the land, can the so-called anti-secession law be any better? Some people are making comparisons between the Chinese anti-secession law and the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) of the US.
However, this analogy is completely erroneous. The TRA is the basis of part of the US' foreign policy. The goal of the TRA is to protect the human rights of the people of Taiwan and ensure that the future of Taiwan will be determined in a peaceful manner. In comparison, this highlights that the anti-secession law is in reality a law seeking to engulf Taiwan. This kind of invasive and aggressive goal is not only in direct conflict with the aims of the TRA, but is prohibited under the UN Charter.
Reportedly, the target of the anti-secession law is Taiwan's plan to adopt a new constitution through a referendum. The intention is to suppress the independence of Taiwan "legally." Since the anti-secession law opposes Taiwan's adoption of a new constitution, it of course opposes the changing of the country's name or Taiwan's Constitution. The absurd thing is this: to the PRC, the ROC has long since ceased to exist.
Since the ROC no longer exists, why worry about what kind of name it takes? Also, the PRC has always opposed "two Chinas," yet now it is prohibiting Taiwan from changing its official name and the Constitution using Chinese domestic law. Isn't this the equivalent of slapping one's own face and creating "two Chinas?" Isn't this the same as generating "secession" through the anti-secession law?
China's intention in drafting the anti-secession law is none other than to utilize it along with military threats to prevent Taiwan from "changing the status quo" within the Taiwan Strait. Beijing's decision to make public its intention after the legislative elections, regardless of whether there was a deliberate or merely incidental connection, highlights the fact that it is speeding up its effort to consume Taiwan.
It is noteworthy that after the legislative elections, despite the fact the pan-blues managed to hang on to a legislative majority, Beijing nevertheless still intends to push for the anti-secession law. This indicates that Chinese animosity toward Taiwan makes no distinction between the pan-blue and pan-green camps. As for those who think that China is simply attacking the policies of President Chen Shui-bian (
So, both the ruling and the opposition camps must have a very clear sense of who are Taiwan's enemies and foes. Everyone must work together to defend the sovereignty of Taiwan and strengthen the national defense capabilities of Taiwan, as well as demonstrate the determination to protect the sovereignty of this country.
Despite differences in the wordings of their statements, both the ruling and opposition camps in Taiwan have expressed their opposition toward China's drafting of an anti-secession law. This kind of consensus on the core interests of Taiwan is the basis of Taiwan's policies and stances toward the outside world.
The so-called national unification law and anti-secession law are both Chinese plots to oppose independence and push for unification. The goal is to treat the issue of Taiwan as a domestic issue. In view of recent Chinese moves, Taiwan must watch out for Beijing's tricks both on and under the table, especially in the international arena. Special attention must be paid to the international propaganda campaign launched by China for the anti-secession law.
Everyone in Taiwan must stand firmly in line with the interests of Taiwan. Do not waste effort and energy in internal bickering when they are better spent in standing up against China. Taiwan is a democratic country, the people here should decide their own future despite the backdrop of Chinese expansionist ambitions. If China enacts the anti-secession law, it has nothing to do with Taiwan.
Taiwan's sovereignty will not be hampered in anyway. Even more important, the people of Taiwan must express their determination to oppose Chinese aggression in unison.
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