The Beijing regime, which practices one-party dictatorship and has absolutely no concept of law and order, had indicated an intention to draft a national unification law right before Taiwan's legislative elections. Recently, it has changed its mind and said it intends to draft an anti-secession law, which may be used as the legal basis for using force against Taiwan.
Presumably, under the law, Taiwan's autonomous acts will fall within the definition of "separatist" or "secession" conduct, and then Beijing will have a ground for "legally" using force or taking other actions against Taiwan. In the past, Beijing has repeatedly rejected requests to renounce using force against Taiwan. Now, China has suddenly discovered that doing so seems to lack any legal basis, and therefore hopes to draft the anti-secession law, so as to justify taking action against Taiwan's moves to protect its own sovereignty.
Taiwan and China -- each a country on either side of the Taiwan Strait -- have followed international law in their interactions and exchanges. The so-called anti-secession law has nothing to do with Taiwan. From the perspective of the Republic of China (ROC), the People's Republic of China (PRC) established in 1949, rather than the ROC established in 1912, was the one guilty of a "separatist" movement.
Taiwan, on the other hand, has absolutely nothing to do with the PRC established in 1949. In fact, under international law, before the San Francisco Peace Treaty came into force in 1952, Taiwan was still part of Japanese territory. Therefore, Taiwan has never been part of the PRC, and the people of Taiwan have never paid a cent in taxes to the Chinese government, while the Chinese government has never held effective rule over Taiwan for even one day.
How can Taiwan possibly be seeking secession or separation from the PRC? Since the two were never one, how can there be any secession issue?
So, even if China enacted the anti-secession law, it would have legal force within the PRC territory only, and have nothing to do with Taiwan. The Chinese Constitution explicitly states that Taiwan is part of the "sacred" territory of the PRC, and that PRC citizens are obligated to ensure national unification.
However, such a purely "illusory" command of the constitution is completely incapable of being implemented in real life. If this is the case with the supreme law of the land, can the so-called anti-secession law be any better? Some people are making comparisons between the Chinese anti-secession law and the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) of the US.
However, this analogy is completely erroneous. The TRA is the basis of part of the US' foreign policy. The goal of the TRA is to protect the human rights of the people of Taiwan and ensure that the future of Taiwan will be determined in a peaceful manner. In comparison, this highlights that the anti-secession law is in reality a law seeking to engulf Taiwan. This kind of invasive and aggressive goal is not only in direct conflict with the aims of the TRA, but is prohibited under the UN Charter.
Reportedly, the target of the anti-secession law is Taiwan's plan to adopt a new constitution through a referendum. The intention is to suppress the independence of Taiwan "legally." Since the anti-secession law opposes Taiwan's adoption of a new constitution, it of course opposes the changing of the country's name or Taiwan's Constitution. The absurd thing is this: to the PRC, the ROC has long since ceased to exist.
Since the ROC no longer exists, why worry about what kind of name it takes? Also, the PRC has always opposed "two Chinas," yet now it is prohibiting Taiwan from changing its official name and the Constitution using Chinese domestic law. Isn't this the equivalent of slapping one's own face and creating "two Chinas?" Isn't this the same as generating "secession" through the anti-secession law?
China's intention in drafting the anti-secession law is none other than to utilize it along with military threats to prevent Taiwan from "changing the status quo" within the Taiwan Strait. Beijing's decision to make public its intention after the legislative elections, regardless of whether there was a deliberate or merely incidental connection, highlights the fact that it is speeding up its effort to consume Taiwan.
It is noteworthy that after the legislative elections, despite the fact the pan-blues managed to hang on to a legislative majority, Beijing nevertheless still intends to push for the anti-secession law. This indicates that Chinese animosity toward Taiwan makes no distinction between the pan-blue and pan-green camps. As for those who think that China is simply attacking the policies of President Chen Shui-bian (
So, both the ruling and the opposition camps must have a very clear sense of who are Taiwan's enemies and foes. Everyone must work together to defend the sovereignty of Taiwan and strengthen the national defense capabilities of Taiwan, as well as demonstrate the determination to protect the sovereignty of this country.
Despite differences in the wordings of their statements, both the ruling and opposition camps in Taiwan have expressed their opposition toward China's drafting of an anti-secession law. This kind of consensus on the core interests of Taiwan is the basis of Taiwan's policies and stances toward the outside world.
The so-called national unification law and anti-secession law are both Chinese plots to oppose independence and push for unification. The goal is to treat the issue of Taiwan as a domestic issue. In view of recent Chinese moves, Taiwan must watch out for Beijing's tricks both on and under the table, especially in the international arena. Special attention must be paid to the international propaganda campaign launched by China for the anti-secession law.
Everyone in Taiwan must stand firmly in line with the interests of Taiwan. Do not waste effort and energy in internal bickering when they are better spent in standing up against China. Taiwan is a democratic country, the people here should decide their own future despite the backdrop of Chinese expansionist ambitions. If China enacts the anti-secession law, it has nothing to do with Taiwan.
Taiwan's sovereignty will not be hampered in anyway. Even more important, the people of Taiwan must express their determination to oppose Chinese aggression in unison.
On May 7, 1971, Henry Kissinger planned his first, ultra-secret mission to China and pondered whether it would be better to meet his Chinese interlocutors “in Pakistan where the Pakistanis would tape the meeting — or in China where the Chinese would do the taping.” After a flicker of thought, he decided to have the Chinese do all the tape recording, translating and transcribing. Fortuitously, historians have several thousand pages of verbatim texts of Dr. Kissinger’s negotiations with his Chinese counterparts. Paradoxically, behind the scenes, Chinese stenographers prepared verbatim English language typescripts faster than they could translate and type them
More than 30 years ago when I immigrated to the US, applied for citizenship and took the 100-question civics test, the one part of the naturalization process that left the deepest impression on me was one question on the N-400 form, which asked: “Have you ever been a member of, involved in or in any way associated with any communist or totalitarian party anywhere in the world?” Answering “yes” could lead to the rejection of your application. Some people might try their luck and lie, but if exposed, the consequences could be much worse — a person could be fined,
On May 13, the Legislative Yuan passed an amendment to Article 6 of the Nuclear Reactor Facilities Regulation Act (核子反應器設施管制法) that would extend the life of nuclear reactors from 40 to 60 years, thereby providing a legal basis for the extension or reactivation of nuclear power plants. On May 20, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) legislators used their numerical advantage to pass the TPP caucus’ proposal for a public referendum that would determine whether the Ma-anshan Nuclear Power Plant should resume operations, provided it is deemed safe by the authorities. The Central Election Commission (CEC) has
When China passed its “Anti-Secession” Law in 2005, much of the democratic world saw it as yet another sign of Beijing’s authoritarianism, its contempt for international law and its aggressive posture toward Taiwan. Rightly so — on the surface. However, this move, often dismissed as a uniquely Chinese form of legal intimidation, echoes a legal and historical precedent rooted not in authoritarian tradition, but in US constitutional history. The Chinese “Anti-Secession” Law, a domestic statute threatening the use of force should Taiwan formally declare independence, is widely interpreted as an emblem of the Chinese Communist Party’s disregard for international norms. Critics
RSS