I had the honor to take part in the massive street demonstration on March 26. As someone who is from the People's Republic of China, I stood by my friends in Taiwan's media to send our message to the whole world, protesting against China's passing of the "Anti-Secession" Law. The protesters who flooded into Taipei from across the country clearly showed Taiwan's mainstream opinion.
Beijing originally placed its hope on those pan-blue camp supporters. Never did it expect that the Taiwanese people's reaction to the law would be so strong. It misjudged Taiwan's mainstream opinion again, thereby putting itself at a disadvantage. To avoid humiliation in the face of the massive demonstration, Chinese authorities have employed a dual tactic to influence the expression of Taiwan's public opinion.
On March 25, the Hong Kong-based China News Agency quoted insiders as saying that those drafting and brought in to advise on the law agreed that Article 9, which states that "the state shall do its utmost to protect the lives, property and other legitimate rights and interests of Taiwan civilians and foreign nationals in Taiwan, and to minimize losses," implies a rejection of the use of nuclear weapons by the People's Liberation Army. The report also claimed that Chinese authorities and the military had already reached a consensus on this.
Those who initiate a war always do their best to protect the lives and property of civilians unless they are maniacs. But it is another story when they have no choice. Thus, if China really has to stage a war to save face, is there any action at which it will baulk? In 1989, China killed many civilians during the Tiananmen Square massacre, so why would Taiwan be any different? Are nuclear weapons not included in the so-called "non-peaceful means and other necessary measures" stated in Article 8? In that case, why can't Beijing change it to "non-peaceful means and other necessary measures other than nuclear weapons?"
Besides using deceitful tactics, the Chinese authorities have also used threats. Academics attending the seminar of the China-based Research Center of Cross-Strait Relations held on March 24 lambasted the "March 26 Demonstration for Democracy and Peace," alleging that it was organized by pro-independence forces to tarnish and criticize China's new law.
The acadamics regarded the rallyas provocative behavior and urged Taiwanese people not to join the demonstration. All four deputy directors of the Taiwan Affairs Office showed up at the seminar, a demonstration of China's determination in the face of the protests.
The Anti-Secession Law, tailor-made by Chinese President Hu Jintao (
The media and international human-rights groups in the US, Japan, the UK, Germany, Canada, Australia and other countries also criticized the legislation. The condemnation has surprised China. We can say that this is the greatest failure in China's diplomacy in recent years.
And Hu's troubles are far from over. Last month, when both the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference and the National People's Congress were held, the Beijing authorities coerced Hong Kong chief executive Tung Chee-hwa (董建華) to resign by citing health worries, since Beijing thought that most Hong Kongers would support such a move. Donald Tseng (曾蔭權), is expected to be the sole candidate in the restricted election in July. Unexpectedly, Hong Kong's Basic Law lacks clear stipulations regarding the term of an interim leader. This has led to fierce disputes and shown once again that the Basic Law is open to interpretation by Beijing.
Although Tseng was appointed as Tung's deputy, many pro-China critics regard him as a product of colonialism. They have, therefore, cooperated with some Hong Kong-based business tycoons to find another candidate for the July election in order to block Tseng from becoming a spokesman for some other business consortium. The fact that Hong Kong's political world is now tangled up in bickering is an indication that Hu's authority in the territory is being challenged. The pro-democracy force's "protesting against China; disturbing Hong Kong" and the pro-Beijing force's "supporting China; disturbing Hong Kong" is something that the authorities in Beijing did not expect.
We want to see how Hu will deal with these difficulties. It appears that his drive to collect a million-name petition to prevent Japan from becoming a permanent member of the UN has ignited nationalist sentiment to distract the Chinese people's attention from affairs in Taiwan and China. This could provide some temporary relief.
After 13 years in a subservient position, Hu brooked no delay in wielding his power, but he has allowed things to get totally out of hand. Would the Chinese leadership, which has carried over from the time of former president Jiang Zemin (江澤民), sit by and watch Hu's mistakes without making any response? Although high-ranking officials put on a facade of unity, we can't rule out the possible emergence of a new power struggle in the Chinese Communist Party, as well as possible changes in policies of the Chinese government.
Paul Lin is a political commentator based in New York.
Translated by Eddy Chang and Lin Ya-ti
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
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
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS