March 14 marked the second anniversary of the passage of China's "Anti-Secession" Law. Over the past two years, the effect it has produced, or lack thereof, could be described as its own "four noes and one without."
First, it has no legal force in Taiwan. The People's Republic of China (PRC) has never controlled or had jurisdiction over Taiwan, so Beijing has no right to promulgate laws for Taiwan.
Second, it has no power to scare Taiwan. After the "Anti-Secession" Law was passed, some newspaper surveys indicated that the number of people advocating Taiwanese independence rose by 27 percent. In the face of such a vile law, the Taiwanese people have a clearer idea of which direction they want to choose.
Third, it has no constructive effect on cross-strait relations. China has always emphasized the need for direct links and to increase cross-strait contact. But a law that treats Taiwan as its enemy only increases cross-strait hostility.
Fourth, it has no acceptance in the international community. At the end of 2005, the Government Information Office commissioned Gallup to sample the attitudes of leaders and citizens in the US, Japan, Britain, France and Germany. The results showed that 75 percent were opposed to the law, 80 percent supported Taiwan's entry into the WHO and more than 60 percent believed Taiwan was a sovereign and independent country.
The one "without" is that the law is without any legitimacy. Today's China still lacks democratic elections and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) relies on purges to continue its rule, yet it still feels it can pass laws against democratic Taiwan and strip its people of their rights. This contradiction takes away any legitimacy it may have. The acceptance of using military force against Taiwan that lies at the law's core is an example of violent thinking that is at odds with global trends.
As the anniversary of the law approached, President Chen Shui-bian (
Last year at a symposium in Taipei, Soochow University professor Lo Chih-cheng (
Whether or not China uses force against Taiwan will of course first be decided by China's domestic economic and political situation, and secondly by the attitude of Taiwan's leaders. The weaker you appear, the more room dictators allow themselves to dream.
When People First Party Chairman James Soong (
Popular opinion in Taiwan has also played more of a role in deciding the attitude and policies Beijing adopts in dealing with Taiwan. If the legislature continues to be led by the pan-blue alliance, then Beijing will continue to hope. If the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) loses next year's election, Beijing will be even more confident.
On the surface, Taiwan's position in the international community to a large extent is determined by the attitudes of China and the US. But in reality, the Taiwanese are the masters of their own fate. If pro-independence voices can gain a majority in the legislature and hold on to the presidency next year, then the DPP can arbitrate with the US, challenge China and do battle with the KMT with full confidence that it is right. The ineffectiveness of the "Anti-Secession" Law at least proves this much.
Cao Changqing is a writer based in the US.
Translated by Marc Langer
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