Yesterday's march was indeed the best response that Taiwan could make in the wake of the passage of the Chinese "Anti-Secession" Law. With a simple and easy to understand theme of "peace, democracy, save Taiwan," as well as a high turn out rate (it is estimated that around one million people joined the march) accomplished through mostly voluntary grass-roots participation, Beijing has been put in an awkward spot.
A golden rule that must never be forgotten in Taiwan's dealing with China is this: Democracy, freedom and human rights are the best weapons that Taiwan has against China. No amount of military spending -- although that is critically necessary as well -- comes even close in terms of the weight of the punch. That's because these things are universally accepted values, but also because they represent everything that China isn't. They are like a mirror that reflects the autocratic and militant nature of the Beijing regime. Even more importantly, they serve as justification for the international community to voice their support. Yesterday's march was a success precisely because it highlighted all these precious virtues.
However, one must now ask this difficult question: Now that Beijing has been given the message, what happens next? The demonstration of the popular will yesterday was critically needed, because it will probably make the Chinese government pause or even halt if they face a decision on whether to unilaterally impose unification on Taiwan. However, the enactment of the Anti-Secession Law has become a fact. As much as one hates to admit this, the likelihood of Beijing "taking it back" is next to impossible.
On Thursday, the chairman of the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Su Tseng-chang (
This, then, makes one wonder. Had yesterday's march taken place before, rather than after, the enactment of the Chinese Anti-Secession Law, perhaps Taiwan might have had a shot at making Beijing halt its enactment. Surely, the chances would be much better than now.
It is true that President Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁) response after the enactment of the Anti-Secession Law has been praiseworthy -- resorting to sentimental and peaceful appeals in his talks in an effort to seek international support, and standing alongside marchers to highlight the grassroots nature of the march. But it is probably fair to say that he misjudged Beijing if -- as many commentators believe -- he had hoped that signing the ten-point joint statement with People's First Party (PFP) James Soong (宋楚瑜) would make Beijing back down from passing the law.
Through that joint statement, Chen essentially promised not to seek formal independence, as well as to respect a definition of the status of this country that is very close to "one China." That experience, among others, tells us that pacificism, compromises,and succumbing to Chinese demands will not make Beijing back down.
Unfortunately, while Chen may have learned his lesson, others -- namely the opposition pan-blue camp -- have not. Sadly, both Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan (
Minister of Labor Hung Sun-han (洪申翰) on April 9 said that the first group of Indian workers could arrive as early as this year as part of a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the Taipei Economic and Cultural Center in India and the India Taipei Association. Signed in February 2024, the MOU stipulates that Taipei would decide the number of migrant workers and which industries would employ them, while New Delhi would manage recruitment and training. Employment would be governed by the laws of both countries. Months after its signing, the two sides agreed that 1,000 migrant workers from India would
In recent weeks, Taiwan has witnessed a surge of public anxiety over the possible introduction of Indian migrant workers. What began as a policy signal from the Ministry of Labor quickly escalated into a broader controversy. Petitions gathered thousands of signatures within days, political figures issued strong warnings, and social media became saturated with concerns about public safety and social stability. At first glance, this appears to be a straightforward policy question: Should Taiwan introduce Indian migrant workers or not? However, this framing is misleading. The current debate is not fundamentally about India. It is about Taiwan’s labor system, its
Japan’s imminent easing of arms export rules has sparked strong interest from Warsaw to Manila, Reuters reporting found, as US President Donald Trump wavers on security commitments to allies, and the wars in Iran and Ukraine strain US weapons supplies. Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s ruling party approved the changes this week as she tries to invigorate the pacifist country’s military industrial base. Her government would formally adopt the new rules as soon as this month, three Japanese government officials told Reuters. Despite largely isolating itself from global arms markets since World War II, Japan spends enough on its own
On March 31, the South Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs released declassified diplomatic records from 1995 that drew wide domestic media attention. One revelation stood out: North Korea had once raised the possibility of diplomatic relations with Taiwan. In a meeting with visiting Chinese officials in May 1995, as then-Chinese president Jiang Zemin (江澤民) prepared for a visit to South Korea, North Korean officials objected to Beijing’s growing ties with Seoul and raised Taiwan directly. According to the newly released records, North Korean officials asked why Pyongyang should refrain from developing relations with Taiwan while China and South Korea were expanding high-level
RSS