NCJ Number
80303
Journal
Terrorism Volume: 5 Issue: 3 Dated: (1981) Pages: 233-264
Date Published
1981
Length
32 pages
Annotation
This article explains Taiwan's emergency provisions limiting political and civil rights and its antiterrorist strategies in terms of its history since 1949, which has been a period of continued crisis.
Abstract
In the United States, thoughtless reactions to terrorism from various security agencies clearly pose a greater immediate threat to civil liberties than all the terrorist groups in the political spectrum. This cannot be said for Israel and the Republic of China (ROC), which are both preoccupied with survival against formidable opponents. The ROC, like Israel, was forged in the savagery that characterized the end of World War II and has continuously faced a committed enemy possessed of enormous military capabilities for 30 years. It has remained under emergency regulations, although the range of behaviors to which they apply and the rigors with which they are implemented have changed. Martial law was imposed in 1949, accompanied by the Statute for Punishment of Rebellion and a year later the Statute for Denunciation and Suppression of Rebels. The military originally were charged with investigating, apprehending, and prosecuting individuals charged with all offenses, but common crimes and many other offenses committed by civilians gradually were relegated back to the civil courts in the 1950's. Although the laws governing subversion are much broader than they would be in a Western democracy and violations of such provisions are handled by the harsher military authorities, the Department of State in 1978 reported a marked decline in incidents involving infractions of human rights on Taiwan. Continued controls over publications, public meetings, and the expression of dissent are understandable in view of the threats still posed by mainland China. The ROC authorities have always considered terrorism as but one tactic in a complex array employed by Communist revolutionaries, an assessment supported by historical evidence and Marxist theory. The martial law system enabled the Government to control unrest in the countryside and cities that could have disrupted the country's transition to a modern economy. There is little agitation at present for increased political freedoms in Taiwan, largely due to security regulations, Chinese traditions, socialization, and the substantial rises in per capita income that have occurred under the existing system. To combat terrorism, Taiwan has tried to eliminate opportunities for unrest through economic development, a credible defense capacity, expanded membership in the ruling political party, and loosened restrictions on dissent. The paper contains 66 footnotes.