On June 21st, the Chinese Communist Party’s “two high courts and three departments” announced the penalty of death for those involved in “Taiwan independence”, with the option of a “trial in absentia” for those accused of “attempting to split the country”. Analysts believe that this move by the CCP to introduce harsh laws against “Taiwan independence” is a form of intimidation, but its effectiveness is limited.
The joint release by China’s Supreme Court, Supreme Procuratorate, Ministry of Public Security, Ministry of State Security, and Ministry of Justice outlined penalties for individuals deemed as “primary instigators” of “splitting the country”, including sentences of over ten years in prison, life imprisonment, or even the death penalty for cases deemed “particularly severe and heinous”.
The document is divided into four parts with 22 articles. In the second part, under the section of “accurate determination of crimes”, activities such as establishing organizations advocating for Taiwan independence, planning actions or schemes for Taiwan independence, or engaging in international organizations limited to sovereign states, are considered as crimes of splitting the country.
In the third part, regarding “application of procedures”, the text specifies that defendants residing overseas can be tried in absentia.
The Taiwan Mainland Affairs Council responded on the evening of the 21st, stating that Beijing has absolutely no jurisdiction over Taiwan’s legal matters. This approach only serves to heighten cross-strait tensions, hinder exchanges, and impede the positive development of cross-strait relations. The government urged the public to remain calm and not be swayed by the threats and intimidation from the CCP.
Wang Hongren, Executive Director of the National Policy Research Institute, pointed out in an interview with the Central News Agency that the purpose of China’s release of this opinion is to create “immediate fear” while using legal means to legitimize crackdowns on specific ideological targets, with “political objectives overriding legal objectives”.
Wu Sezhi, Director of the China Issues Research Center in Taiwan, believes that “trial in absentia” is a way for the Chinese Communist Party to assert its jurisdiction over Taiwan. However, there are legal concerns regarding the application of “trial in absentia”, as such trial methods violate legal procedures and human rights.
Furthermore, the Chinese State Council Taiwan Affairs Office unexpectedly summoned Taiwanese media representatives in Beijing for a press conference on the 21st without disclosing the agenda.
Lai Jianping, former Beijing lawyer and Chairman of the Alliance for a Democratic China in Canada, stated in an interview with Epoch Times that currently, the world is rallying behind Taiwan. Xi Jinping dares not initiate a conflict with Taiwan, as it goes against his personal interests and those of the Communist Party. Therefore, he had to resort to legal means, such as this judicial interpretation, to display his authority. This demonstrates that the CCP is running out of options.
“Xi Jinping aims for lifelong rule, so he cannot afford any risks. A military attack on Taiwan might provoke a global backlash, economic sanctions, and diplomatic isolation. Even if he were to win, it could lead to a comprehensive political crisis domestically, which would be detrimental to his dream of becoming an emperor for life,” Lai Jianping emphasized.
Lai Jianping added that this opinion paper falls under judicial interpretation. As a totalitarian regime, the Communist Party operates without the rule of law, so their laws, regulations, judicial interpretations, and even notifications or responses can be utilized as legal tools in society.
According to him, based on their interpretation, actions or expressions related to so-called “splitting the country”, regardless of the individual’s nationality or location, could lead to a trial in absentia in any court in mainland China, with the maximum penalty being death.
Who does the CCP view as “Taiwan independence”? Lai Jianping explained, “Not only the people and politicians in Taiwan, but also many foreigners, including overseas Chinese advocating for Taiwan’s de facto sovereign status, supporting the Democratic Progressive Party, endorsing Taiwan’s actual independence, and advocating for pragmatic diplomacy between Taiwan and Western countries. The CCP labels all these individuals as advocates of Taiwan independence. Most people will not be intimidated by such demonization or threats.”
Hu Ping, Honorary Editor-in-Chief of Beijing Spring magazine, highlighted in an interview with Epoch Times that the CCP’s introduction of this opinion is a response to Tsai Ing-wen’s inauguration and her May 20 speech. However, Beijing has no actual jurisdiction over Taiwan unless so-called “Taiwan independence” figures willingly come to the mainland. The trial in absentia is merely a show, posing no substantial threat to the individuals concerned, with its primary goal being to increase threats and intimidation towards Taiwan.
Both experts believe that the deterrent effect of these measures is limited and largely symbolic.
Lai Jianping noted, “Currently, major democratic countries worldwide are supportive of Taiwan, recognizing it as an indispensable part of the world, especially in the high-tech sector like semiconductors, where Taiwan plays a crucial role in the global supply chain. Taiwan has received unprecedented support. The United States acknowledges the ‘One China’ principle while pursuing pragmatic diplomatic approaches.”
In this scenario, the majority of Taiwanese people are not easily swayed by the CCP’s threats. With limited options and deterred from military action, the CCP resorts to slogans, legal tactics, but ultimately lacks the ability to control the situation effectively.
Chen Binhua, spokesperson for the Chinese State Council Taiwan Affairs Office, claimed that “Taiwan independence” is the greatest threat leading to military conflicts and harm to the interests of the Taiwanese people. Only by strictly punishing crimes of “Taiwan independence” according to the law can the people of Taiwan enjoy the dividends of peaceful cross-strait development and lead peaceful and prosperous lives.
In response, Hu Ping argued that the root cause of potential military conflicts between the two sides lies in China’s restriction of Taiwan’s international space rather than in Taiwan itself.
He emphasized, “What troubles the Taiwanese the most is their lack of proper international status and space. For instance, they have no seat in the United Nations, cannot display their national flag at the Olympics, and lack formal diplomatic relations with most countries. Taiwan has become an international orphan, a core issue that concerns both blue and green camps.”
“Mentioned clearly by Ma Ying-jeou in the past, if China does not grant us international status and space, it backs us into a corner, regardless of independence. Now, Lai Ching-te also urges the People’s Republic of China to acknowledge the existence of the Republic of China. This essentially signifies “One China, Two Governments”, and over the years, the two sides have approached such a state,” Hu Ping elaborated. “Lai Ching-te is clear in maintaining the status quo, refraining from altering the constitution or the Act Governing Relations between the People of Taiwan and Mainland China. Should he want to amend the constitution, it would be seen as crossing a red line by the CCP.”
The international community has been monitoring signs of China’s comprehensive preparedness for an assault on Taiwan and indications leading up to a conflict.
Recently, the Financial Times reported information shared by informed sources, revealing that Xi Jinping, during a meeting with the European Commission President von der Leyen in April 2023, stated that the United States was attempting to provoke China into attacking Taiwan but he would not fall for it.
Lai Jianping commented, “Given the current situation, the louder they bark (the CCP), the safer the Taiwan Strait might be. Of course, Xi Jinping might act irrationally or pitfalls may arise, potentially leading to the CCP’s downfall, jeopardizing even their own lives. It’s hard to predict with historical events having certain contingencies.”