Taiwan 'referendum' runs counter to international law: Wen Wai Po

Home>>Opinion

Last updated at: (Beijing Time) Thursday, November 27, 2003

Taiwan 'referendum' runs counter to international law: Wen Wai Po

The Taiwan authorities' pushing for "referendum" is an act that runs counter to international law, an article signed Hua Qing on HK-based Wen Wai Po pointed out on November 24.

DISCUSSION

CHINESE

SEND TO FRIEND

The Taiwan authorities' pushing for "referendum" is an act that runs counter to international law, an article signed Hua Qing on HK-based Wen Wai Po pointed out on November 24.

The "right" defined in the principle of "national self-determination" as part of the international customary law refers to the "right of national independence" bestowed on colonial peoples, oppressed nations and other members of the international community in their decolonization process, the article said. It doesn't include, and can never be regarded as equal to the "right of national separation" by which some regions and people within a country of existing sovereign states want to separate themselves from their motherlands. By far, none of international treaties and international customary laws that contain regulations on "right of national self-determination" deals with the question of "right of separation".

What's more, special rules were laid down in the "Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples" (1960) and the "Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations " (1970) to prevent the abuse of "the right of national self-determination" (in fact to prevent "national separation"). The former provided that "Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations", and the latter stipulated that "Nothing in the foregoing paragraphs shall be construed as authorizing or encouraging any action which would dismember or impair, totally or in part, the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent States conducting themselves in compliance with the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples as described above and thus possessed of a government representing the whole people belonging to the territory without distinction as to race, creed or color".

The reason in root of international law not supporting "right of separation" lies in the fact that "separation" runs counter to the principles and purposes of the United Nations, and stands opposite to state sovereignty and territorial integrity. It's impossible for world countries as the principal makers of international law to grant the "right of separation" in making international law and allow part of their regions and peoples to separate themselves from their motherlands, which would lead to weakened state strength, or even "state disintegrations". The international law recognizes the principle of "national self-determination" in decolonization, but doesn't accept the statement that the specific principle of "national self-determination" includes, or even equals the "right of national separation"-this is a general consensus of the international community. In Taiwan, a part of the territory of China, a sovereign state, the pushing of "referendum" to determine the island's future, (that is, to promote "national separation") by Chen Shui-bian and the local authorities is totally incompatible with any human rights principles in any international law.

As regards the "referendum for Taiwan's future", the article said, the Taiwan splittist forces' greatest hope is to get support from the United States. As a forerunner of worldwide decolonization movement, the United States completed its "national self-determination" during its struggle for toppling the British colonial rule. After gaining independence and establishing the state, however, the United States, as a "model of democracy" for Western countries, has been unequivocally rejecting and opposing internal "democratic self-determination" in the course of consolidating and developing the nation, especially in regard to the question of territory. According to the US Constitution, the Congress is entitled to regulate disputes over administrative regions in inter-state relations, but is never allowed to change the state ownership of national territory. The United States can add more land to its territory but will never tolerate any loss in any forms of its existing territory. The 19th century American Civil War was triggered off precisely by independence calls from southern states through "democratic self-determination". The prestige enjoyed by Lincoln, which even surpassed Washington, the "Father of Independence", to top the list of all American presidents, is built on his efforts in leading American people to fight for national unity at the cost of lives and blood, (he himself also gave his life for that cause). In his famous "splitting house" speech, Lincoln expressed his opposition to separation which would "make the house collapse" and "the federal states disintegrate", thus leaving a voice of national unity vibrating for ever in American history.

For any country in the world, the overall national interests stand above partial and local interests, the article pointed out, and state sovereignty and territorial integrity admit of no "national separation" by some areas. The question of "national separation" belongs to the internal affairs of a country, and the country has the right to take any necessary means to deal with "national separation". This is perfectly justified under international law and domestic law.

The Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China, passed in 1979 and revised for the fifth time in 1997, laid down clearly in Article 13 of its General Provisions and in Articles 102, 103 and 104 of its separate provisions that jeopardizing state sovereignty, territorial integrity and security, splitting the country and disrupting national unification constitute a crime of jeopardizing state security. The Taiwan question is no exception. If a problem of "national separation" occurs in the Taiwan region of Chinese territory, the Chinese government is well entitled to resort to any necessary means to solve it in accordance with law, the article concluded.

(Article on Wen Wai Po, November 24; translated by PD Online staff member Li Heng.)

Questions?Comments? Click here

Chen Shui-bian's plan a blueprint for disaster

Scholars warn Taiwan against including "independence" in referendum law

Referendum bill prompts tougher talk: Spokesman

>> Full Coverage

US needs to be fair with China: News analysis ( 5 Messages)

Mainland's serious warnings to Chen Shui-bian ( 10 Messages)

What's behind the resignation of Georgian president? ( 3 Messages)

Party meeting mulls China's economic work in 2004 ( 3 Messages)

US urged not to send wrong signal to Taiwan separatists ( 8 Messages)