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.
Donald Trump’s return to the White House has offered Taiwan a paradoxical mix of reassurance and risk. Trump’s visceral hostility toward China could reinforce deterrence in the Taiwan Strait. Yet his disdain for alliances and penchant for transactional bargaining threaten to erode what Taiwan needs most: a reliable US commitment. Taiwan’s security depends less on US power than on US reliability, but Trump is undermining the latter. Deterrence without credibility is a hollow shield. Trump’s China policy in his second term has oscillated wildly between confrontation and conciliation. One day, he threatens Beijing with “massive” tariffs and calls China America’s “greatest geopolitical
On Sunday, 13 new urgent care centers (UCC) officially began operations across the six special municipalities. The purpose of the centers — which are open from 8am to midnight on Sundays and national holidays — is to reduce congestion in hospital emergency rooms, especially during the nine-day Lunar New Year holiday next year. It remains to be seen how effective these centers would be. For one, it is difficult for people to judge for themselves whether their condition warrants visiting a major hospital or a UCC — long-term public education and health promotions are necessary. Second, many emergency departments acknowledge
US President Donald Trump’s seemingly throwaway “Taiwan is Taiwan” statement has been appearing in headlines all over the media. Although it appears to have been made in passing, the comment nevertheless reveals something about Trump’s views and his understanding of Taiwan’s situation. In line with the Taiwan Relations Act, the US and Taiwan enjoy unofficial, but close economic, cultural and national defense ties. They lack official diplomatic relations, but maintain a partnership based on shared democratic values and strategic alignment. Excluding China, Taiwan maintains a level of diplomatic relations, official or otherwise, with many nations worldwide. It can be said that
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) made the astonishing assertion during an interview with Germany’s Deutsche Welle, published on Friday last week, that Russian President Vladimir Putin is not a dictator. She also essentially absolved Putin of blame for initiating the war in Ukraine. Commentators have since listed the reasons that Cheng’s assertion was not only absurd, but bordered on dangerous. Her claim is certainly absurd to the extent that there is no need to discuss the substance of it: It would be far more useful to assess what drove her to make the point and stick so
RSS