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.
The conflict in the Middle East has been disrupting financial markets, raising concerns about rising inflationary pressures and global economic growth. One market that some investors are particularly worried about has not been heavily covered in the news: the private credit market. Even before the joint US-Israeli attacks on Iran on Feb. 28, global capital markets had faced growing structural pressure — the deteriorating funding conditions in the private credit market. The private credit market is where companies borrow funds directly from nonbank financial institutions such as asset management companies, insurance companies and private lending platforms. Its popularity has risen since
The Donald Trump administration’s approach to China broadly, and to cross-Strait relations in particular, remains a conundrum. The 2025 US National Security Strategy prioritized the defense of Taiwan in a way that surprised some observers of the Trump administration: “Deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving military overmatch, is a priority.” Two months later, Taiwan went entirely unmentioned in the US National Defense Strategy, as did military overmatch vis-a-vis China, giving renewed cause for concern. How to interpret these varying statements remains an open question. In both documents, the Indo-Pacific is listed as a second priority behind homeland defense and
Every analyst watching Iran’s succession crisis is asking who would replace supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Yet, the real question is whether China has learned enough from the Persian Gulf to survive a war over Taiwan. Beijing purchases roughly 90 percent of Iran’s exported crude — some 1.61 million barrels per day last year — and holds a US$400 billion, 25-year cooperation agreement binding it to Tehran’s stability. However, this is not simply the story of a patron protecting an investment. China has spent years engineering a sanctions-evasion architecture that was never really about Iran — it was about Taiwan. The
In an op-ed published in Foreign Affairs on Tuesday, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) said that Taiwan should not have to choose between aligning with Beijing or Washington, and advocated for cooperation with Beijing under the so-called “1992 consensus” as a form of “strategic ambiguity.” However, Cheng has either misunderstood the geopolitical reality and chosen appeasement, or is trying to fool an international audience with her doublespeak; nonetheless, it risks sending the wrong message to Taiwan’s democratic allies and partners. Cheng stressed that “Taiwan does not have to choose,” as while Beijing and Washington compete, Taiwan is strongest when
RSS