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.
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
RSS