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
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