Lest there be any confusion on this point, the National People’s Congress of China adopted a law on March 14 to declare that “there is only one China in the world.” Indeed, this “anti-secession law” is almost comical in its opening provisions, and the process of its passage provides a singularly unedifying spectacle of sham parliamentarianism.

Unfortunately, it must nonetheless be taken seriously. Stripped of the rhetoric, its essential purpose is to threaten military action against Taiwan in order to achieve unification. This would, of course, represent a radical shift in the status quo in the Taiwan Strait, since the island of 23 million people has not been under Chinese sovereignty or jurisdiction for over a century.

Moreover, the posturing of the law is given teeth by China’s ongoing relentless defense buildup, which is increasingly focused on Taiwan. China continues to steadily enlarge its force of ballistic missiles, of which there are now more than 700 deployed in the southeast of China targeting Taiwan’s cities. Regular military exercises simulate amphibious assaults, blockades, and other measures against Taiwan. Not least, China continues to upgrade its high-tech weaponry, especially through purchases of Russian aircraft and naval vessels.

Taken together, the stated intentions of China and its increasing capabilities pose a fundamental challenge not only to the people of Taiwan, but to the international community. It is important to recall that the costs of any conflict between Asia’s second and fourth-largest economies would be devastating for the entire global economy.

With these ramifications in mind, many members of the international community have already clearly expressed concern about the law and the attitude it represents. It appears the European Union, for now, will retain its arms embargo on China, which was imposed following the Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989. However, key European countries have made clear their desire to end the embargo and sell advanced military equipment to China, which would further destabilize the region.

Blinded by the short-term commercial reward of gaining access to Chinese markets, the same countries that once strengthened Saddam Hussein’s regime have already forgotten that those who sell weapons to dictatorships do so at their own peril. Rewarding China’s intransigence with new supplies of high-tech military equipment surely sends the wrong message to the rulers in Beijing.

European governments are understandably seeking to redefine their niche in an international arena reconfigured by the war in Iraq. However, it would be better to accomplish this through even more vigorous promotion of the universal values of peace, democracy, and human rights. Repeating old mistakes of acquiescence in and complicity with repressive regimes is surely not the right path.

Particularly since the war in Iraq, the effectiveness of the United Nations Security Council in maintaining international peace and security has also been called into question. The situation in the Taiwan Strait presents an important opportunity for the Security Council to demonstrate that it can play a constructive role in facilitating the peaceful settlement of disputes.

Those who glibly reject the relevance of the Security Council on the grounds that China, as a permanent member, can wield its veto to block any discussion of Taiwan need to read the United Nations Charter more carefully. Specifically, they should look at Article 27, which requires that in decisions of the Security Council relating to the peaceful settlement of disputes under Chapter VI of the U.N. Charter, a “party to a dispute shall abstain from voting.”

Democratic revolutions have spread from the Black Sea to Central Asia, just as they did before in Central Europe and the Pacific Rim. Taiwan’s evolution to free and vibrant democracy has immeasurably improved the lives of our citizens. Our democratic journey is irreversible, our hard-won freedoms too precious to give up. Across the Taiwan Strait we see a country that ruthlessly resists the democratic waves of change.

China is a one-party state with no political freedom. It has thousands of Internet censors and secret police determined to thwart access to free information and ideas of liberty. And it dangerously stokes anti-Japanese protests to bolster its nationalist credentials. At the core, differences between China and Taiwan are differences between a menacing dictatorship and a democracy under siege. China’s belligerent posture is the direct result of the lack of freedom for its people and the continuation of secretive one-party rule lacking political legitimacy.

It is inevitable that there will come a day when the international community recognizes that the Taiwanese people, like the Lebanese, Palestinian, Kyrgyz, Georgian, Ukrainian, Israeli, and so many others, have the right to determine their own government, their own identity, and their own destiny. All that is required is for the international community to muster the political will to demand peace in the Taiwan Strait until the Chinese people enjoy the benefits of freedom enjoyed by the Taiwanese people.

Mr. Chen is Taiwan’s minister of foreign affairs.