China's "Anti-Secession" Law has created a strong public reaction in Taiwan and unease throughout the international community. Apart from deceptive language dealing with United Front warfare, the ambiguity of "non-peaceful means and other necessary measures" gives the Chinese authorities too much room for interpretation and could mean war.
War is of course a straightforward application of non-peaceful means, but "non-peaceful means and other necessary measures" is in fact a metaphor for the unlimited warfare that China has been promoting.
The book Unlimited Warfare published in 1999 by the People's Liberation Army divides unlimited warfare into three types -- military, super-military and non-military. The three categories include more than 20 specific kinds of warfare, but China has also in recent years studied and developed terror warfare, electronic warfare and Internet warfare, media warfare and economic and commercial strategies.
Meanwhile, Chinese military researchers have suggested that Taiwan be beaten to a pulp and then rebuilt, shameless Taiwanese politicians have been sympathetic to Chinese propaganda and hacker attacks have become part of the daily routine.
The Anti-Secession Law is not only a blank check for China to wage war, it also provides a "legal basis" for doing so, making the law a Damocles Sword that hangs over the heads of Taiwanese.
It has had a direct effect on President Chen Shui-bian's (
Chen's concessions were an expression of goodwill to both the pan-blue camp and China, and incited anger among parts of the pan-green camp who felt that Chen betrayed them.
China, however, saw Chen's conduct as weak, so it took a foot instead of the inch he gave, just as it did after the DPP failed to win a majority in December's legislative elections, declaring that it would pass the Anti-Secession Law.
Chen has no way of escaping China's mounting pressure. He has no choice but to fight. At the very least, a follow-up to the Lunar New Year cross-strait flights will be put on the back burner. Calls for Taiwan to distance itself from China are growing louder. Even if pan-blue camp politicians are forced by Chinese pressure to choose between Taiwan and China, would they -- with the exception of a few shameless individuals -- dare to publicly make such a choice?
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) had already planned a trip to Beijing to initiate cooperation with the Chinese Communist Party, but I wonder if it will dare defy public opinion and go through with that plan.
As with the protest on the anniversary of the March 19 assassination attempt on Chen and Vice President Annette Lu (
Taiwan's government must take action to restrict the effects of the law. This could mean enacting legislation, amending the Constitution, holding a referendum or speeding up the review of the arms-procurement bill.
China-friendly legislators are also under pressure to revise their stance. On March 4, the legislature passed a resolution demanding that Beijing reconsider its position and stressing that the Republic of China is a sovereign and independent country. It said that any unilateral action changing the cross-strait status quo or belittling Taiwan's sovereignty would be against the wishes of the Taiwanese people and the international community.
Several years of fighting between the government and the opposition have made unity and harmony a rare thing, and it appears we have China to thank for it. Now that calls for unity have gone unheeded and that China is doing as it pleases, we have to wait and see what the legislature's next move will be.
However, if the reaction to the law is properly handled, it would offer a good opportunity for cooperation between the government and the opposition, and would be a touchstone for who cares for this country and who doesn't.
Paul Lin is a commentator based in New York.
Translated by Perry Svensson
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump last week announced plans to impose reciprocal tariffs on eight countries. As Taiwan, a key hub for semiconductor manufacturing, is among them, the policy would significantly affect the country. In response, Minister of Economic Affairs J.W. Kuo (郭智輝) dispatched two officials to the US for negotiations, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s (TSMC) board of directors convened its first-ever meeting in the US. Those developments highlight how the US’ unstable trade policies are posing a growing threat to Taiwan. Can the US truly gain an advantage in chip manufacturing by reversing trade liberalization? Is it realistic to
The US Department of State has removed the phrase “we do not support Taiwan independence” in its updated Taiwan-US relations fact sheet, which instead iterates that “we expect cross-strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means, free from coercion, in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of the Strait.” This shows a tougher stance rejecting China’s false claims of sovereignty over Taiwan. Since switching formal diplomatic recognition from the Republic of China to the People’s Republic of China in 1979, the US government has continually indicated that it “does not support Taiwan independence.” The phrase was removed in 2022
US President Donald Trump, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth have each given their thoughts on Russia’s war with Ukraine. There are a few proponents of US skepticism in Taiwan taking advantage of developments to write articles claiming that the US would arbitrarily abandon Ukraine. The reality is that when one understands Trump’s negotiating habits, one sees that he brings up all variables of a situation prior to discussion, using broad negotiations to take charge. As for his ultimate goals and the aces up his sleeve, he wants to keep things vague for
RSS