The "Anti-Secession" Law was approved by China's National People's Congress (NPC) on March 14. The law will exert a far-reaching influence on Taiwan's international situation and cross-strait relations, so Taiwanese people must not be indifferent about it.
Formulating the Anti-Secession Law has confused international perception of the cross-strait issue and further consolidated the "one China" principle of unification. The law considers Taiwan a domestic affair.
On the one hand, the law mandates the use of "non-peaceful means" and other necessary measures to deal with a declaration of "de jure Taiwan independence." It also provides legal protection for the lives, property, rights, and interests of Taiwanese, foreign nationals in Taiwan, and Taiwanese in China, which is offered as bait to encourage opposition to independence and support for unification.
At the same time, the law further isolates Taiwan by prohibiting the international community from interfering in China's domestic affairs.
The Anti-Secession Law gives legal form to China's unificationist position, and rules out cross-strait resolution models derived from East and West Germany, North and South Korea, the EU and others and narrows the scope of cross-strait dialogue. All of these fully reveal China's overbearing attitude not only to completely destroy the "1992 consensus," but also its intent to put an end to the long-term cross-strait controversy.
Particularly, instituting such a law will authorize China to broaden its pro-unification focal point from simple cross-strait political issues to international and legal aspects.
The so-called "one China based on legal principles" will further narrow the scope of Taiwan's international activities, and legitimize China's behavior in the international community to oppress Taiwan, making the future of the two sides of the Strait even more distant and alienated.
In fact, Taiwan's 50-year struggle has realized its people's right of self-determination, which is the foundation of all basic human rights. The two international covenants on human rights passed by the UN in 1966 and which came into force in 1976, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (the Social Covenant or Covenant A) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (the Civil Covenant or Covenant B), grant all peoples "the right of self-determination."
The Republic of China in Taiwan is a liberal democracy, the foundation of which is governed by its people. Faced with China's ambition, Taiwanese people, of course, want to defend their country. Only Taiwanese people have the right to determine Taiwan's political status. Only if Taiwan is free from China's military threat can Taiwan's future be determined by the Taiwanese people, rather than unilaterally by China's "legal warfare."
Furthermore, Articles I and III of the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, signed in 1933, specify that "the state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states" and "the political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states."
Therefore, there is no doubt that the Republic of China in Taiwan is a sovereign nation under international law. In the current international trend of developing in the direction of mutual dependency and continuing to promote regional integration, resolving international disputes by means of peaceful negotiation has become a common consensus in the international community.
The following are two examples from other countries in the world. One is the Basic Treaty signed between East and West Germany in 1972 in East Berlin, resolving their basic relations prior to their unification. The other is North and South Korea's participating in the UN.
Therefore, we can make no exceptions about resolving cross-strait issues. We should resume the mechanism of restarting appropriate cross-strait talks and advancing political dialogue. In order to promote cross-strait "co-existence" and "co-prosperity" and ensure a peaceful and stable development of the Asia-Pacific region to meet the shared interests of both sides of the Taiwan Strait and the international community, Taiwan and China should abandon the idea of "zero-sum" competition and must not use the Anti-Secession Law as a weapon. Only in this way can we be able to prevent cross-strait relations from sinking again into a deadlock.
Dominique Wang is a professor of the department and Graduate Institute of Law at National Taiwan University.
TRANSLATED BY LIN YA-TI
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS