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
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
RSS