Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Tsai Yi-yu (蔡易餘) and fellow DPP lawmakers have proposed amending the Additional Articles to the Constitution and the Act Governing Relations Between the People of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area (臺灣地區與大陸地區人民關係條例).
The text they want to change deals with the goal of cross-strait unification and the de jure sovereignty of the Republic of China extending to all of China.
In response, China’s Taiwan Affairs Office (TAO) spokesman Ma Xiaoguang (馬曉光) said: “It is extremely dangerous that a handful of separatists have misread the situation and become unbridled in pushing Taiwanese independence.”
Although the view that Taiwan is pushing for independence under cover of the COVID-19 pandemic has stirred up a wave of calls in China for unification by military force, what Taiwanese should focus on is probably the use of military force to prevent independence.
Perhaps the reason that legislators from all groups within the DPP and the leaders of the party’s legislative caucus gave their support to these supporters of President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) just before her inauguration today was that they wanted to take the edge off the political pressure created by referendums proposed by those who urgently want independence.
Two referendum questions were proposed: “Do you agree that the president should be asked to initiate constitutional reform?” and “Do you agree that the president should be asked to initiate the creation of a new constitution that suits Taiwan’s current status?”
These questions do not meet the requirements of the Referendum Act (公民投票法), which stipulates that it applies to “referendums on laws” and “initiatives or referendums on important policies.” In addition, the president does not have the constitutional power that these two questions call for.
By bringing the question of writing a new constitution down to a matter of amending the Constitution and a law, Tsai Yi-yu and others have likely helped the president shed some of the pressure from radical independence advocates.
However, from the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) perspective, keeping the national title unchanged is intended to cover up the move toward independence, as the proposed changes recognize that the People’s Republic of China holds de jure sovereignty over “the mainland area.” To the CCP, this is tantamount to the creation of two Chinas and a step on the way toward Taiwanese independence.
The CCP thinks “China” is not divided, that its sovereignty and territory are complete, and that it is just a matter of Taiwan and the rest of China being under “separate rule.”
As the wave of calls for unification by military force sweeps over China, the CCP has stuck to the bottom line of its “Anti-Secession” Law — the use of military force to prevent Taiwanese independence.
On May 4, retired Chinese People’s Liberation Army Air Force major general Qiao Liang (喬良) said on Chinese social media app WeChat: “The Taiwan problem cannot be solved with rashness and radicalism,” and until China’s national strength can match that of the US, it should not fall in the “unification by military force” trap set by the US to block the continued revival of the Chinese nation.
However, Qiao also said that China can use military force to block Taiwan’s independence without starting a war.
Taiwan must understand that while China might not be willing or able to follow through on unification by military force, the possibility that it will use military force to prevent independence is increasing.
Kuei Hung-chen is CEO of the Democracy Foundation.
Translated by Perry Svensson
In the US’ National Security Strategy (NSS) report released last month, US President Donald Trump offered his interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine. The “Trump Corollary,” presented on page 15, is a distinctly aggressive rebranding of the more than 200-year-old foreign policy position. Beyond reasserting the sovereignty of the western hemisphere against foreign intervention, the document centers on energy and strategic assets, and attempts to redraw the map of the geopolitical landscape more broadly. It is clear that Trump no longer sees the western hemisphere as a peaceful backyard, but rather as the frontier of a new Cold War. In particular,
As the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) races toward its 2027 modernization goals, most analysts fixate on ship counts, missile ranges and artificial intelligence. Those metrics matter — but they obscure a deeper vulnerability. The true future of the PLA, and by extension Taiwan’s security, might hinge less on hardware than on whether the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) can preserve ideological loyalty inside its own armed forces. Iran’s 1979 revolution demonstrated how even a technologically advanced military can collapse when the social environment surrounding it shifts. That lesson has renewed relevance as fresh unrest shakes Iran today — and it should
When it became clear that the world was entering a new era with a radical change in the US’ global stance in US President Donald Trump’s second term, many in Taiwan were concerned about what this meant for the nation’s defense against China. Instability and disruption are dangerous. Chaos introduces unknowns. There was a sense that the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) might have a point with its tendency not to trust the US. The world order is certainly changing, but concerns about the implications for Taiwan of this disruption left many blind to how the same forces might also weaken
On today’s page, Masahiro Matsumura, a professor of international politics and national security at St Andrew’s University in Osaka, questions the viability and advisability of the government’s proposed “T-Dome” missile defense system. Matsumura writes that Taiwan’s military budget would be better allocated elsewhere, and cautions against the temptation to allow politics to trump strategic sense. What he does not do is question whether Taiwan needs to increase its defense capabilities. “Given the accelerating pace of Beijing’s military buildup and political coercion ... [Taiwan] cannot afford inaction,” he writes. A rational, robust debate over the specifics, not the scale or the necessity,
RSS