The basis for the "Anti-Secession" Law is spelled out in the first sentence of Article 3: "The Taiwan question is one that is left over from China's civil war of the 1940s."
The "Taiwan question" exists only because China's continuing claims on Taiwan culminated in enactment of the law.
To avoid falling into a "chicken and egg, which came first?" argument, let's clarify the matter and change the wording. Article 3 would then read: "China has a claim on Taiwan based on China's civil war of the 1940s."
The problem is that this claim is at least nine years and three presidential elections too late.
In 1996, Taiwanese elected their own government for the first time. Taiwan belonged to Taiwanese people from that point forward.
China's claim seemed to have some legitimacy during the Chinese Nationalist Party's (KMT) iron-fisted rule. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP), the victor of the Chinese civil war, demanded territory held by the KMT, the loser. Under these circumstances, the Anti-Secession Law could have been a legitimate ultimatum.
But the KMT doesn't "hold" Taiwan any more -- even if a KMT member becomes the president. Today, Taiwan and China are indeed two separate countries.
In basing the law on historical intrigue, Beijing seems to be following a script for a Chinese version of Back to the Future.
The first scene saw the KMT dispatch a delegation to Beijing to patch up its differences with the CCP.
That was meant to smooth the way for KMT Chairman Lien Chan (連戰), one of the would-be main characters, to appear in the next scene.
In the second scene, Beijing treats Lien's visit as the surrender of the KMT to the CCP and proceeds to demand that Lien hand over Taiwan.
All signs point to Lien playing along at least partially with the script by conveniently failing to point out that Taiwan in 2005 is a democracy and that the KMT doesn't own it any more.
Instead, Lien tells Beijing's leaders that the government of President Chen Shui-bian (
The obvious implication is that he himself should be the one occupying the presidency and that Beijing is dealing with the right person if China wishes to get Taiwan.
However, at the moment the script diverges from reality, the claim as well as the basis of the Anti-Secession Law become nothing more than fantasy.
Only Lien's penchant for mischief in collaborating with Beijing is perpetuating the fantasy.
Still, Lien's visit to Beijing could paradoxically serve as closure of "China's civil war of the 1940s" and unwittingly help to expose the delusional nature of any further claims by China on Taiwan.
Huang Jei-hsuan
California
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS