Who has been maneuvering to squeeze Taiwan’s diplomatic space? Who has been saber-rattling and threatening Taiwan with coercion or use of force to settle cross-strait differences? And who has been employing various tactics — openly and clandestinely — with the aim of bringing Taiwan under its authoritarian rule and usurping Taiwanese’s democratic way of life?
All these queries can be summed up in one short question: Who is Taiwan’s enemy?
The answer is obvious: The Chinese Communist Party (CCP), which has made no secret of its ambition to degrade Taiwan and wipe the Republic of China (ROC) off the world map.
Despite this crystal-clear fact, backed by countless incidents of Beijing bullying, suppressing and harassing Taiwan, the nation’s laws do not reflect this.
That is because the ROC Constitution defines China on the other side of the Taiwan Strait as “the mainland area,” not a foreign country. As China is not considered a foreign country according to the ROC Constitution, it cannot be deemed an enemy state. As such, people convicted of spying for or colluding with the CCP cannot be charged with offenses against the internal and external security of the state stipulated in the Criminal Code, because the offenses are only applicable to crimes committed for an “enemy state.”
After being left idling in the Legislative Yuan for more than a year, a draft amendment proposed by Democratic Progressive Party Legislator Wang Ting-yu (王定宇) to amend the Criminal Code to close this loophole has finally been put on the agenda for negotiations, with the first round of cross-caucus talks expected to begin today at the earliest.
The move is necessary and long overdue.
Over the years, the public has witnessed countless cases of people convicted of spying for the CCP let off easily because they cannot be charged with treason.
For example, Chinese People’s Liberation Army intelligence officer Zhen Xiaojiang (鎮小江), who was convicted of organizing the largest Chinese spy ring in Taiwan, and retired ROC Army major general Hsu Nai-chuan (許乃權) one of Zhen’s recruits, were given light sentences of a few years behind bars rather than heavier sentences, such as life imprisonment.
Wang’s proposal seeks to expand the definition of treason to include collusion with an “enemy” — described in the proposal as any “country, political entity or organization that engages in armed conflict or a military standoff with the ROC,” or “poses a military threat to the nation.” In other words, it allows room to define the CCP, which harbors a hostile and malicious intent toward Taiwan, as an “enemy,” without the need to amend the ROC Constitution at this point.
Wang’s proposal, if passed, would allow people convicted of colluding with the CCP to be subject to heavy punishments, such as a life or death sentence.
It should be a matter of course that people convicted of colluding with the CCP to undermine Taiwan’s defense and national security be deemed traitors and their conduct be treated as treason.
From tricks to openly hostile moves aimed at diminishing Taiwan’s image and international presence, such as the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops conducting military exercises around a five-story building with a tower resembling Taiwan’s Presidential Office Building, to recent incidents such as the PLA Air Force conducting drills encircling Taiwan, with two of its aircraft crossing the median line of the Taiwan Strait — the CCP’s objective to bring Taiwan into its fold is without doubt.
The CCP is not an imaginary enemy, and lawmakers across party lines should keep this in mind as they review Wang’s proposal and form a consensus to beef up the nation’s security net.
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
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.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath