‘Red Terror’: Taiwan’s President Accuses Beijing

Map of Taiwan with red pin and earthquake icon — Photo: JoaoCachapa / Shutterstock

Taiwan’s president just warned his party that Beijing’s new “red terror” laws could reach across borders and punish people simply for what they say about Taiwan’s freedom.

Story Snapshot

Taiwan President Lai Ching-te told ruling party members to unite against Beijing’s “red terror” and legal warfare.
Lai says democratic Taiwan is a sovereign, independent nation and “not subordinate” to the People’s Republic of China.
Beijing insists Taiwan is part of China and has reacted sharply, calling Lai’s sovereignty claims “heresy.”
China’s new “ethnic unity” law and older anti-secession rules raise fears of cross-border repression and legal pressure on Taiwan.

Lai’s “red terror” warning to his party

At his Democratic Progressive Party convention, President Lai Ching-te told members that Taiwan must “work together to protect its democracy” and must never become part of China. He described Beijing’s actions as “red terror,” a phrase meant to show fear of political intimidation and punishment coming from the Chinese Communist Party. Lai urged party leaders and supporters to resist this pressure and to block any attempts by Beijing to reach into Taiwan’s society through law, money, or media.

President Lai linked this “red terror” idea directly to China’s new Law on Promoting Ethnic Unity and Progress, which he says can be used as a weapon across borders. He warned that the law could let Beijing claim power over people outside mainland China if they are seen as part of a Chinese “nation,” including Taiwanese critics and activists. Lai called this “legal warfare,” saying Taiwan must build defenses in its courts, government, and media to protect citizens from foreign charges or pressure built on Beijing’s rules.

A direct claim of Taiwanese sovereignty

Lai’s party speech follows a clear pattern in his public remarks: he repeatedly states that Taiwan is “of course” a country and a sovereign, independent nation. In his inaugural address, he said, “The Republic of China and the People’s Republic of China are not subordinate to each other,” and urged all political parties to oppose annexation and protect sovereignty. Later, at a national security press conference, he stressed that only the 23 million people of Taiwan can decide their future, not Beijing.

In other speeches, Lai has explained that whether people call the island the Republic of China, Taiwan, or Republic of China Taiwan, all those names refer to the same country with its own government and democratic system. He argues that China’s claim over Taiwan lacks solid historical and legal basis and that the reality on the ground is a self-ruled democracy that has never been governed by the People’s Republic of China. This message aims to reassure Taiwanese citizens who worry that outside powers might trade away their freedom for economic deals or short-term peace.

Beijing’s sharp reaction and legal tools

Chinese officials strongly reject Lai’s position and insist Taiwan is an inalienable part of China’s territory. After one of Lai’s major sovereignty speeches, Beijing labeled him “heretical,” confrontational, and provocative, accusing him of pushing formal independence. Chinese spokespeople repeat that “both sides of the Taiwan Strait belong to one and the same China” and that the government in Beijing is the only legal government representing all Chinese people, including those on Taiwan.

Beijing backs these claims with a web of laws and documents, including its Anti-Secession Law and its “one China” principle, which says there is only one China and Taiwan is an inalienable part of it. Analysts note that these rules give legal cover to military drills, economic pressure, and information campaigns targeting Taiwan. Lai and other Taiwanese officials now argue that the new ethnic unity law adds another tool for “political warfare,” widening the reach of Chinese courts and police in ways that could threaten dissidents, business leaders, or even foreign visitors who speak up for Taiwan.

What this fight means for ordinary people

For people in the United States watching from afar, this clash shows how big governments can use laws and vague “security” language to grab more control, far beyond their borders. Lai describes a struggle between “democratic Taiwan” and what he calls “Taiwan, China,” the label Beijing prefers. His team is building a permanent task force for “counter-lawfare,” focused on history, messaging, and legal defenses, to make sure outside rules cannot quietly erase Taiwan’s self-rule.

Many Americans, both conservative and liberal, see a familiar pattern. A distant, powerful government writes broad laws, claims the right to define truth, and treats disagreement as a crime or “separatism.” That is what Lai calls “red terror” in the Taiwan context. Whether in Asia or at home, this kind of legal overreach worries citizens who already feel ignored by elites and locked out of real decision-making. The Taiwan case is a reminder that defending local freedom often starts with clear language, open debate, and a firm line against outside control.