Not surprisingly, China's unilateral attempt to enact the so-called "anti-secession" law backfired for the government, the people of Taiwan and the international community.
Even though the pan-blue camp is keeping a low-profile regarding the legislation, most opinion polls result in an absolute objection to Beijing's unwise move. Suggested scenarios to counteract China's assertion to incorporate "non-peaceful means and other necessary measures to sabotage any hurdles toward reunification" range from mobilizing hundreds of thousand of people to protest to initiating the "defensive referendum" article of the referendum law.
Even the Mainland Affairs Council did not exclude the possibility of postponing or even terminating current policy toward China, including chartered cargo flights negotiations and the ultimate opening of direct links as further retaliation.
International observers also expressed their dissatisfaction over Beijing's disruption of the recent thaw in the cross-strait atmosphere. The Bush administration viewed the legislation as "unhelpful and something that runs counter to recent trends toward a warming in cross-strait relations." Washington has called on Beijing to reconsider the law, and opposed any attempts to unilaterally change the status quo and determine the future of Taiwan by anything other than peaceful means.
It is imperative for the Chen Shui-bian (
While Chen and his government plan to counteract Beijing's change of the status quo -- issuing the People Liberation Army a "blank check" for attacking Taiwan as they wish -- a pressing task is to seize the opportunity by distinguishing Taiwan's peace-driven democracy with China's military-oriented and obstructionist approach to destabilize regional peace and stability.
As the US urged both sides of the Taiwan Strait to "avoid that risk beginning a cycle of reaction and counter-reaction," Taiwan should appeal to the universal values of peace and democracy as the most effective tools to garner international support.
By upholding the principles of democracy and peace, Taiwan may use the case to rebuild its twisted image as "trouble maker" in cross-strait relations. In return, Taipei can take this opportunity to convince the world that what really "separates" China and Taiwan is not the sovereignty but the degree to which democracy can be rooted and consolidated.
The main element contributing to cross-strait uncertainties is China's refusal to renounce the use of "non-peaceful means" to solve the cross-strait dispute, rather than the Taiwanese people's pursuit of democracy and freedom. If a law is passed that clearly defines a `"red line" for using force against Taiwan's independence movement or its hesitation to embrace an ultimate unification, Taiwan should ask for support from the international community, especially the US and Japan, to enhance its security and protect its hard-won democracy.
If over half a million people take to the streets in Taiwan after the NPC passes the law, it will be a manifestation of a collective will to strive for democracy and peace. And the historical meaning would be a lot more significant than the Hong Kong people's protest against Beijing's scheme to revise the Basic Law on July 1, 2003. Let the world witness how a democratic torch can light up the darkest side of China's passage of a bill for war and a disgrace to democracy.
Liu Kuan-teh is a Taipei-based political commentator.
Labubu, an elf-like plush toy with pointy ears and nine serrated teeth, has become a global sensation, worn by celebrities including Rihanna and Dua Lipa. These dolls are sold out in stores from Singapore to London; a human-sized version recently fetched a whopping US$150,000 at an auction in Beijing. With all the social media buzz, it is worth asking if we are witnessing the rise of a new-age collectible, or whether Labubu is a mere fad destined to fade. Investors certainly want to know. Pop Mart International Group Ltd, the Chinese manufacturer behind this trendy toy, has rallied 178 percent
My youngest son attends a university in Taipei. Throughout the past two years, whenever I have brought him his luggage or picked him up for the end of a semester or the start of a break, I have stayed at a hotel near his campus. In doing so, I have noticed a strange phenomenon: The hotel’s TV contained an unusual number of Chinese channels, filled with accents that would make a person feel as if they are in China. It is quite exhausting. A few days ago, while staying in the hotel, I found that of the 50 available TV channels,
Kinmen County’s political geography is provocative in and of itself. A pair of islets running up abreast the Chinese mainland, just 20 minutes by ferry from the Chinese city of Xiamen, Kinmen remains under the Taiwanese government’s control, after China’s failed invasion attempt in 1949. The provocative nature of Kinmen’s existence, along with the Matsu Islands off the coast of China’s Fuzhou City, has led to no shortage of outrageous takes and analyses in foreign media either fearmongering of a Chinese invasion or using these accidents of history to somehow understand Taiwan. Every few months a foreign reporter goes to
There is no such thing as a “silicon shield.” This trope has gained traction in the world of Taiwanese news, likely with the best intentions. Anything that breaks the China-controlled narrative that Taiwan is doomed to be conquered is welcome, but after observing its rise in recent months, I now believe that the “silicon shield” is a myth — one that is ultimately working against Taiwan. The basic silicon shield idea is that the world, particularly the US, would rush to defend Taiwan against a Chinese invasion because they do not want Beijing to seize the nation’s vital and unique chip industry. However,
RSS