Following Formosa

So, Captain, how long shall we stare at each other across the Neutral Zone?

Taiwanese News
Summary and Analysis, Wednesday March 16 2005

Special Report: Anti-Secession Law

This past Monday the People’s Republic of China passed a law with a clause regarding the possible use of “non-peaceful” measures to solve the Taiwan question, sparking major political repercussions in Taiwan and reactions from countries throughout the world. This week’s report will begin by examining the contents of the law itself, and how it has been presented by the Chinese Communist Party to the outside world. It will then examine the Taiwanese reaction and the foreseeable future for cross-strait relations. Finally, international reactions will be discussed.
Most of the law in question actually has to do with peaceful reconciliation of Taiwan and China. The law describes ways in which Taiwan and China can cooperate pending a final status solution, and assures sincerity on the side of the Chinese. However, one clause does include the possibility of using force against Taiwan. Under three conditions, China can “legally” use “non-peaceful” measures to solve the Taiwan question. If the Taiwanese are about to enact legal independence, an “incident” makes independence imminent, or if all possibilities for peaceful resolution are gone, China then must consider using force. The law also says that no outside interference should be tolerated. It should be noted, however, that the law was changed since it was first introduced, a fact that is both overlooked by most reports and was seen by most analysts as unusual. One clause was changed from, “Taiwan is a part of China” to “Taiwan and China constitute a single China.” However, the former line was entered at a different part of the law. Another change was that the law originally read that non-peaceful means of unification would be used if all conditions for peaceful reunification were gone. It was amended to say non-peaceful means would be used if all possibility for peaceful reunification were gone. These changes, along with other several others, show that Chinese officials decidedly to make the law less severe even after it was shown to the outside world.
Chinese officials have done their best to portray this as a “peace” bill rather than a “war” bill. Premier Wen Jiabao commented that this law was solely directed at “splittists” in Taiwan, and that in the eventuality of war China would do its best to protect the people of Taiwan. He said that the real danger to stability in the Taiwan strait is supporters of independence for Taiwan. Wen also mentioned in uncharacteristically belligerent terms that China did not fear outside interference in the Taiwan question, and said that Japan and America must not violate Chinese sovereignty. Other officials have gone so far as to say that this law indicates no change in Chinese policy toward Taiwan.
As mentioned above, China softened the anti-secession law before passing it, and many analysts attribute this to the extremely negative reaction to the bill in Taiwan. 93% of Taiwanese reject the use of force to solve cross-strait difficulties, 84% say Taiwan is not an inalienable part of China, and 71% say outside involvement is warranted with regards to reaching a final status agreement.
Taiwanese officials have said that the passing of the anti-secession law will require a total reevaluation of cross-strait policies. They criticized the bill by saying that it gives a blank-check to the military and is intended as a threat. Taiwanese President Chen Shui-bian commented that “"If they ignore the strong opposition of the international community and go ahead with the legislation, it risks raising tensions and setting off the crisis of a full-phase backtracking of relations." More charter flights during the Tomb Sweeping Holiday seem unlikely, and Taiwanese restrictions on investment in the mainland will not be lifted, and may even be strengthened. The potentially most destabilizing reaction the Taiwanese could make to the anti-secession law would be to have a “defensive” referendum on Taiwanese identity, or possibly reform the constitution. The ruling party has said they will not pursue this course, but will not block such a movement, saying that it would be entirely China’s fault for originally unilaterally changing the status quo. President Chen is calling for a million people to march on March 26 to protest the law and keep international attention on Taiwan’s isolation. Many analysts believe that Chen sees this as a political tool to reclaim leadership of the independence camp after recently softening his policies and disappointing radicals. Chen also believes that the anti-secession law is an opportunity to show the world that Taiwan is not the problem because of unilateral steps toward independence, but rather that China is the “bad guy.” If he decides to take this route, it will end a warming in relations over the last few months. Some Chinese analysts have already described the anti-secession law as a mistake, as it was originally intended to threaten “splittists,” but those “splittists” had made conciliatory remarks in the last several weeks and can now describe China as ill-intentioned. Some analysts believe that relations will swiftly get back on track, describing the anti-secession bill as the “hard” part of Chinese President Hu Jintao’s “hard and soft” approach, meaning being strict with regards to Taiwanese independence but proactive in terms of cultivating Taiwanese trust and positive impression of the mainland.
The rest of the world has had a mixed reaction to the law. The US State Department has described the bill as "not helpful in the current environment, where there are opportunities for exchanges that could move forward a peaceful resolution of outstanding cross-Strait differences." Secretary of State Condolleeza Rice and White House Spokesman Scott McClellan have also expressed disappointment in the law. Russia and Pakistan support the law, while Europe has had a mixed reaction. The European Union is opposed to the use of force to solve the Taiwan question, and therefore many say that the EU, in protest of this law, should not cancel its weapons sales restrictions on the PRC. However, most analysts believe that despite a possible delay the sanctions will still be lifted. Australian officials have said that in the eventuality of war in the Taiwan Straits, Australia may activate its ANZUS alliance with the United States and provide direct or indirect support to US forces.

posted by Joseph @ 7:32 AM