SAWING OFF THE BRANCH ONE IS SITTING ON

As the Framers of our American Constitution astutely observed, the people retain in perpetuity the right of revolution. The right of revolution is the right to throw out everything that went before and start over from scratch. The right of revolution is a fundamental right derived from nature, with logical and moral priority over man's law.

So far, so good.

The problem arises when the Taiwan independence nomenklatura, out of either ignorance or duplicity, conflates the fundamental right of revolution with the derivative right of referendum/plebiscite.

Many of the DPP's obdurately pro independence legislators boast advanced law degrees from highly respected European or Ivy League American law schools. Yet few if any of these ostensible legal experts grasp the critical distinction between the right of referendum/plebiscite, and the right of revolution. They have been educated, as the famous quip goes, beyond their intelligence.

The right of referendum/plebiscite under the Constitution of the Republic of China pertains only to routine matters of public policy, such as whether or not to build the controversial "Nuclear Four" power plant, and then only within the legal framework of the Republic of China.

This right of referendum/plebiscite may not be invoked OUTSIDE the constitutional framework of the very same Republic of China from which its authority derives.

The Taiwan independence nomenklatura is comprised in large part of DPP Members of the Legislature of the Republic of China, elected in accordance with the Constitution of the Republic of China, deriving any and all legal authority they might exercise from the Constitution of the Republic of China.

For them to demand a referendum/plebiscite overthrowing the Republic of China and establishing a Republic of Taiwan, while invoking legal authority derived from provisions within the Constitution of the Republic of China, is a constitutional law non-starter.

To invoke the legal authority of a political system one is simultaneously repudiating and attempting to overthrow, is akin to sitting in a tree while sawing away at the branch one is sitting on. It is akin to standing on a scaffold and taking a sledgehammer to it, all the while denying that the scaffold is the very thing holding you up.

See: "Taiwan Independence: Will of a Majority or Whim of an Elite?" and "Mr. Lee Goes to Taipei."

Taiwan independence zealots are of course free to attempt to establish an "independent Taiwan nation" by exercising their right of revolution.

But they had better realize in advance that Chinese patriots have the equal right to prevent the disintegration of their nation, China, that "a revolution is not a dinner party" and sure as hell isn't a free lunch. And as recent polls make abundantly clear, Chinese patriots far outnumber Taiwan independence zealots, even if we count only China's Taiwan region and not the Chinese mainland.

SECESSION FOR ME BUT NOT FOR THEE

Secessionists typically assert that a self-defined subset of people inhabiting a self-defined geographical region on earth has the right to govern itself and need answer to no "higher" authority.

This proposition is either valid or it is not.

It can't be both. One can't have ones' secessionist cake and eat it too.

Yet this is exactly what almost all secessionists, including Taiwan secessionists, try to do.

Secessionists, with the exception of rigorously consistent, radical libertarian secessionists, almost never grand subsets of individuals within their own political entities the identical right of secession.

Once the prospect of political disintegration confronts them and threatens their "independent republics," tailor-made to suit them, they suddenly start singing a different tune, and cite the desperate overriding need for national unity, national sovereignty and territorial integrity.

What gives them the right to claim the "self-determination moral high ground" while simultaneously denying it to others who would secede from them?

If one purports to uphold "the right of secession" then one obligates oneself to really and truly uphold the right of secession, everywhere, all the time, for anybody and everybody. Otherwise one is merely tailoring the principle of "the right to secession" to legitimize nation-building on ones' own terms, not upholding a hallowed, universal principle.

UNIVERSAL SECESSION VERSUS TAIWAN SECESSION

Taiwan secessionists rank among the most hypocritical. For example, the Taiwan independence elite objects to Beijing's unwillingness to renounce the use of force in its determination to nip Taiwan secession in the bud.

This is absolutely true.

What of it?

So are the Taiwan independence elite. They are equally unwilling to forswear the use of force.

I have yet to encounter a single Taiwan independence advocate willing to renounce the use of force to prevent secession from THEIR "independent Republic of Taiwan" should IT ever become a reality.

Taiwan independence zealots have explicitly defined their "independent Republic of Taiwan" as "Tai, Peng, Kin, Ma," short for "Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, and Matsu."

They have said nothing about acknowledging the equal right of anyone who detests their "Republic of Taiwan," including Aborigines, Hakkas and "mainlanders," the solemn right to secede from IT.

They have said nothing about forsaking in advance the use of force to prevent secession from their precious "Republic of Taiwan" which would lead to its political dissolution.

And they never will.

Quite the contrary. Taiwan independence zealots have threatened to deal harshly with "Tai jian" i.e., "traitors to Taiwan" at the appropriate time.

To get a sense of what they might have in mind for those they consider "Tai jian," one need only recall the 2-28 Incident of 1947, when Taiwan independence fanatics, working hand in glove with diehard Japanese Fifth Columnists, went on a week long rampage, slaughtering thousands of unarmed "mainlanders," including women and children.

UNIVERSAL SECESSION VERSUS AMERICAN EMPIRE

As a conscientious libertarian I myself endorse the principle of a radical, consistent, universal right of secession, more or less along the lines proposed by seminal Austrian economist Murray Rothbard.

Unfortunately in our less than perfect world, implementation is invariably selective and calculated to benefit certain political players, and not others. To Balkanize and weaken certain political entities, and not others.

If the Benevolent Global Hegemonists in our own nation's capitol were to practice what they so sanctimoniously preach to China, and renounce the use of force against fellow Americans who yearn to be free and independent of our own oppressive federal Leviathan, hundreds of libertarian radicals would promptly declare tiny plots of land to which they hold legal title to be independent republics. They would conduct referenda/plebiscites in which they voted themselves heads of state, and immediately cease paying taxes to the Internal Revenue Service of the United States of America.

If our federal Leviathan were to refrain from using force against this homegrown secessionist vanguard, as our meddling Washington foreign policy elites demand Beijing do regarding Taiwan, these independent republics would stand.

Witnessing their successful precedent, countless once apathetic members of the Great Silent Majority would promptly follow suit, and America would soon consist of thousands, even millions of tiny independent, or at least autonomous, republics, none of them paying a dime in taxes to the swarms of worthless parasites in Washington.

We all know of course none of this is about to happen.

That is not the point. The point is why such a scenario is so unlikely.

The reason is our own federal Leviathan itself refuses to renounce the use of force against those would secede from our American Empire.

Knowing full well what the IRS and the police would do to him or her, the average American citizen quite understandably calculates that the price of genuine liberty is simply too high and every April 14th obediently, meekly writes out a check for his or her unconstitutional but ever escalating federal income taxes.

UNIVERSAL SECESSION VERSUS THE GREAT GAME

When our foreign policy elites prattle on about "the right to self-determination" they are not talking about genuine respect for exalted universal principles, but about Rudyard Kipling's "The Great Game." They are talking about "We get to divide and conquer you, but you don't get to divide and conquer us."

As long as this realpolitik status quo prevails, any foreign political leader would have to be a complete idiot to abide by such high-minded principles when everybody else is either ignoring them or selectively exploiting them to their geopolitical advantage.

Until Taiwan independence zealots and their fellow travelers in Tokyo and Washington are prepared to loudly, visibly, publicly endorse and abide by a universal right to secession, not merely for Taiwan and Tibet, but for Okinawa, Alaska, Hawaii and Texas, for cities, counties, towns and villages within Taiwan, they would do well to shut their mouths, as they have no right whatsoever to speak of the "self-determination moral high ground."

Please Support Antiwar.com