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.
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS