Following Formosa

"Fate protects fools, children, and ships named Enterprise."

Taiwanese News
Summary and Analysis, Wednesday March 16 2005

Special Report: March Against “Anti-Secession” Law

Last Sunday several hundred thousand Taiwanese marched in Taipei to protest mainland China’s “anti-secession” law. The fact that Taiwanese president Chen Shui-bian broke precedent by taking part in the march personally has affected the domestic political situation and created the possibility that the recent warming in relations, marked especially by the historic Lunar New Year flights, might have been for nothing. This week’s report will describe the nature of the protests while paying particular attention to discrepancies with reports in Western news sources, describe the probable domestic repercussions, and conclude by examining possibilities for cross-strait relations in the future.
Although most news agencies outside of Taiwan reported that around a million people took part in the march, it should be noted that Taipei’s police department put the estimated number at a little over 200,000. Moreover, many polls indicated that a significant amount of Taiwanese were opposed to the march because of fears that it would provoke China. Although some American newspapers described this as simply a march to oppose China’s “anti-secession” law, your correspondent, who attended the march, found this not quite to be the case. Many groups participating were extremely anti-China. Signs saying “Fuck China” or “China is the Devil” were common. Some groups called not only for independence from China, but to actively work to undermine the Chinese Communist Party. Because Chen joined the march along with such groups as these, the fact that their presence was not highlighted by Taiwanese or Western news sources may have been a fortunate accident.
The fact that President Chen personally marched is significant because of his recent overtures to a pro-Chinese political party, the People First Party. The PFP Chairman had urged Chen not to participate in the talks and to rather take the high ground. However, Chen had recently been losing support from his own pro-independence camp because of his promises to the PFP Chairman, namely, not to pursue independence during the rest of his final presidential term. Chen’s use of the march to reclaim leadership of the pan-green (pro-independence alliance) may have upset his alliance with PFP, and also thereby hurt future chances of improving cross-strait relations. He did not, however, make a speech to the demonstrators, which can be seen as a concession to the PFP. A speech would have been seen as much more inflammatory to the CCP.
Despite threats that Taiwan would adapt some type of legislation to respond to the anti-secession law, it seems that this will not be the case. In fact, the Taiwanese government has been relatively mild in its concrete response to the anti-secession law, despite very loudly expressing disappointment and frustration. Although possibilities for more direct flights have been put on hold, it seems that no more significant responses on the Taiwanese side are in the making. Rather, it seems that the Taiwanese government is waiting for more signs from across the strait before making any decisions. It seems that this may be a wise course of action, as Condoleezza Rice recently commented in an interview that CCP officials promised that after the anti-secession law was passed they would take steps to lower cross-strait tensions.
It should be noted as an aside that despite the historic march, the biggest news story in Taiwan recently has been the announcement by a former independence-supporting businessman that he supports the anti-secession law and that reunification was the only practical future for Taiwan. Xu Wen-long of the Chimei Group claimed that the anti-secession law was helpful for businessmen to understand that investing in the mainland had to be done under the understanding that reunification was a historical inevitability. However, Xu’s previous support for independence causes makes this declaration quite surprising. It is suspected that this “change of mind” is due to pressure from the CCP. If this is the case, it would seem that China is increasing pressure on Taiwanese businessmen not to support independent causes. If seen in concert with the anti-secession law, it would seem that China is increasing its tough policies with China. Chinese President Hu Jintao has talked of a “hard-soft” approach with China. This pressure on Taiwanese businessmen, along with the anti-secession law, can be seen as the hard-approach. Taiwan is now waiting to see if the “soft” side of China is next on the agenda.


Historic Trip to China by KMT Officials

One of the vice-presidents of the Nationalist Party (KMT) recently traveled to China to pave the way for a trip by the KMT President, Lien Chan, sometime in the near future. This is a historic trip, the first by KMT officials on an official visit since 1949. Several officials in the ruling Democratic Progressive Party have described this as a selling out to China during a time requiring national unity in the face of the “anti-secession” law.
The KMT official, P.K. Chiang, will meet with a member of the Chinese Standing Committee of the Politburo, Jia Qinglin. Chen Yunlin, who is in charge of the government department charged with dealing with the Taiwanese question may also sponsor a dinner for Chiang.
Chiang has said that this trip shows that the Chinese are only willing to deal with the KMT, not with the more independence leaning DPP. However, Chiang has no right to negotiate with the CCP. A Taiwanese government official said of the trip that, “Any such negotiations have to be first authorized by the MAC (Mainland Affairs Commission.” Both sides of the political aisle in Taiwan will try to use this trip as a political weapon. However, it is clearly a historical occasion, especially if it clears the way for Lien Chan to travel to the mainland.

posted by Joseph @ 4:30 AM