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
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
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
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
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS