China’s Taiwan Affairs Office on June 21 issued “judicial guidelines on imposing criminal punishments” for “die-hard” supporters of Taiwanese independence, in collaboration with its Supreme People’s Court, Supreme People’s Procuratorate, Ministry of Public Security, Ministry of State Security and Ministry of Justice. It is based on its “Anti-Secession” Law, the Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and the Criminal Procedure Law of the PRC.
The “guidelines” set out strict conviction and sentencing standards for “Taiwan independence” behavior. This new law is not only another step in China’s expansion, but also shows its extreme stance on the Taiwan issue.
The “guidelines” show that China is intensifying its legal warfare and is trying to suppress Taiwan’s independent voice through “extraterritorial application of domestic criminal jurisdiction.” This move is clearly to weaponize its criminal jurisdiction, aimed at political repression through the legal system.
China has expanded the definition of “the crime of secession” to include initiating and establishing Taiwan independence organizations, planning or formulating relevant action plans, and promoting a referendum or trying to change the legal status of “Taiwan being a part of China.”
In the “guidelines,” China stipulates punishments such as life imprisonment, fixed-term imprisonment of more than 10 years and even the death penalty for people who play major roles in Taiwanese independence activities or those who are heavily involved.
This approach is undoubtedly a blatant challenge to the basic principles of international criminal law, especially the power to arrest, issue arrest warrants and trial in absentia for “persons outside its jurisdiction.”
The definition of “Taiwan independence” in the “guidelines” is very vague — any attempt to create “two Chinas” or “one China, one Taiwan” in the international community, any behavior that “distorts or falsifies the fact that Taiwan is part of China” in any field through their job in education, culture, history or media is considered a crime.
Such a vague legal definition not only provides a legal basis for China’s suppression of Taiwan, but also facilitates the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) attempt to further suppress freedom of speech and political dissent.
However, these behaviors are protected by international human rights laws such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, international law expert Song Cheng-en (宋承恩) said. China’s “guidelines” clearly violate international human rights treaties.
In particular, the prosecution involves Taiwan’s external relations and international cooperation, and might affect foreign nationals. This shows that China intends to further isolate Taiwan through legal means and crack down on any international forces that support Taiwanese independence.
The international community should severely condemn and boycott China’s legal bullying. This kind of legal suppression is a means for the CCP to satisfy the nationalist sentiments within its borders and provides a legal cover for its subsequent military or political actions.
In particular, the CCP’s “trial in absentia,” despite the limited practicality of its implementation, is a high-profile avowal and is intended to deter supporters of Taiwanese independence.
The government should strongly respond to China’s legal provocation, adhere to the basic principles of international law and strengthen cooperation with the international community to form a joint force to resist China’s legal bullying. In particular, the government should emphasize the illegality of the “guidelines” and seek support from international judicial institutions to ensure that the basic rights of Taiwanese are not infringed upon.
The “guidelines,” which are undoubtedly part of China’s policy toward Taiwan all along, aims to further suppress Taiwan’s independent voice through legal means. This legal warfare tactic not only threatens the basic rights of Taiwanese, but also poses a serious obstacle to the peaceful development of cross-strait relations.
The CCP already has general and vague domestic legislation such as the National Security Law and the Counterespionage Law, and now there are “guidelines” against Taiwan. This would not only aggravate tensions between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait, but might also put the safety of Taiwanese and visitors in China under threat.
In particular, the vagueness and ambiguity of these laws provide China a convenient excuse to arbitrarily cook up charges and suppress dissent.
China’s newly promulgated “judicial guidelines on imposing criminal punishments” is undoubtedly legal bullying of Taiwan and its people. These “guidelines” not only violate the basic principles of international law, but also pose a serious threat to the basic rights of Taiwanese. The government should respond sternly and strengthen cooperation with the international community to jointly resist China’s legal bullying and safeguard Taiwan’s democracy, freedom and international status.
Gong Lin-dong is a research fellow who focuses on the Chinese Communist Party.
Translated by Lin Lee-kai
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS