CHINA, being a peaceful country with a rich civilization, has once again preferred to domesticate arrogant separatists of Taiwan through precise legal measures. These measures vividly reflect its centuries-old traditions of humanity, conflict resolution, dialogue, diplomacy and development, instead of using any coercive measures. Taiwan has once again become a flashpoint in the region, with external forces of imperialism gearing up to create instability and disharmony to contain China. Nevertheless, China has legitimate rights over Taiwan which has been a province of the mainland for centuries.
To counter the emerging anti-China geopolitical coalitions and the instigation of Taiwan’s government to ally with the West, Chinese authorities issued a set of guidelines on imposing criminal punishments on diehard “Taiwan independence” separatists for conducting or inciting secession, allowing a trial in absentia in relevant cases. It is hoped that this would be effective in controlling these dangerous tendencies of so-called independence among different segments of Taiwan through the deity of law. Ultimately, it would preserve the divinity of China’s principle of national sovereignty and territorial integrity concerning Taiwan. Taiwan is part and parcel of mainland China.
These guidelines were collaboratively issued by the Supreme People’s Court, the Supreme People’s Procuratorate and multiple ministries, representing a reasoned response by Chinese policymakers underpinned by established laws and comprehensive legal frameworks. Drawing from the Anti-Secession Law, Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure Law, these guidelines offer precise rules for convicting and sentencing offenders, providing clear guidance to the judiciary. This approach underscores a commitment to legality over coercive measures, aiming toward a peaceful resolution regarding Taiwan.
Undoubtedly, these guidelines unmistakably define the scenarios in which diehard “Taiwan independence” separatists, whether through organization, plotting, or pursuing “de jure independence,” seeking foreign support, or resorting to force, will face criminal accountability. This strategic initiative represents a robust effort to effectively address separatist sentiments, with explicit provisions for harsher penalties aimed at individuals collaborating with foreign entities. These legal measures are poised to deliver substantial and positive results in the foreseeable future.
According to Article 6 of the new legal document, those who commit the crime of splitting the state may be sentenced to death if the crime causes particularly grave harm to the state and the people or if the circumstances are particularly serious. This move aims to curb conspiratorial schemes and plans of Taiwan’s diehard separatists. The guidelines emphasize balancing clemency, severity, and proportionality in judicial procedures. However, if individuals voluntarily drop their “Taiwan independence” stance, stop separatist activities, and take measures to mitigate or undo the harm or prevent its spread, their cases may be dismissed or they may be exempted from prosecution. Thus, the policy is balanced and based on practical legal measures.
Furthermore, the provision of due process without prejudice to the litigation rights of the suspects or defendants, such as their right to defence and right to appeal, upholds the Chinese true essence of protecting basic human rights to everybody. This shows its civility, humanity, positivity, and high moralities towards society, system, and the general masses even in times of crisis and chaos and abnormality. The document urges all relevant authorities to give full play to their functions, severely punish the “Taiwan independence” diehard elements for conducting or inciting secession, and resolutely safeguard national sovereignty, unity, and territorial integrity.
Chen Binhua, spokesperson of the Taiwan Affairs Office of the State Council, justified these legal measures, describing them as a common international practice to use criminal justice against secessionists and protect state interests. He emphasized their universality and applicability in international criminal law. These measures target a minority of diehard individuals involved in or inciting secession activities, rather than the majority of Taiwan compatriots, representing a focused legal approach to address a small group’s rigid stance.
It is an administrative and judicial mechanism to single out conspiratorial elements and protect the general masses’ popular stance towards China and the socio-economic prosperity and harmony of Taiwan. Simply, it is a grand reconciliation and showcasing of fair play to recognize the situation as soon as possible and quickly rectify their ways. In summary, the Chinese policymakers recently announced a set of guidelines that are articulated and systemized, streamlining national consensus about Taiwan and China’s legitimate right about its unification with the mainland.
Unfortunately, there have been repeated separatist attempts by the diehard supporters of the new Taiwan government advocating “Taiwan independence.” This judicial document seems to be a strategic blow to Lai and his fellow separatists. It authorizes Chinese courts to bring diehard “Taiwan independence” separatists to trials in absentia. In the most severe cases, a convict may receive a death sentence. Additionally, it also acts as a warning and deterrent to external forces who would not keep their hands off affairs related to Taiwan.
It is a balanced policy drawing a clear line between a few stubborn separatists and the rest of Taiwan people. Under the influence of the “Taiwan independence” ideology and due to political differences between the two sides, some in Taiwan may have a misguided understanding of their identities and the nature of cross-Strait relations. They are given chances to free themselves from misunderstandings and be aware of the harmfulness and danger of separatist activities. It is crystal clear that both sides of the Strait belong to one country and people on both sides of the Strait belong to the Chinese nation. This has never changed and will not change. Critical analysis reveals that these legal measures and judicial mechanisms would protect a peaceful and prosperous future for people on both sides of the Strait and encourage reunification. Thus, separatists must face criminal prosecution.
—The writer is President, Centre for South Asia & International Studies.
