The part in China's "Anti-Secession" Law that the US and Japanese governments and media have paid the most attention to is the part of the text that in effect makes it a law authorizing war, which could make it the foundation for taking military action against Taiwan.
Taiwan, as an involved party, will naturally have still greater concerns. As the express target of the law, Taiwan -- apart from being concerned over the possibility of an attack from China -- should question whether Beijing has the right to pass legislation that applies to Taiwan and restricts its actions. We should not be asking how loose or strict China's restrictions are, but whether it has the right to set these restrictions in the first place.
To think that a group that has not been elected by the citizens of Taiwan is deciding the nation's future and passing a law which stipulates that it is our "obligation" to safeguard China's sovereignty and territorial integrity -- such actions do not pass even the most fundamental test of democracy and freedom. Taiwan is a constitutional democracy, which means the Taiwanese people can advocate independence or unification, and even use democratic means to create legislation on independence or unification. This is the kind of freedom that the people of Taiwan enjoy, and Beijing has neither the power nor the right to order us to obey.
Juridically, if we want to reject the Anti-Secession Law, we could simply define the law as a foreign law having no regulatory power in Taiwan. The bizarre thing is, however, that if Taiwan's government or courts define the law as a foreign law, they would be declaring that there is "one country on each side" of the Taiwan Strait, and this statement of de jure independence would violate the articles that specify conditions that call for military action by China. But if the law is not defined as a foreign law, Taiwan's constitutional democracy is but a mirage, because Beijing would be the legislator and executor of the law, and this in turn makes the Republic of China's Constitution into little more than waste paper.
The 10 articles of the Anti-Secession Law could in fact be summarized in five short words: Submit or prepare for war. It relies on violence, not law. It is fundamentally a tool of violence that attempts to negate Taiwan's constitutional democracy and harm the Taiwanese people's freedom and human rights.
Germany's unification was based on an agreement between the two sides and the people's free will. China, however, wants to make a unilaterally promulgated domestic law the legal basis for cross-strait unification.
As a tool of violence, the Anti-Secession Law will also become a stumbling block to cross-strait negotiations. China has placed cross-strait talks and exchanges within the legal framework of the law, which stands in direct opposition to Taiwan's constitutional democracy.
If Taiwan's directly elected president, government and legislature actually accept negotiations and exchanges within the framework of a law passed by China's National People's Congress (NPC), they will be criticized for violating the constitutional order of our liberal democracy. Unless Beijing removes this stumbling block, cross-strait negotiations will not only face political difficulties, but legal obstruction as well.
Some people in Taiwan see the fact that the law does not mention the People's Republic of China (PRC), just referring to "China," and statements like "both the mainland and Taiwan belong to one China" as a gesture of goodwill by China and a step forward on the cross-strait issue.
But these people are blind to the terms of the law, for the first article clearly states that the law is formulated in accordance with the [PRC] Constitution and that the NPC, which passed the law, is constituted in accordance with the PRC's Constitution. Therefore, there is no doubt that the "China" to which the law refers is the PRC. What's more, the preamble to that same Constitution still says that "Taiwan is part of the sacred territory of the People's Republic of China."
There are also those who think that the law is not that strict, and only asks Taiwan to not promote independence, without restricting our freedoms. As long as we do not cross the red line, China will not take military action.
These arguments are not only ridiculous, they are also tragic. They are equivalent to being locked up in a cage and comforting yourself by praising your luck that the cage isn't too small. Only slaves will forget that they have the right to exist outside the cage. All those who think that cross-strait peace will prevail as long as we do not violate the law have already silently accepted that the law regulates Taiwan's actions.
If you can accept that more than 2,900 puppets selected by a despotic regime can decide Taiwan's future, if you have denied man's natural thirst for freedom and independence, then remain silent and accept the continued existence of the law. But if you still believe that democracy and constitutional government are ideals worthy of being defended by the Taiwanese people, then -- regardless of whether you favor independence or unification -- firmly oppose China's unilaterally promulgated law.
Vincent Wang is a commissioner of the Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs Commission.
Translated by Perry Svensson
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.