The basis for the "Anti-Secession" Law is spelled out in the first sentence of Article 3: "The Taiwan question is one that is left over from China's civil war of the 1940s."
The "Taiwan question" exists only because China's continuing claims on Taiwan culminated in enactment of the law.
To avoid falling into a "chicken and egg, which came first?" argument, let's clarify the matter and change the wording. Article 3 would then read: "China has a claim on Taiwan based on China's civil war of the 1940s."
The problem is that this claim is at least nine years and three presidential elections too late.
In 1996, Taiwanese elected their own government for the first time. Taiwan belonged to Taiwanese people from that point forward.
China's claim seemed to have some legitimacy during the Chinese Nationalist Party's (KMT) iron-fisted rule. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP), the victor of the Chinese civil war, demanded territory held by the KMT, the loser. Under these circumstances, the Anti-Secession Law could have been a legitimate ultimatum.
But the KMT doesn't "hold" Taiwan any more -- even if a KMT member becomes the president. Today, Taiwan and China are indeed two separate countries.
In basing the law on historical intrigue, Beijing seems to be following a script for a Chinese version of Back to the Future.
The first scene saw the KMT dispatch a delegation to Beijing to patch up its differences with the CCP.
That was meant to smooth the way for KMT Chairman Lien Chan (連戰), one of the would-be main characters, to appear in the next scene.
In the second scene, Beijing treats Lien's visit as the surrender of the KMT to the CCP and proceeds to demand that Lien hand over Taiwan.
All signs point to Lien playing along at least partially with the script by conveniently failing to point out that Taiwan in 2005 is a democracy and that the KMT doesn't own it any more.
Instead, Lien tells Beijing's leaders that the government of President Chen Shui-bian (
The obvious implication is that he himself should be the one occupying the presidency and that Beijing is dealing with the right person if China wishes to get Taiwan.
However, at the moment the script diverges from reality, the claim as well as the basis of the Anti-Secession Law become nothing more than fantasy.
Only Lien's penchant for mischief in collaborating with Beijing is perpetuating the fantasy.
Still, Lien's visit to Beijing could paradoxically serve as closure of "China's civil war of the 1940s" and unwittingly help to expose the delusional nature of any further claims by China on Taiwan.
Huang Jei-hsuan
California
Eating at a breakfast shop the other day, I turned to an old man sitting at the table next to mine. “Hey, did you hear that the Legislative Yuan passed a bill to give everyone NT$10,000 [US$340]?” I said, pointing to a newspaper headline. The old man cursed, then said: “Yeah, the Chinese Nationalist Party [KMT] canceled the NT$100 billion subsidy for Taiwan Power Co and announced they would give everyone NT$10,000 instead. “Nice. Now they are saying that if electricity prices go up, we can just use that cash to pay for it,” he said. “I have no time for drivel like
A failure by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to respond to Israel’s brilliant 12-day (June 12-23) bombing and special operations war against Iran, topped by US President Donald Trump’s ordering the June 21 bombing of Iranian deep underground nuclear weapons fuel processing sites, has been noted by some as demonstrating a profound lack of resolve, even “impotence,” by China. However, this would be a dangerous underestimation of CCP ambitions and its broader and more profound military response to the Trump Administration — a challenge that includes an acceleration of its strategies to assist nuclear proxy states, and developing a wide array
Young supporters of former Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) chairman Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) were detained for posting the names and photographs of judges and prosecutors believed to be overseeing the Core Pacific City redevelopment corruption case. The supporters should be held responsible for their actions. As for Ko’s successor, TPP Chairman Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌), he should reflect on whether his own comments are provocative and whether his statements might be misunderstood. Huang needs to apologize to the public and the judiciary. In the article, “Why does sorry seem to be the hardest word?” the late political commentator Nan Fang Shuo (南方朔) wrote
Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs Wang Yi (王毅) reportedly told the EU’s top diplomat that China does not want Russia to lose in Ukraine, because the US could shift its focus to countering Beijing. Wang made the comment while meeting with EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Kaja Kallas on July 2 at the 13th China-EU High-Level Strategic Dialogue in Brussels, the South China Morning Post and CNN reported. Although contrary to China’s claim of neutrality in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, such a frank remark suggests Beijing might prefer a protracted war to keep the US from focusing on
RSS