China has passed the "anti-secession" law despite vehement protests in Taiwan and objections from the international community. The actual wording of the law mentions the use of "non-peaceful" means -- a euphemism for military action. The law insists on Beijing's right to use "non-peaceful" means to counter any moves towards independence and to bring about unification. For all intents and purposes, it is a license to go to war.
The anti-secession law is plagued with errors. First, it is bellicose while claiming to promote peace. This claim hardly fits the reality. China says the law is seeking "peaceful reunification and `one country, two systems,'" but the whole world knows the real intention is to threaten Taiwan. It's no wonder that 93 percent of Taiwanese oppose it, making a joke of China's contention that it "puts its hope in the Taiwanese people."
Second, the law was introduced in an attempt to meddle in Taiwan's domestic politics as a counter to the constitutional reform movement during last year's presidential election. Unexpectedly, the legislative elections in December and the meeting between President Chen Shui-bian (
China was not expecting this to happen when it introduced the anti-secession bill, but it was too late for it to turn back, and this law has now killed a great opportunity for cross-strait reconciliation. Thus, the timing of the legislation resulted in a significant dilemma, with Beijing adopting a "correct" stance using an incorrect strategy.
The law's most egregious flaw is its violation of the international community's consensus about "maintaining the status quo in the Taiwan Strait," whereby Taiwan should not declare independence and China should not use force. The law crosses the line. Even if Taiwan does not declare independence, if China decides that independence is taking place, Taiwan is being interfered with by "foreign forces," or the "possibilities for peaceful reunification should be completely exhausted" -- as Article VIII states -- Beijing can attack Taiwan.
Taiwan should react in a peaceful, rational way. Options include mass protests and long-term legal and constitutional moves, such as the following.
First, launch an "anti- `anti-secession'" movement. All political parties should join the demonstration scheduled for March 26, to tell the world that Taiwan's sovereignty belongs to the 23 million people living here.
Second, initiate greater contact with the international media to promote Taiwan's position and clarify that its sovereignty does not belong to China.
Third, enact an "anti-annexation" law. The legislature should show the international community that Taiwan and China are two separate political entities.
Fourth, hold a "preventive referendum" establishing the broad support of the Taiwanese people for self-determination. The people must demonstrate that they resist any non-peaceful means of unification.
Fifth, reform the Constitution to distinguish it from China's. In so engaging in this propaganda and diplomatic war that has been forced upon it, Taiwan will then be able to keep from being entrapped in the mire of "one China" rhetoric.
Having lived through former British prime minister Boris Johnson’s tumultuous and scandal-ridden administration, the last place I had expected to come face-to-face with “Mr Brexit” was in a hotel ballroom in Taipei. Should I have been so surprised? Over the past few years, Taiwan has unfortunately become the destination of choice for washed-up Western politicians to turn up long after their political careers have ended, making grandiose speeches in exchange for extraordinarily large paychecks far exceeding the annual salary of all but the wealthiest of Taiwan’s business tycoons. Taiwan’s pursuit of bygone politicians with little to no influence in their home
In a recent essay, “How Taiwan Lost Trump,” a former adviser to US President Donald Trump, Christian Whiton, accuses Taiwan of diplomatic incompetence — claiming Taipei failed to reach out to Trump, botched trade negotiations and mishandled its defense posture. Whiton’s narrative overlooks a fundamental truth: Taiwan was never in a position to “win” Trump’s favor in the first place. The playing field was asymmetrical from the outset, dominated by a transactional US president on one side and the looming threat of Chinese coercion on the other. From the outset of his second term, which began in January, Trump reaffirmed his
Despite calls to the contrary from their respective powerful neighbors, Taiwan and Somaliland continue to expand their relationship, endowing it with important new prospects. Fitting into this bigger picture is the historic Coast Guard Cooperation Agreement signed last month. The common goal is to move the already strong bilateral relationship toward operational cooperation, with significant and tangible mutual benefits to be observed. Essentially, the new agreement commits the parties to a course of conduct that is expressed in three fundamental activities: cooperation, intelligence sharing and technology transfer. This reflects the desire — shared by both nations — to achieve strategic results within
It is difficult not to agree with a few points stated by Christian Whiton in his article, “How Taiwan Lost Trump,” and yet the main idea is flawed. I am a Polish journalist who considers Taiwan her second home. I am conservative, and I might disagree with some social changes being promoted in Taiwan right now, especially the push for progressiveness backed by leftists from the West — we need to clean up our mess before blaming the Taiwanese. However, I would never think that those issues should dominate the West’s judgement of Taiwan’s geopolitical importance. The question is not whether
RSS