China's "anti-secession" Law has caused a lot of anger because of its lack of logic. If Beijing were to pass such a law aimed at Tibet or Xinjiang, then that would be within the bounds of logic, since those places are actually ruled by Beijing. But not for one single day following the founding of the People's Republic of China (PRC) has it had jurisdiction over, or controlled, Taiwan.
Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu have never belonged to the PRC. What is the legal basis for Beijing drafting anti-secession legislation directed at Taiwan? This is like calling for anti-divorce legislation when you aren't even married. It is simply a matter of preposterous and farcical behavior by a hegemon.
Could it really be that the dictators in Beijing are unaware of this common-sense logic? Of course not. They are using this approach to belittle Taiwan by treating it as a local government and cross-strait tensions as a domestic political issue, while wilfully blurring the fact that each side of the Taiwan Strait is a separate country and Taiwan a sovereign nation. The heart of the matter is that these methods strip the 23 million Taiwanese of any dignity and treat them as political slaves.
Any freedom-loving Taiwanese who thinks his or her own dignity is important must oppose this hegemony in the strongest terms. When the Hong Kong authorities tried to pass their freedom-depriving legislation based on Article 23 in the territory's Basic Law, a 500,000-strong street demonstration caused Beijing to postpone the legislation indefinitely. Now Beijing has fired Hong Kong's chief executive because he had, at the time, promised that no more than 30,000 people would take to the streets to protest the law.
If both the pan-green and pan-blue camps participate in the demonstration planned for March 26 in Taipei, it is certain to attract more than half a million people and, just like the march in Hong Kong, will tell the world that the dignity of the Taiwanese people cannot be subdued.
If pan-blue camp supporters think that the law is aimed only at Taiwan-independence activists, they are making a big mistake. The Chinese Communist Party always says that it will only attack a small group, but the attack is relentless and in the end it will be all-encompassing, leaving not a single person unaffected.
Taipei Mayor Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) expressed only slight criticism of the law and was immediately forbidden from entering Hong Kong. It goes without saying that if Taiwan accepts Beijing's "one country, two systems" model, neither Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan (連戰) nor People First Party Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜) will be made "chief executive."
Why am I so certain that Taiwanese protests will have an effect? Because the main reason China passed the Anti-Secession Law is to threaten Taiwan, not to attack it. If China really wanted to launch a military attack, it would not need any legislation. Laws are binding only on democratic governments, while despotic governments have no need for laws when invading someone.
Dictators talk about law while relying on the gun in their hand for authority. Adolf Hitler had no legal authority when he invaded other European countries. Mao Zedong (毛澤東) had no legal authority when he entered the Korean War, fought a border war with India in 1962, or the border conflict with the Soviet Union over the Damansky (Zhenbao) Island in the Ussuri River in 1969. Nor was there any legal justification behind Deng Xiaoping's (鄧小平) order to attack Vietnam in 1979.
Just like former Chinese president Jiang Zemin (江澤民) and President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) today, the leaders of the communist world know only the language of power -- when they have power on their side, any excuse is good enough to wage war, without any need for legislation.
It is precisely because China does not presently have the military power to attack Taiwan that it needs to put on a big show with the Anti-Secession Law to coerce and threaten the Taiwanese people. US academics have discussed the law, talking about its timing and saying that it was the fact that the pan-green camp didn't win a majority in the December legislative elections that enticed Beijing to propose the law, because in Beijing's eyes, the pan-blue camp are pro-unification and it is their hope that Taiwan will accept the "one China" principle.
When Beijing saw that the pan-blue camp maintained a legislative majority and that the 10-point consensus reached between President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) and Soong put a damper on calls for a constitutional referendum, they were encouraged to pass the Anti-Secession Law to increase pressure on Taiwan to accept the "one country, two systems" model.
Had there been a different outcome to the legislative elections, Beijing might not have dared propose the law and instead moved towards a more realistic stance. As the situation in the legislature cannot be changed, the reaction of the Taiwanese people is crucial. Only by daring to speak up will they be able to manifest the true voice of public opinion.
This is not a matter of protecting a political point of view, it is a matter of protecting Taiwan's continued existence and the people's dignity and right to choose.
Some people worry that a strong Taiwanese reaction will upset China and increase the risk of an attack. In reality, however, if China really had the ability to attack Taiwan, it would have done so long ago. Even air force Lieutenant General Liu Yazhou (劉亞洲) -- a deputy political commissar -- clearly sees this point. Liu, the son-in-law of former Chinese president Li Xiannian (李先念) and an influential military theorist, published a 20,000-character report on the 1949 Battle of Kuningtou on Kinmen, in which he bluntly says that given the inability to cross even the small strait between China and Kinmen, the difficulties of crossing the Taiwan Strait today would be 10,000-fold.
In lectures to high-level air force cadres in Kunming, Liu has emphasized that a military attack in Taiwan at the present time would be suicide. US military expert Bates Gill has also asserted that if China were to launch an attack, it would give the US army and air force the ideal opportunity to sweep away China's military power on the waters of the Taiwan Strait, an environment even flatter and clearer than the Iraqi desert.
In his report Liu warned that "it will not be only Taiwan that defends Taiwan, it will be the entire Western world." This reasoning, understood even by senior People's Liberation Army officers, is either not understood by many Taiwanese, or they are deliberatly acting stupid in an attempt to help Beijing scare people and block a move towards the appearance of real choice.
Although the Anti-Secession Law is intented to threaten Taiwan, it highlights how important it is that Taiwan writes a new constitution and changes its national title. If Taiwan only once mentions a "one China" constitution, it will give Beijing the reason it needs to attack, on the pretext that such action is the continuation of the civil war between the Chinese Communist Party and the KMT.
Since it is completely impossible for Taiwan to re-take the "mainland" and restore the old Chinese map that included Outer Mongolia -- and Taiwan has no intention of even trying -- it can only stay put. It is Taiwan.
As Taiwan and the Republic of China (ROC) are one and the same political entity and state, donning the ROC hat again would not only be unrealistic and restrict Taiwan and obstruct it from applying for UN membership, it would also give China a reason to attack Taiwan at any time it chooses.
Passage of the Anti-Secession Law has been met with protests from the US, Japan and European countries. The US Congress is preparing to pass a bill condemning the law and five US senators have submitted a bill calling for US diplomatic recognition of Taiwan and abandoning the "one China" policy. John Bolton, who is strongly in favor of Taiwan joining the UN and who advocates US diplomatic recognition of Taiwan, has recently been appointed US ambasasdor to the UN. Washington's strategy of spreading freedom across the globe is having an effect with elections taking place throughout the Middle East, while US President George W. Bush says that he will no longer maintain the status quo and will place democracy in the front seat.
In an international atmosphere beneficial to democratic Taiwan and not authoritarian China, the brave people of Taiwan should stand up and declare with a clear voice that they do not belong to Red China but to the free world, and that it is their wish to write a new constitution and change the national title.
Quite a few pan-green supporters failed to vote in the last legislative elections. This was one reason the pan-green camp did not win a legislative majority. This is also a key factor behind China's increased bullying of Taiwan.
The painful lesson here is that only if everyone who loves a free Taiwan meets his or her responsibilities and takes every opportunity to launch a protest against dictators will there be a day when Taiwan truly will belong to its people.
Cao Changqing is a writer based in the US.
Translated by Perry Svensson
Taiwan stands at the epicenter of a seismic shift that will determine the Indo-Pacific’s future security architecture. Whether deterrence prevails or collapses will reverberate far beyond the Taiwan Strait, fundamentally reshaping global power dynamics. The stakes could not be higher. Today, Taipei confronts an unprecedented convergence of threats from an increasingly muscular China that has intensified its multidimensional pressure campaign. Beijing’s strategy is comprehensive: military intimidation, diplomatic isolation, economic coercion, and sophisticated influence operations designed to fracture Taiwan’s democratic society from within. This challenge is magnified by Taiwan’s internal political divisions, which extend to fundamental questions about the island’s identity and future
The narrative surrounding Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s attendance at last week’s Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit — where he held hands with Russian President Vladimir Putin and chatted amiably with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) — was widely framed as a signal of Modi distancing himself from the US and edging closer to regional autocrats. It was depicted as Modi reacting to the levying of high US tariffs, burying the hatchet over border disputes with China, and heralding less engagement with the Quadrilateral Security dialogue (Quad) composed of the US, India, Japan and Australia. With Modi in China for the
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has postponed its chairperson candidate registration for two weeks, and so far, nine people have announced their intention to run for chairperson, the most on record, with more expected to announce their campaign in the final days. On the evening of Aug. 23, shortly after seven KMT lawmakers survived recall votes, KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) announced he would step down and urged Taichung Mayor Lu Shiow-yen (盧秀燕) to step in and lead the party back to power. Lu immediately ruled herself out the following day, leaving the subject in question. In the days that followed, several
The Jamestown Foundation last week published an article exposing Beijing’s oil rigs and other potential dual-use platforms in waters near Pratas Island (Dongsha Island, 東沙島). China’s activities there resembled what they did in the East China Sea, inside the exclusive economic zones of Japan and South Korea, as well as with other South China Sea claimants. However, the most surprising element of the report was that the authors’ government contacts and Jamestown’s own evinced little awareness of China’s activities. That Beijing’s testing of Taiwanese (and its allies) situational awareness seemingly went unnoticed strongly suggests the need for more intelligence. Taiwan’s naval
RSS