China has passed the "anti-secession" law despite vehement protests in Taiwan and objections from the international community. The actual wording of the law mentions the use of "non-peaceful" means -- a euphemism for military action. The law insists on Beijing's right to use "non-peaceful" means to counter any moves towards independence and to bring about unification. For all intents and purposes, it is a license to go to war.
The anti-secession law is plagued with errors. First, it is bellicose while claiming to promote peace. This claim hardly fits the reality. China says the law is seeking "peaceful reunification and `one country, two systems,'" but the whole world knows the real intention is to threaten Taiwan. It's no wonder that 93 percent of Taiwanese oppose it, making a joke of China's contention that it "puts its hope in the Taiwanese people."
Second, the law was introduced in an attempt to meddle in Taiwan's domestic politics as a counter to the constitutional reform movement during last year's presidential election. Unexpectedly, the legislative elections in December and the meeting between President Chen Shui-bian (
China was not expecting this to happen when it introduced the anti-secession bill, but it was too late for it to turn back, and this law has now killed a great opportunity for cross-strait reconciliation. Thus, the timing of the legislation resulted in a significant dilemma, with Beijing adopting a "correct" stance using an incorrect strategy.
The law's most egregious flaw is its violation of the international community's consensus about "maintaining the status quo in the Taiwan Strait," whereby Taiwan should not declare independence and China should not use force. The law crosses the line. Even if Taiwan does not declare independence, if China decides that independence is taking place, Taiwan is being interfered with by "foreign forces," or the "possibilities for peaceful reunification should be completely exhausted" -- as Article VIII states -- Beijing can attack Taiwan.
Taiwan should react in a peaceful, rational way. Options include mass protests and long-term legal and constitutional moves, such as the following.
First, launch an "anti- `anti-secession'" movement. All political parties should join the demonstration scheduled for March 26, to tell the world that Taiwan's sovereignty belongs to the 23 million people living here.
Second, initiate greater contact with the international media to promote Taiwan's position and clarify that its sovereignty does not belong to China.
Third, enact an "anti-annexation" law. The legislature should show the international community that Taiwan and China are two separate political entities.
Fourth, hold a "preventive referendum" establishing the broad support of the Taiwanese people for self-determination. The people must demonstrate that they resist any non-peaceful means of unification.
Fifth, reform the Constitution to distinguish it from China's. In so engaging in this propaganda and diplomatic war that has been forced upon it, Taiwan will then be able to keep from being entrapped in the mire of "one China" rhetoric.
China has started to call Tibet “Xizang” instead of Tibet for several reasons. First, China wants to assert its sovereignty and legitimacy over Tibet, which it claims as an integral part of its territory and history. China argues that the term Xizang, which means “western Tsang” in Chinese, reflects the historical and administrative reality of the region, which was divided into U-Tsang, Amdo and Kham by the Tibetans themselves. China also contends that the term Tibet, which derives from the Mongolian word Tubet, is a foreign imposition that does not represent the diversity and complexity of the region. Second, China wants to
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) had engaged in weeks of political horse-trading between high-ranking officials, hoping to form a joint ticket to win January’s presidential election, but it all ended in a dramatic public falling out on live television on Thursday. The farcical performance involving mudslinging and quarrels among three men — the TPP’s candidate and Chairman Ko Wen-je (柯文哲), the KMT’s candidate, New Taipei City Mayor Hou You-yi (侯友宜), and Hon Hai Precision Industry Co founder Terry Gou (郭台銘), an independent — and their aides in the evening before the official candidate registration deadline
Hon Hai Precision Industry Co founder Terry Gou (郭台銘) might be accused of twice breaking his promises and betraying the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), then launching a signature drive for himself to stand as a candidate in January’s presidential election, only to turn around and quit the race. It clearly shows that rich people are free to do as they like. If that is so, then Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) Chairman and presidential candidate Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) is the perfect example of a political hack who changes his position as easily as turning the pages of a book. Taiwanese independence supporters
On Nov. 15, US President Joe Biden reiterated the US’ commitment to maintaining cross-strait peace and the “status quo” during a meeting with Chinese dictator Xi Jinping (習近平) on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Summit in San Francisco, California. However, Biden refrained from making clear to Xi what Taiwan’s “status quo” exactly is (as the US defines it). It is not the first time Taiwan’s legal status has become an issue of contention. In September, Tesla CEO Elon Musk caused a media storm after he referred to Taiwan as “an integral part of China” during an interview. This ignorance about
RSS