Anti Secession Law

      No Comments on Anti Secession Law

President Chen Shui-bian commented on the “anti-secession law” during his 2005 New Year`s speech: “Such actions will not only unilaterally change the status quo of peace in the Taiwan Strait, but will also pose the greatest threat to regional stability and world peace.” While the Supreme Leader of the People`s Republic of China, Hu Jintao, said in his New Year`s Eve speech: “We will certainly not allow anyone to separate Taiwan from China.” [9] In a rare moment of agreement, Taiwanese politicians in the pan-green and pan-blue coalitions reacted negatively to this development. Some politicians have suggested that the Republic of China pass an “anti-annexation law” to counter the PRC bill. Various opinion polls have found that 80% of Taiwanese residents are against such an “anti-secession law,” and a majority agree that a defensive referendum should be held before such a law to protect the status quo. [8] Several other countries have expressed support for the PRC`s anti-secession law, including: In the parliamentary elections in the Republic of China in December 2004, the ruling DPP party won its share of the vote in the Legislative Assembly and remained the largest single party there, but the pan-blue coalition won a slim majority, which surprised many people. However, this result may have been less a reflection of public opinion than evidence of the effectiveness of the KMT`s more frugal nomination of candidates (116) compared to the DPP`s over-nomination of candidates (122) and the KMT party`s rigid rules for allocating votes to its candidates in individual constituencies. [7] This election result ended most of the prospects for an immediate declaration of independence and also questioned whether there had really been an increase in Taiwan`s sense of independence. Nevertheless, the PRC continued to draft the anti-secession law. The main reasons given by foreign interlocutors were that the PRC`s leaders felt that its policy in Taiwan had been reactive rather than proactive in the past and that it was necessary for the PRC to show initiative. In addition, Beijing has expressed total distrust of Chen Shui-bian. Many foreign experts have argued that the PRC`s decision-making system is rigid and that plans to deal with a pan-green victory have simply developed too much momentum to be closed. The law had already been implemented during the Dec.

11 vote, a Chinese Taiwan expert said, and Hu could not stop the process, although Chen appeared to step down. In dealing with Taiwan, the specialist said, the Chinese leader must deal with military officers and others who believe that a hard line against Chen is the only way to prevent complete secession. Although the official English translation of the law in the PRC is the anti-secession law, the Taiwan Mainland Affairs Council has always translated it as an anti-separation law, as secession implies that Taiwan is part of the PRC. The Continental Affairs Council and the Government of the Republic of China have argued that relations across the Taiwan Strait are not analogous to the situation during the United States Civil War, as Taiwan was never part of the PRC. Opinion polls have shown broad public opposition to the law. Some questioned whether Beijing had the power to enact such a law, arguing that Taiwan was not under the jurisdiction of the PRC (see Taiwan`s Political Status). Above all, the pan-green coalition reacted with aversion and calls were made for an “anti-annexation law” to be passed by the legislature. Premier Frank Hsieh stressed that the law of the PRC had already violated the sovereignty of the Republic of China and therefore met the criteria to initiate a “defensive referendum” under the Constitution of the Republic of China. However, he added that he was at the discretion of the president of the Roc if a defensive referendum would be called. [11] Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said that in the event of a war in the Taiwan Strait, Australia would be obliged under the ANZUS Treaty to consult with the United States, but depending on the situation, it would not necessarily engage Australia in the war. He said that “we do not believe that the PRC should resolve the issue of Taiwan`s status militarily, that this should be done through negotiations with Taiwan.” Downer added that Australia would have preferred China not to pass the anti-secession law.

[17] The vote was interpreted as a wake-up call from Taiwanese voters in Chen that, although they oppose reunification, they do not want a confrontation with the mainland. Since December 11, the two governments have done everything they can to send conciliatory signals, including direct charter flights across the Strait for Chinese New Year. In this context, the language of the anti-secession law was kept secret until Wang described it to the nearly 3,000 delegates at the National People`s Congress on Tuesday. Taiwan is part of China. The state must never allow the secessionist forces of “Taiwanese independence” to secede Taiwan from China under any name or by any means. “The use of non-peaceful means to stop secession in defense of our sovereignty and territorial integrity would be our last resort if all our efforts for peaceful reunification were unsuccessful,” he added. .