"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.
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.
Who likes pirates? I do!
Taiwanese News
Summary and Analysis, Wednesday 2 2005
A. Japan and US See Peace in Taiwan Straits as Strategic Objective
B. Possibility of Regular Flights?
C. Taiwanese President Does Not Rule out Reunification; Major Political Repercussions
-Japan and US See Peace in Taiwan Straits as Strategic Objective
For the first time, Japan has stated that a peaceful resolution to the crisis in the Taiwan Straits is a strategic objective that it shares with the United States. This is a significant change in past policy, as Japan normally avoids the topic in order not to displease the Chinese government. However, a number of recent developments have caused the Japanese government to see China as more of a threat and to take a harder line, and Japanese actions as well have angered Chinese officials.
Both sides have recently taken maneuvers seen by the other side as provocative. A Han-class Chinese submarine entered Japanese territorial waters and was chased by Japan’s Self-Defense Forces for two days. Several analysts have claimed that this action may have been a test of Japan’s resolve should China invade Taiwan. Japan recently occupied a lighthouse built by nationalists in the 1970s on a small island in strategically and economically valuable area to which both countries lay claim. Li Teng-Hui, a former Taiwanese president, was granted a Japanese visa. Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi still visits Yasukuni Shrine, a cemetery with several war-criminals from World War II. Both sides lay claim to the Senkaku Islands (Diaoyu in Chinese), an issue that for a long time was dormant but has flared up again due to other factors. Competition for resources has also been a source of contention, as both sides tried to persuade Russia to build a pipeline that favored their interests, with Japan winning the deal in the end. Japan’s Defense Ministry also recently released a report that saw China’s military as a threat in the near-term, confirming Chinese suspicions.
The influence of these developments, among others, have pushed Japan and the US closer strategically, causing the US Secretaries of Defense and State, as well as their Japanese counterparts, to declare after their recent “2+2 meeting in Washington that Taiwan should be defended in the wake of an unprovoked Chinese attack. The Taiwanese representative in Japan commented that, “This is the first time that Japan has made its stance clear; in the past Japan has been very indirect on the Taiwan issue.”
Because of Japan’s Constitution, it would be unable to take direct military action to resist any Chinese invasion of Taiwan. But this declaration seems to imply that in the event of war Japan would agree to support US forces with logistical support, like transportation, as well as conduct medical rescue missions behind the lines.
-Possibility of Regular Flights?
On February 16, Taiwanese President Chen Shui-bian called for talks on direct cargo flights between Taiwan and the mainland. He said at a dinner held for Taiwanese businessmen working in China that, “I hope to re-open the door for negotiators and to promote plans to make cargo shipments using the Lunar New Year charter flights as a basis.” Chinese newspaper editorials, frequently used to convey the feelings of senior government officials, have also recently called for regular direct flights, both for cargo shipments and individual travellers. China called for the Taiwanese authorities not to pursue such agreements because of “narrow-minded political calculations,” and to accept the “Hong Kong” basis for new talks. This refers to a previous agreement that each side would adhere to the “One China” policy but reserve the right to interpret that concept in its own way.
Despite the recent warming of cross-strait relations and the stated desire of both sides to pursue more direct flights, it is not clear whether or not it will be possible to accomplish. Chen has refused to accept the “One China” policy on any condition, and due to Taiwanese security concerns it may be difficult to allow for so many planes of unclear origins to fly daily across the Taiwan Straits. The Taiwanese Mainland Affairs Council also says that only Taiwanese authorized by the government would be allowed to negotiate with the mainland.
If direct cargo flights were allowed, it would increase cross-strait economic ties to a new level. Many Chinese officials feel that increased economic ties would decrease hopes for Taiwanese independence, and show good will toward Taiwan. It would also signify that should Taiwan pursue independence, the economic repercussions, let alone military confrontation, would be unacceptable.
-Taiwanese President Does Not Rule out Reunification
Taiwanese President Chen Shui-Bian recently met with James Soong of the opposition People First Party. Their joint statement after the meeting, in which Chen agreed not to pursue independence and did not rule out eventual reunification with China, has sent shockwaves throughout the political world. Another important result of the meeting was that it has shown the degree to which American officials are directly involved with Taiwanese politics.
In the joint statement, Chen said that he would, “not rule out the possibility of any model of relationship evolving on the basis of goodwill.” He also said that he would not pursue independence, would not change the name of the “Republic of China”(Taiwan), nor would he put these issues to referendum for the rest of his term, which ends in 2008. These commitments go much farther than Chen has ever promised before. The meeting comes after several years of hostility between the ruling and opposition parties, of which James Soong’s People First Party is one. The PFP is heavily pro-China. After the recent legislative elections in which opposition parties retained their majority, Chen was forced to try to cooperate with the opposition in order to accomplish any of his objectives. However, Chen’s Democratic Progressive Party, is heavily pro-independence, and many of the party faithful felt that Chen sold them out after this meeting. In fact, the DPP’s more radical “pan-green” ally, the Taiwan Solidarity Union, has threatened to stop cooperating with the DPP. At the same time, the Nationalist Party, the PFP’s nominal ally, felt left out of the meeting, and are wary of PFP-DPP cooperation not in the interest of the Nationalist Party. Soong claims that the whole meeting was masterminded by the United States government. He asked reporters at a news conference, “Do you think President Chen will talk to me without the Americans?” He also said that American officials used swear words to refer to President Chen, and that they told him, “the cross-strait situation was far more serious than the Taiwanese authorities assumed.” Some analysts say that claims of American involvement have some credibility, as the US does not want any trouble in East Asia while it is distracted in the Middle East, and that by giving Soong a high profile he might not as ardently oppose an $18 billion weapons purchase. In any case, although cross-aisle relations might not be as unfriendly as before, trouble within the two camps themselves has gotten worse.
