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
Why is Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) not a “happy camper” these days regarding Taiwan? Taiwanese have not become more “CCP friendly” in response to the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) use of spies and graft by the United Front Work Department, intimidation conducted by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and the Armed Police/Coast Guard, and endless subversive political warfare measures, including cyber-attacks, economic coercion, and diplomatic isolation. The percentage of Taiwanese that prefer the status quo or prefer moving towards independence continues to rise — 76 percent as of December last year. According to National Chengchi University (NCCU) polling, the Taiwanese
It would be absurd to claim to see a silver lining behind every US President Donald Trump cloud. Those clouds are too many, too dark and too dangerous. All the same, viewed from a domestic political perspective, there is a clear emerging UK upside to Trump’s efforts at crashing the post-Cold War order. It might even get a boost from Thursday’s Washington visit by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. In July last year, when Starmer became prime minister, the Labour Party was rigidly on the defensive about Europe. Brexit was seen as an electorally unstable issue for a party whose priority
US President Donald Trump is systematically dismantling the network of multilateral institutions, organizations and agreements that have helped prevent a third world war for more than 70 years. Yet many governments are twisting themselves into knots trying to downplay his actions, insisting that things are not as they seem and that even if they are, confronting the menace in the White House simply is not an option. Disagreement must be carefully disguised to avoid provoking his wrath. For the British political establishment, the convenient excuse is the need to preserve the UK’s “special relationship” with the US. Following their White House
US President Donald Trump’s return to the White House has brought renewed scrutiny to the Taiwan-US semiconductor relationship with his claim that Taiwan “stole” the US chip business and threats of 100 percent tariffs on foreign-made processors. For Taiwanese and industry leaders, understanding those developments in their full context is crucial while maintaining a clear vision of Taiwan’s role in the global technology ecosystem. The assertion that Taiwan “stole” the US’ semiconductor industry fundamentally misunderstands the evolution of global technology manufacturing. Over the past four decades, Taiwan’s semiconductor industry, led by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), has grown through legitimate means
RSS