Washington, March 18 (CNA) The U.S. Department of State on Tuesday reiterated its long-standing commitment to deterring threats against Taiwan’s security in response to a recent symposium in Beijing marking the 20th anniversary of China’s Anti-Secession Law.
While Chinese officials reinforced their firm stance against Taiwanese independence at the symposium, a State Department spokesperson said that U.S. policy remains unchanged.
“We have a longstanding position on Taiwan that we’re not going to abandon, and that is: We are against any unilateral, forced, compelled, or coercive change in the status of Taiwan,” the spokesperson told CNA via email, citing recent remarks by U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
However, the spokesperson said the threat Taiwan faces from China has escalated, pointing out judicial guidelines Beijing issued last year that direct courts and law enforcement agencies to prosecute and punish so-called “Taiwan independence diehards,” with some cases even warranting the death penalty.
China’s intimidation campaign against Taiwan and its supporters in the United States and worldwide has gone global, “threatening free speech, destabilizing the Indo-Pacific region, and eroding norms that have underpinned the cross-Strait status quo for decades,” the spokesperson said
“In the face of such provocative and irresponsible actions by China, the United States remains committed to maintaining the capacity to deter aggressive action and resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security, or the social or economic system, of the people on Taiwan,” the spokesperson said.
Enacted on March 14, 2005, China’s Anti-Secession Law was designed to “oppose and curb the separatist forces of Taiwan independence from dividing the country while facilitating the peaceful unification of the motherland,” as stated in Article 1 of the law.
In addition, Article 8 of the law specifies that “the state shall take nonpeaceful measures and other necessary actions to safeguard national sovereignty and territorial integrity” under conditions such as “the possibility of peaceful unification is completely lost.”
