The Standing Committee of China's National People's Congress has begun discussing anti-secession legislation. This move has caused concern in parts of Taiwan's society and shows that Taiwan must strengthen its psychological defenses and self-recognition. China's hegemonic attitudes and ambition to annex Taiwan must be condemned.
From a legal perspective, the "anti-secession law" is but a domestic Chinese law. If Taiwan considers itself a country (leaving the discussion of national title aside), the relationship between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait is international in nature, which means that international law should apply and that Chinese domestic legislation is not binding on Taiwan.
The Chinese Constitution has long included an article defining Taiwan as being part of China's "sacred territory." But when was this article ever valid? Since Taiwan sees itself as an independent state, it is not part of China. So what does it matter to Taiwan if China passes an anti-secession law?
One important benchmark for national independence is that no other state holds jurisdiction in that state. This being so, no law passed by China has any power in Taiwan.
A case in point is China's inclusion of the Diaoyutai islands in its territory in the Law on China's Territorial Waters and Their Contiguous Areas in 1992. It has no legal effect in Japan, and is merely a political statement aimed at Japan.
China has stated that the anti-secession law is a special law aimed specifically at Taiwanese independence. Not only does it not apply to Hong Kong or Macau, it doesn't apply to separatist activities in Tibet or Xinjiang either, and this is in fact quite illogical. The use of an "anti-secession law" instead of a "unification law" in fact excludes the East-West Germany, North-South Korea and EU models as well as the confederation, federation and commonwealth models, and uses legislation to state clearly that China is unified.
A "unification law," at least in name, recognizes that the two sides are separately ruled, but predefines unification of the two as the only future option. An "anti-secession law," however, does not comply with the current status since it defines the two parties as domestic, and it makes China the definer, lawmaker, judge and executor.
From the proposal for a unification law to the initiation of the anti-secession law, the pressure on Taiwan has increased. The anti-secession law defines the current status as both sides of the Taiwan Strait being one entity, and attempts to give the outside world the impression, wrongly, that China is the keeper of the cross-strait status quo.
However, the two sides of the Taiwan Strait have long been separated. Why else would there be a need to discuss unification? If it was a matter of civil war, there would only be the problem of who the ruler would be, and no problem regarding unification.
China's unreasonable declaration that Taiwan is a part of it is the same as Iraq's legislation making Kuwait its 18th province. As far as the cross-strait situation goes, this is definitely a matter of unilaterally changing the status quo, and a serious provocation.
China is attempting to manifest its determination to block Taiwan's independence by adopting an anti-secession law, and is also making the mistake of believing that such a law is an important deterrent to US intervention in the cross-strait issue. The result, however, may be similar to the result of China's Taiwan policy white paper published in February 2000, which instead reversed Taiwan's strategic disadvantage in the triangular Taiwan-US-China relationship.
The US is demanding that Taiwan not change the status quo, and has even said that Taiwan is not a sovereign state, that the two sides of the Strait should be peacefully unified, that the US has no duty to defend Taiwan and that Taiwan is part of China.
It has used this to apply pressure on Taiwan. The anti-secession law might, however, lead to US concerns that China may use military force against Taiwan. Because the US is opposed to the use of military force by China to resolve the Taiwan issue, and because it hopes a solution to the cross-strait issue can be approved by the people of Taiwan, Taiwan should make good use of this opportunity and launch an intense effort to explain to the US government, and academic circles, that the anti-secession law may change the status quo in the Taiwan Strait. It should also rebuild mutual trust between Taiwan and the US to change the strategically disadvantageous situation in which it has found itself over the past two years.
It is worth noticing that we absolutely must not bow to China's threats and coercion, because that would encourage China to take military action even sooner. China is not a country ruled by law, and a Chinese decision to take military action is related to its military strength, not to whether Taiwan crosses the line.
The only way for Taiwan to avoid a war across the Taiwan Strait is to strengthen its national and psychological defenses to make China understand that the cost of war would be too high, instead of fearing attack.
It must be remembered that the enemy is most afraid of that which they are doing their utmost to prohibit us from doing.
Translated by Perry Svensson
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