ON DEC. 4, former United Microelectronics Corp (UMC) chairman Robert Tsao (曹興誠) ran his third newspaper ad, once again pushing for a cross-strait peaceful coexistence law. His argument was based on Article 8 of China's "Anti-Secession" Law, which claims that de jure independence will inevitably result in a military invasion by Beijing.
But Tsao failed to notice another sentence in Article 8: "In the event that possibilities for a peaceful reunification should be completely exhausted, the state shall employ non-peaceful means and other necessary measures to protect China's sovereignty and territorial integrity."
In other words, even if Taiwan does not formally declare independence, Beijing may still employ non-peaceful means if Taipei rejects unification talks. Thus, if Taiwanese were to vote against unification in a pro-unification referendum as proposed by Tsao, that would also constitute a reason for China to employ military means.
Tsao's proposal for a cross-strait peaceful coexistence law clearly excludes the option of independence. Taiwanese can only choose between unification and maintaining the "status quo," and both options are unfavorable to Taiwan.
As for the unification option, China is an authoritarian one-party state controlled by the Chinese Communist Party(CCP), which does not allow opposition political parties that might threaten party rule. If unified, Taiwanese have no reason to doubt that their ability for self-government would be severely compromised, if not erased completely.
In terms of maintaining the "status quo," Beijing's "one China policy" has left Taiwan with only 24 tiny diplomatic allies while the world's leading powers, including the US, the UK, France, Germany, Russia and Japan have severed diplomatic ties.
Since it is unable to join the UN and other international organizations, Taiwan's security, health, economy and dignity are facing difficult challenges. This is the "status quo" we are left with.
The only reason for Tsao to exclude the option of de jure independence is the possibility of a violent reaction from China. However, with Beijing hosting the 2008 Olympic Games and Shanghai hosting the 2010 World Expo, China needs to maintain the appearance of a peaceful and prosperous environment.
Taiwan's defensive capability has been sharply weakened by the pan-blue camp's obstruction of the arms procurement bill, but it still has enough missiles to launch counterattacks on major coastal Chinese cities, as well as the Three Gorges Dam. China should be aware of the consequences.
Moreover, peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait are protected both by US-Japan cooperation and the US' Taiwan Relations Act.
In terms of economic strength, China's total production value reached US$2.626 trillion last year while Taiwan's reached US$364 billion.
Meanwhile, the US had US$13.194 trillion and Japan had US$4.365 trillion. Together, the US, Japan and Taiwan's output value was US$17.923 trillion -- about seven times higher than the Chinese figure.
In light of the joint strength of the US, Japan and Taiwan, we should be able to effectively prevent a Chinese invasion.
National self-determination tallies with the trend toward universal democratic values and is a principle protected by the UN Charter. China should not violate this trend.
Tsao's cross-strait peaceful coexistence law is designed based on China's stance and is aimed at undermining Taiwan's determination to declare independence and formally establish a new nation. It is clearly laden with serious blind spots.
Chuang Po-lin is a lawyer.
Translated by Eddy Chang
Jaw Shaw-kong (趙少康), former chairman of Broadcasting Corp of China and leader of the “blue fighters,” recently announced that he had canned his trip to east Africa, and he would stay in Taiwan for the recall vote on Saturday. He added that he hoped “his friends in the blue camp would follow his lead.” His statement is quite interesting for a few reasons. Jaw had been criticized following media reports that he would be traveling in east Africa during the recall vote. While he decided to stay in Taiwan after drawing a lot of flak, his hesitation says it all: If
When Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) caucus whip Ker Chien-ming (柯建銘) first suggested a mass recall of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators, the Taipei Times called the idea “not only absurd, but also deeply undemocratic” (“Lai’s speech and legislative chaos,” Jan. 6, page 8). In a subsequent editorial (“Recall chaos plays into KMT hands,” Jan. 9, page 8), the paper wrote that his suggestion was not a solution, and that if it failed, it would exacerbate the enmity between the parties and lead to a cascade of revenge recalls. The danger came from having the DPP orchestrate a mass recall. As it transpired,
Sitting in their homes typing on their keyboards and posting on Facebook things like, “Taiwan has already lost its democracy,” “The Democratic Progressive Party is a party of green communists,” or “President William Lai [賴清德] is a dictator,” then turning around and heading to the convenience store to buy a tea egg and an iced Americano, casually chatting in a Line group about which news broadcast was more biased this morning — are such people truly clear about the kind of society in which they are living? This is not meant to be sarcasm or criticism, but an exhausted honesty.
Much has been said about the significance of the recall vote, but here is what must be said clearly and without euphemism: This vote is not just about legislative misconduct. It is about defending Taiwan’s sovereignty against a “united front” campaign that has crept into the heart of our legislature. Taiwanese voters on Jan. 13 last year made a complex decision. Many supported William Lai (賴清德) for president to keep Taiwan strong on the world stage. At the same time, some hoped that giving the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) a legislative majority would offer a
RSS