According to the Hong Kong-based Wen Wei Po daily, which cited a Chinese legal expert, China's National People's Congress (NPC) will convene on Saturday to discuss the proposed "anti-secession" law. According to the expert, the legislation would authorize China's State Council and the Central Military Commission (CMC) to "strike Taiwan" in an emergency situation without prior approval from China's leadership, in order to deter unspecified independence activities.
The report was released as Taiwan was commemorating the 228 Incident, in which the regime of former dictator Chiang Kai-shek massacred thousands of Taiwanese people in 1947 after the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) took control of Taiwan from the Japanese. Therefore, this message resonated strongly as foreign interference in Taiwan's internal affairs. For many Taiwanese, the message also sounds obviously harsh.
The Politburo of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is above any other organization, has a strong hold on power and executes its policies through the CMC. In other words, the Politiburo's resolutions are usually executed by its party, political and military organizations, endorsed by the NPC and united front organizations such as the People's Political Consultative Conference, and propagated by state-controlled news agencies such as Xinhua. In view of this, important issues about whether to take military action against a nation are the responsibility of the Politburo and its subordinate CMC. How could the NPC, which is only the rubber stamp of the party and the government, enact a law and ask its superior decision-making body to implement the resolution it has proposed?
We cannot help but ask, since when has China become a country that espouses the rule of law and respects public opinion? Furthermore, since the members of the NPC have never been directly elected by the Chinese people, how can they truly represent the public in enacting laws?
Because neither the Politburo or the CMC will take orders from the NPC, we see that this startling statement was intentionally made by the NPC to provoke public opinion in Taiwan. The planning of the law is used to stir up cross-strait conflict, lest political heavyweights in China become too lonely and bored, deprived of attention from domestic and international media.
However, from Taiwan's standpoint, Taiwan has never been a part of China, and there has never been any territorial agreement reached between the two nations. Questions on whether Taiwan should declare its independence, change its national title or other issues should be Taiwan's business, and Beijing has no business saying anything about them. The NPC's taking such a highly provocative course will only lead to misuse of the anti-secession law by CCP members and China's hawkish military officials. These people could use the law to threaten Taiwan, and create all sorts of exaggerated pretexts to threaten Taiwan's economic stability.
From Taiwan's perspective, the NPC's irresponsibility lies in its intention to unilaterally change the status quo of cross-strait peace. And it is intolerable that such behavior is overlooked by the international community. In fact, enforcing the anti-secession law will not force China's military officials to abide by the rules, nor will it facilitate smooth interaction between people on both sides of the Strait, or promote mutual understanding.
On the contrary, the passing of such a law will only worsen the cross-strait situation and severely impact on the willingness of Taiwanese businessmen to invest in China. The international community should help Taiwan to put pressure on the Chinese government over the proposal, which does no good for anyone. By doing so, the international community can help stop China from causing disputes that will spoil cross-strait stability.
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