It has now been two years since China passed its "Anti-Secession" Law. It is worth taking a look back to investigate whether cross-strait relations during that time have moved in the direction of positive development, or if China and Taiwan are gradually drifting further apart.
In a recent survey, Taiwan Thinktank found that 73.9 percent of Taiwanese believe that China's enactment of the law constitutes a hostile intent toward Taiwan's government and people. In addition, 80 percent believe the law does not serve the interests of Taiwanese.
In addition to being designed to satisfy China's internal pressures and needs, the law was intended to give China the upper hand in cross-strait relations. Beijing officials hoped the law would divide the Taiwanese population, strengthen the legitimacy of military action, make its policies toward Taiwan appear more palatable and weaken Taiwan's position.
However, judging by the results of the survey, China not only failed to achieve those goals but even engendered the opposite by hardening cross-strait opposition.
The survey shows that 80 percent of Taiwanese do not accept the view that Taiwan must necessarily unify with China, as the law stipulates. In addition, 67 percent do not approve of China's strategy of only having contacts with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) while snubbing the nation's elected government.
Beijing's attempt to use legalese to divide Taiwanese has had the opposite effect of consolidating opposition to Beijing's views. And in terms of lending legitimacy to the use of force against Taiwan, 90 percent of respondents do not agree with the law's advocacy of "non-peaceful means" to resolve the cross-strait issue.
The survey shows that almost 79 percent of Taiwanese believe their country's future should be decided by the Taiwanese themselves, whereas only 15 percent advocate a decision in conjunction with the Chinese.
Eighty-two percent, meanwhile, believe that China has no right to interfere in Taiwan's internal affairs. Furthermore, an increasing number of Taiwanese -- almost 77 percent -- approve joining the UN under the name Taiwan.
This survey proves that Beijing's policy of winning the hearts and minds is failing.
Lo Chih-cheng is the director of the political science department at Soochow University.
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
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
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS