March 14 marked the second anniversary of the passage of China's "Anti-Secession" Law. Over the past two years, the effect it has produced, or lack thereof, could be described as its own "four noes and one without."
First, it has no legal force in Taiwan. The People's Republic of China (PRC) has never controlled or had jurisdiction over Taiwan, so Beijing has no right to promulgate laws for Taiwan.
Second, it has no power to scare Taiwan. After the "Anti-Secession" Law was passed, some newspaper surveys indicated that the number of people advocating Taiwanese independence rose by 27 percent. In the face of such a vile law, the Taiwanese people have a clearer idea of which direction they want to choose.
Third, it has no constructive effect on cross-strait relations. China has always emphasized the need for direct links and to increase cross-strait contact. But a law that treats Taiwan as its enemy only increases cross-strait hostility.
Fourth, it has no acceptance in the international community. At the end of 2005, the Government Information Office commissioned Gallup to sample the attitudes of leaders and citizens in the US, Japan, Britain, France and Germany. The results showed that 75 percent were opposed to the law, 80 percent supported Taiwan's entry into the WHO and more than 60 percent believed Taiwan was a sovereign and independent country.
The one "without" is that the law is without any legitimacy. Today's China still lacks democratic elections and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) relies on purges to continue its rule, yet it still feels it can pass laws against democratic Taiwan and strip its people of their rights. This contradiction takes away any legitimacy it may have. The acceptance of using military force against Taiwan that lies at the law's core is an example of violent thinking that is at odds with global trends.
As the anniversary of the law approached, President Chen Shui-bian (
Last year at a symposium in Taipei, Soochow University professor Lo Chih-cheng (
Whether or not China uses force against Taiwan will of course first be decided by China's domestic economic and political situation, and secondly by the attitude of Taiwan's leaders. The weaker you appear, the more room dictators allow themselves to dream.
When People First Party Chairman James Soong (
Popular opinion in Taiwan has also played more of a role in deciding the attitude and policies Beijing adopts in dealing with Taiwan. If the legislature continues to be led by the pan-blue alliance, then Beijing will continue to hope. If the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) loses next year's election, Beijing will be even more confident.
On the surface, Taiwan's position in the international community to a large extent is determined by the attitudes of China and the US. But in reality, the Taiwanese are the masters of their own fate. If pro-independence voices can gain a majority in the legislature and hold on to the presidency next year, then the DPP can arbitrate with the US, challenge China and do battle with the KMT with full confidence that it is right. The ineffectiveness of the "Anti-Secession" Law at least proves this much.
Cao Changqing is a writer based in the US.
Translated by Marc Langer
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