|
|
|
|
|
Anti-secession Law Of The People's Republic Of ChinaThe Anti-Secession Law () is a law passed by the third conference of the 10th National People's Congress of the People's Republic of China. It was ratified on March 14, 2005, and went into effect immediately. Hu Jintao, President of the People's Republic of China, promulgated the bill with Presidential Decree No. 34. The law is relatively short, at ten articles, but was met with much controversy as it formalized the long-standing policy of the People's Republic of China to use "non-peaceful means" against the "'Taiwan independence' secessionist forces" in the event of a declaration of Taiwanese independence. Background Although Taiwan was ceded to Japan in perpetualty in the treaty of Shimonoseki of 1895 - then surrendered by Japan in 1945 to the Kuomintang Administration - the PRC government considers Taiwan to be the 23rd province of the People's Republic of China. According to the PRC argument, the government of the Republic of China ceased to be legitimate following its retreat to Taiwan in 1949, and thus all sovereignty and governmental authority in China was automatically transferred to the PRC, including that of Taiwan which was then under ROC administration. The official ROC line counters that it did not cease to exist in 1949 and has continued to function as a soverign political entity on Taiwan to the present day, making the relation between the PRC and ROC similar to that between other states similarly partitioned (such as North Korea and South Korea). The PRC's position has been acknowledged by most other nations but not formally recognized, as most nations prefer to take an ambiguous approach on the issue. Meanwhile, some Taiwanese independence supporters also challenge the legality of the Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan. See Political status of Taiwan. Multiple opinion polls conducted in Taiwan have indicated that there is very little support for immediate unification on the PRC's terms or for an immediate declaration of independence. Polls have also consistently shown that a large majority of Taiwanese would support unification if the economic and political systems of the two sides of the straits were comparable, but would also support a declaration of independence if there were no threat of invasion or other economic consequences. A majority of Taiwan appear to support the "status quo" but there are large differences of opinions within Taiwan, with the PRC, and in the international community over what the status quo is. The reelection of Chen Shui-bian to the ROC Presidency, led many to conclude that there was a growth in the amount of Taiwan independence sentiment and that a new Taiwanese identity was emerging on the island as opposed to identification with China. In the 2004 ROC Legislative Election, the strategy of the pan-Green coalition was to attempt to capitalize on this trend to achieve a majority within the Legislative Yuan. Among some Taiwanese Indepdendence supporters, there appeared to be a plan to use a pan-green majority to force a referendum in order to change the ROC constititution to either move the island toward de jure independence or to declare independence outright. Many supporters of Taiwan independence including former President Lee Teng-Hui argued that Taiwan should declare independence before 2008 on the theory that international pressure would prevent the PRC from using force, and the statements of Chen Shui-bian in favor of constitutional revision suggested that he may be in favor of such a schedule. These events in late-2004 caused a great deal of alarm in Beijing. Observers indicated that many in Beijing believed that its policies toward Taiwan had failed both because it did not have enough carrots to get Taiwanese public support and at the same time, it seemed that many in Taiwan did not take Beijing's stated threats to use force seriously. Finally, the government on Taiwan had defined the status quo such a way that a de jure declaration of independence could be argued to not be a change in the status quo. These events lead to the formulation in 2003 and 2004 of the Anti-Secession Law. In December 2004, the ROC Legislative elections occurred leading a victory of the pan-blue coalition, which surprised many. This victory ended most prospects of an immediate declaration of independence and also called into question whether there really had been an increase in Taiwanese independence sentiment. Despite this, the PRC proceeded with the drafting of the law. The main reasons given to Western interlocutors was that the PRC leadership believed that Taiwan policy in the past had been reactive rather than proactive and it was necessary for the PRC to show initiative rather than merely reacting to events. Furthermore, Beijing expressed residual distrust for Chen Shui-bian. Finally, many Western experts have argued that the PRC's decision making system was simply rigid, and plans put into place do deal with a pan-green victory and simply developed too much monmentum to be shut down. In announcing the drafting of the law in December, 2004, state press mentioned explicitly that the law was not intended to be applied to Hong Kong and Macao. The Anti-Secession Law () is a law passed by the third conference of the 10th National People's Congress of the People's Republic of China. It was ratified on March 14, 2005, and went into effect immediately. Hu Jintao, President of the People's Republic of China, promulgated the bill with Presidential Decree No. 34. The law is relatively short, at ten articles, but was met with much controversy as it formalized the long-standing policy of the People's Republic of China to use "non-peaceful means" against the "'Taiwan independence' secessionist forces" in the event of a declaration of Taiwanese independence. Background Although Taiwan was ceded to Japan in perpetualty in the treaty of Shimonoseki of 1895 - then surrendered by Japan in 1945 to the Kuomintang Administration - the PRC government considers Taiwan to be the 23rd province of the People's Republic of China. According to the PRC argument, the government of the Republic of China ceased to be legitimate following its retreat to Taiwan in 1949, and thus all sovereignty and governmental authority in China was automatically transferred to the PRC, including that of Taiwan which was then under ROC administration. The official ROC line counters that it did not cease to exist in 1949 and has continued to function as a soverign political entity on Taiwan to the present day, making the relation between the PRC and ROC similar to that between other states similarly partitioned (such as North Korea and South Korea). The PRC's position has been acknowledged by most other nations but not formally recognized, as most nations prefer to take an ambiguous approach on the issue. Meanwhile, some Taiwanese independence supporters also challenge the legality of the Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan. See Political status of Taiwan. Multiple opinion polls conducted in Taiwan have indicated that there is very little support for immediate unification on the PRC's terms or for an immediate declaration of independence. Polls have also consistently shown that a large majority of Taiwanese would support unification if the economic and political systems of the two sides of the straits were comparable, but would also support a declaration of independence if there were no threat of invasion or other economic consequences. A majority of Taiwan appear to support the "status quo" but there are large differences of opinions within Taiwan, with the PRC, and in the international community over what the status quo is. The reelection of Chen Shui-bian to the ROC Presidency, led many to conclude that there was a growth in the amount of Taiwan independence sentiment and that a new Taiwanese identity was emerging on the island as opposed to identification with China. In the 2004 ROC Legislative Election, the strategy of the pan-Green coalition was to attempt to capitalize on this trend to achieve a majority within the Legislative Yuan. Among some Taiwanese Indepdendence supporters, there appeared to be a plan to use a pan-green majority to force a referendum in order to change the ROC constititution to either move the island toward de jure independence or to declare independence outright. Many supporters of Taiwan independence including former President Lee Teng-Hui argued that Taiwan should declare independence before 2008 on the theory that international pressure would prevent the PRC from using force, and the statements of Chen Shui-bian in favor of constitutional revision suggested that he may be in favor of such a schedule. These events in late-2004 caused a great deal of alarm in Beijing. Observers indicated that many in Beijing believed that its policies toward Taiwan had failed both because it did not have enough carrots to get Taiwanese public support and at the same time, it seemed that many in Taiwan did not take Beijing's stated threats to use force seriously. Finally, the government on Taiwan had defined the status quo such a way that a de jure declaration of independence could be argued to not be a change in the status quo. These events lead to the formulation in 2003 and 2004 of the Anti-Secession Law. In December 2004, the ROC Legislative elections occurred leading a victory of the pan-blue coalition, which surprised many. This victory ended most prospects of an immediate declaration of independence and also called into question whether there really had been an increase in Taiwanese independence sentiment. Despite this, the PRC proceeded with the drafting of the law. The main reasons given to Western interlocutors was that the PRC leadership believed that Taiwan policy in the past had been reactive rather than proactive and it was necessary for the PRC to show initiative rather than merely reacting to events. Furthermore, Beijing expressed residual distrust for Chen Shui-bian. Finally, many Western experts have argued that the PRC's decision making system was simply rigid, and plans put into place do deal with a pan-green victory and simply developed too much monmentum to be shut down. In announcing the drafting of the law in December, 2004, state press mentioned explicitly that the law was not intended to be applied to Hong Kong and Macao. Content Article 1 states that the aim of the law is to stop the Taiwanese independence movement and promote reunification. Stabilizing the Taiwan Straits area, protecting the interests of the Zhonghua Minzu (people of Chinese nationality/ethnicity) are also purposes of the law, which is formulated according to the Constitution of the People's Republic of China. Articles two to four state the assertion by the People's Republic of China that the Mainland and Taiwan belong to one China and that there is only one China and that the sovereignty of that one China is indivisible. Significantly, the law does not mention one country, two systems, which is highly unpopular in Taiwan, and does not define explicitly China as only the People's Republic of China. Articles two through four are significant in that they define the status quo as seen from Beijing. Article six states that in order to maintain peace and stability in the Taiwan straits and to foster cross-strait relations, the state (1) encourage people-to-people contact to foster closer relations and understanding (2) encourage cross strait economic exchanges (3) encourage scientific and cultural exchanges (4) joint efforts to fight crime and (5) encourage efforts to maintain peace and stability in the Taiwan straits. Article seven states that the state shall support negotiations and consultations on both sides of the straits with equal status, with different modalities, and in differing stages. The topics of such talks can include (1) ending the states of hostilities across the straits (2) developing rules for cross strait relations (3) the means of promoting unificiation (4) the political status of the Taiwanese authorities, (5) appropriate means by which Taiwan can participate in international organizations, and (6) any other issues relating to unification. There are some aspects of article seven which commentators have pointed out. First, this is the first time that the PRC has officially spoken of talks between the Mainland and Taiwan occurring in terms of equal status. Second, the condition that Taiwan accept any form of the one China principle is not explicitly mentioned in the text, and the statement that talks can occur in different modalities and in differing stages suggests that Beijing is willing to start at least informal talks without requiring a one China commitment. Article eight is the article which has caused the most controversy and attention. It states that state shall use non-peaceful and other necessary means under these conditions: (1) that Taiwan independence under whatever name and method accomplishes the fact of Taiwan's separation from the Mainland, (2) there is a large event which occurs to force Taiwan's separation from the Mainland and (3) that there is no hope for unification. Under the Article 18 of the Basic Law of Hong Kong and similar measures in the Basic Law of Macao, the NPCSC must explicitly designate a law as having force in Hong Kong or Macao for it to be operative there. No such designation was made for this law, which is consistent with statement in the state press that this law would not be directed at Hong Kong or Macao. Full text of the law release by Xinhua News Agency: Article 1: This Law is formulated, in accordance with the Constitution, for the purpose of opposing and checking Taiwan's secession from China by secessionists in the name of "Taiwan independence", promoting peaceful national reunification, maintaining peace and stability in the Taiwan Straits, preserving China's sovereignty and territorial integrity, and safeguarding the fundamental interests of the Chinese nation. Article 2: There is only one China in the world. Both the mainland and Taiwan belong to one China. China's sovereignty and territorial integrity brook no division. Safeguarding China's sovereignty and territorial integrity is the common obligation of all Chinese people, the Taiwan compatriots included. Taiwan is part of China. The state shall never allow the "Taiwan independence" secessionist forces to make Taiwan secede from China under any name or by any means. Article 3: The Taiwan question is one that is left over from China's civil war of the late 1940s. Solving the Taiwan question and achieving national reunification is China's internal affair, subject to no interference by any outside forces. Article 4: Accomplishing the great task of reunifying the motherland is the sacred duty of all Chinese people, the Taiwan compatriots included. Article 5: Upholding the principle of one China is the basis of peaceful reunification of the country. To reunify the country through peaceful means best serves the fundamental interests of the compatriots on both sides of the Taiwan Straits. The state shall do its utmost with maximum sincerity to achieve a peaceful reunification. After the country is reunified peacefully, Taiwan may practice systems different from those on the mainland and enjoy a high degree of autonomy. Article 6: The state shall take the following measures to maintain peace and stability in the Taiwan Straits and promote cross-Straits relations: (1) to encourage and facilitate personnel exchanges across the Straits for greater mutual understanding and mutual trust; (2) to encourage and facilitate economic exchanges and cooperation, realize direct links of trade, mail and air and shipping services, and bring about closer economic ties between the two sides of the Straits to their mutual benefit; (3) to encourage and facilitate cross-Straits exchanges in education, science, technology, culture, health and sports, and work together to carry forward the proud Chinese cultural traditions; (4) to encourage and facilitate cross-Straits cooperation in combating crimes; and (5) to encourage and facilitate other activities that are conducive to peace and stability in the Taiwan Straits and stronger cross-Straits relations. The state protects the rights and interests of the Taiwan compatriots in accordance with law. Article 7: The state stands for the achievement of peaceful reunification through consultations and negotiations on an equal footing between the two sides of the Taiwan Straits. These consultations and negotiations may be conducted in steps and phases and with flexible and varied modalities. The two sides of the Taiwan Straits may consult and negotiate on the following matters: (1) officially ending the state of hostility between the two sides; (2) mapping out the development of cross-Straits relations; (3) steps and arrangements for peaceful national reunification; (4) the political status of the Taiwan authorities; (5) the Taiwan region's room of international operation that is compatible with its status; and (6) other matters concerning the achievement of peaceful national reunification. Article 8: In the event that the "Taiwan independence" secessionist forces should act under any name or by any means to cause the fact of Taiwan's secession from China, or that major incidents entailing Taiwan's secession from China should occur, or that possibilities for a peaceful re-unification should be completely exhausted, the state shall employ non-peaceful means and other necessary measures to protect China's sovereignty and territorial integrity. The State Council and the Central Military Commission shall decide on and execute the non-peaceful means and other necessary measures as provided for in the preceding paragraph and shall promptly report to the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress. Article 9: In the event of employing and executing non-peaceful means and other necessary measures as provided for in this Law, the state shall exert its utmost to protect the lives, property and other legitimate rights and interests of Taiwan civilians and foreign nationals in Taiwan, and to minimize losses. At the same time, the state shall protect the rights and interests of the Taiwan compatriots in other parts of China in accordance with law. Article 10: This Law shall come into force on the day of its promulgation. Development In December 2004, the Chinese state news agency Xinhua reported that the National People's Congress in its upcoming session would enact an 'anti-secession law', without specifying further details. In a rare moment of agreement, Taiwanese politicians from both the Pan-green coalition and Pan-blue coalition have reacted negatively towards this development. Some politicians have proposed that Taiwan enact an 'anti-annexation law' to counter the proposed PRC law. Various opinion polls have revealed that 80% of Taiwan residents oppose such an 'anti-secession law' and a majority agree that a defensive referendum should be held in the advance of such a law to protect the status quo.http://news.yam.com/ettoday/politics/200412/20041231784093.html President Chen Shui-bian commented on the 'anti-secession law' during his 2005 new year 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." Whereas PRC President Hu Jintao said "We will definitely not allow anyone to separate Taiwan from China by any means." in his New Year’s Eve speech.http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_2-1-2005_pg4_6 Although the PRC's official English translation of the law is the Anti-Secession Law, which is intended to invoke the actions of the southern Confederacy during the American Civil War. The Mainland Affairs Council on Taiwan has consistently translated it as Anti-Separation law as secession implies that Taiwan is a part of China, and the MAC and the government on Taiwan has argued that argued that the relationship across the Taiwan strait is not analogous to the situation during the American Civil War since Taiwan was never part of the PRC. This alternate translation is not commonly found in the international media. Reaction Beijing claims that this bill is the PRC's most sincere attempt at resolving the Taiwan issue peacefully (see Political status of Taiwan). However, Taipei points to the same Article 8 as cause for concern. Shortly after the bill was passed, Chen Shui-bian called for a National Security meeting in Taipei to discuss the issue. One major topic of controversy between Beijing and Taipei is to what degree the law changes the status quo in the Taiwan straits. Beijing has maintained that the law preserves the status quo and creates no new conditions for the use of force. In contrast, Taipei has argued that the law does change the status quo and gave PLA a "blank check" to attack Taiwan. As opposed to Beijing's definition on the cross strait relationship, a statement from Taipei's Mainland Affairs Council and a resolution overwhelming passed by the Taiwan legislature stated that the status quo is that the Republic of China is sovereign and independent.http://english.www.gov.tw/index.jsp?id=11&recid=104460&viewdate=0 However, this statement and the legislative resolution before the passage of anti-secession law was very carefully worded to avoid disagreements between the pan-blue and pan-green coalition, namely whether the Republic of China has any residual sovereignty over Mainland China. Morever, the resolutions and statements made in Taiwan were also carefully drafted to maintain the the ROC and PRC are separate, and a draft made by the Taiwan Solidarity Union that Taiwan was separate from China was rejected. MAC official also refered Beijing's version of "one China" as fiction. Again this was very carefully worded so that it was unclear whether the fiction was Beijing's contention or the "one China" itself. Reaction in mainland China Reaction in the PRC was mostly united. State media and the Beijing leadership all stood firmly behind the new law and vowed never to allow anyone, using any means, to "separate Taiwan from China", in any name. The Chinese parliament voted in favor of the law 2,896 to zero, with two abstentions. In the run-up to the law's ratification, state media in the PRC accused those on Taiwan in favour of Taiwan independence of creating hostility to the new law and of confusing the Taiwanese into thinking that the law had hostile intent. Prior to passing the law, Hu Jintao outlined a four points speech. Reaction in Hong Kong At the time when the unificiation law was proposed by the legal scholar Yu Yuanzhou, Hongkongers were worried it would be a replication anti-treason or -secession law as the Basic Law Article 23 legislation in 2003. Public worries were over when mainland official stated explicitly the law would not be added to Annex III of the Basic Law, i.e. would not be applicable to Hong Kong. During the passage of the law in March 2005, there was very little reaction in Hong Kong and news of the law was far overshadowed by news of the resignation of Tung Chee-Hwa. Reaction in Taiwan In Taiwan, the passage of the law was condemned by officials and politicians from both of the main political camps including the pan-green coalition and the pan-blue coalition, although there were differences in the type of criticism. Supporters of the pan-green coalition tended to react to the law angrily; whereas supporters of the pan-blue coalition, while stating that the opposed the law and the threat of force against Taiwan, called for more dialogue with the PRC and pointed to parts of the law in which the Beijing showed some flexibility. Opinion polls indicate a widespread opposition to the law among the general public. Questions were also raised over whether Beijing has the authority to issue such a law as Taiwan is not under PRC jurisdiction (See Political status of Taiwan). The Pan-Green coalition, in particular, reacted with distaste and there have been calls for an "anti anti-session law" to be passed by the legislature. An anti anti-session law is unlikely to pass, given that the pan-blue control of the legislature and that prime minister Frank Hsieh of the pan-green coalition has ruled out officially introducing such legislation. On the other hand, Hsieh pointed out that the PRC law has already infringed with the ROC soverignty and that the situation has compromised ROC sovereignty and thus met the criteria for initiating a defensive referendum. However, whether a defensive referendum would be invoked is under the discretion of the incumbent ROC president, says Hsieh.http://yam.udn.com/yamnews/daily/2564075.shtml A protest march against the PRC law took place on March 26 and it was widely reported that one million Taiwanese participated the protest. Both the former President Lee Teng-hui and the incumbent President Chen Shui-bian joined the march. However, Chen Shui-bian announced in advance that he would only attend the march without giving a speech. On the other hand, most politicians from the pan-blue coalition did not participate in any protest march, although they claimed that they would not disuade their supporters from attending if they ever wished. The turnout of the march became an subject of political debate in Taiwan, with the the mayor of Taipei city, Ma Ying-jeou, downplaying the participant number to arround 270,000, while the march organizers claiming the goal of one million participants was reached. International response US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice commented the law as "not necessary," while White House spokesman Scott McClellan called its adoption "unfortunate," adding "It does not serve the purpose of peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait." In speaking about the law the United States repeated that it remained supportive of the one China policy, did not support Taiwan independence, and opposed any unilateral action to change the status quo. The U.S. House of Representatives approved a resolution criticizing China for the approval of the PRC law in Beijing. The resolution expressed grave concern about the law and said the PRC law provides a legal justification for PRC to use force against Taiwan, in its words, altering the status quo in the region.http://www.voanews.com/english/2005-03-16-voa60.cfm In response to the enactment of the PRC law, the EU issued a statment urging "all sides to avoid any unilateral action that could stoke tensions," and recalled the "constant principles that guide its policy, namely its commitment to the principle of one China and the peaceful resolution of dispute...and its opposition to any use of force."http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_world/view/137386/1/.html http://www.fapa.org/Anti-Secession%20Law/INDEX.htm Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi said "I wish both parties would work towards a peaceful resolution and I hope that this law will not have negative effects." Australia foreign minister Alexander Downer stated that if war were to occur in the Taiwan Straits that Australia would be required under the ANZUS treaty to consult with the United States but depending on the situation that it would not necessarily commit the Australia to war. He said that "we don't think that China should resolve the Taiwan question militarily, that it has to be done through negotiations with Taiwan. Downer further commented that Australia would have preferred it had China not passed the anti-secession law. Several other nations expressed support for China's anti-secession law, including: Proposed National Unification Promotion Law The proposed National Unification Promotion Law of the People's Republic of China (Chinese: 中华人民共和国国家统一促进法) is a document that appeared in early 2004 as a suggestion to create formal a legal basis for the People's Republic of China's unification with Taiwan. It was authored by a Chinese scholar Yu Yuanzhou (余元洲), a professor from the Jianghan University in Wuhan who does not have a formal governmental position. Although no formal legislative action has been taken on the document the heavy debate surrounding it and knowledge that some sort of anti-secession law would be passed was viewed by many in Taiwan as evidence of hostile intent on the part of the PRC. See also External links Development In December 2004, the Chinese state news agency Xinhua reported that the National People's Congress in its upcoming session would enact an 'anti-secession law', without specifying further details. In a rare moment of agreement, Taiwanese politicians from both the Pan-green coalition and Pan-blue coalition have reacted negatively towards this development. Some politicians have proposed that Taiwan enact an 'anti-annexation law' to counter the proposed PRC law. Various opinion polls have revealed that 80% of Taiwan residents oppose such an 'anti-secession law' and a majority agree that a defensive referendum should be held in the advance of such a law to protect the status quo.http://news.yam.com/ettoday/politics/200412/20041231784093.html President Chen Shui-bian commented on the 'anti-secession law' during his 2005 new year 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." Whereas PRC President Hu Jintao said "We will definitely not allow anyone to separate Taiwan from China by any means." in his New Year’s Eve speech.http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_2-1-2005_pg4_6 Although the PRC's official English translation of the law is the Anti-Secession Law, which is intended to invoke the actions of the southern Confederacy during the American Civil War. The Mainland Affairs Council on Taiwan has consistently translated it as Anti-Separation law as secession implies that Taiwan is a part of China, and the MAC and the government on Taiwan has argued that argued that the relationship across the Taiwan strait is not analogous to the situation during the American Civil War since Taiwan was never part of the PRC. This alternate translation is not commonly found in the international media. Reaction Beijing claims that this bill is the PRC's most sincere attempt at resolving the Taiwan issue peacefully (see Political status of Taiwan). However, Taipei points to the same Article 8 as cause for concern. Shortly after the bill was passed, Chen Shui-bian called for a National Security meeting in Taipei to discuss the issue. One major topic of controversy between Beijing and Taipei is to what degree the law changes the status quo in the Taiwan straits. Beijing has maintained that the law preserves the status quo and creates no new conditions for the use of force. In contrast, Taipei has argued that the law does change the status quo and gave PLA a "blank check" to attack Taiwan. As opposed to Beijing's definition on the cross strait relationship, a statement from Taipei's Mainland Affairs Council and a resolution overwhelming passed by the Taiwan legislature stated that the status quo is that the Republic of China is sovereign and independent.http://english.www.gov.tw/index.jsp?id=11&recid=104460&viewdate=0 However, this statement and the legislative resolution before the passage of anti-secession law was very carefully worded to avoid disagreements between the pan-blue and pan-green coalition, namely whether the Republic of China has any residual sovereignty over Mainland China. Morever, the resolutions and statements made in Taiwan were also carefully drafted to maintain the the ROC and PRC are separate, and a draft made by the Taiwan Solidarity Union that Taiwan was separate from China was rejected. MAC official also refered Beijing's version of "one China" as fiction. Again this was very carefully worded so that it was unclear whether the fiction was Beijing's contention or the "one China" itself. Reaction in mainland China Reaction in the PRC was mostly united. State media and the Beijing leadership all stood firmly behind the new law and vowed never to allow anyone, using any means, to "separate Taiwan from China", in any name. The Chinese parliament voted in favor of the law 2,896 to zero, with two abstentions. In the run-up to the law's ratification, state media in the PRC accused those on Taiwan in favour of Taiwan independence of creating hostility to the new law and of confusing the Taiwanese into thinking that the law had hostile intent. Prior to passing the law, Hu Jintao outlined a four points speech. Reaction in Hong Kong At the time when the unificiation law was proposed by the legal scholar Yu Yuanzhou, Hongkongers were worried it would be a replication anti-treason or -secession law as the Basic Law Article 23 legislation in 2003. Public worries were over when mainland official stated explicitly the law would not be added to Annex III of the Basic Law, i.e. would not be applicable to Hong Kong. During the passage of the law in March 2005, there was very little reaction in Hong Kong and news of the law was far overshadowed by news of the resignation of Tung Chee-Hwa. Reaction in Taiwan In Taiwan, the passage of the law was condemned by officials and politicians from both of the main political camps including the pan-green coalition and the pan-blue coalition, although there were differences in the type of criticism. Supporters of the pan-green coalition tended to react to the law angrily; whereas supporters of the pan-blue coalition, while stating that the opposed the law and the threat of force against Taiwan, called for more dialogue with the PRC and pointed to parts of the law in which the Beijing showed some flexibility. Opinion polls indicate a widespread opposition to the law among the general public. Questions were also raised over whether Beijing has the authority to issue such a law as Taiwan is not under PRC jurisdiction (See Political status of Taiwan). The Pan-Green coalition, in particular, reacted with distaste and there have been calls for an "anti anti-session law" to be passed by the legislature. An anti anti-session law is unlikely to pass, given that the pan-blue control of the legislature and that prime minister Frank Hsieh of the pan-green coalition has ruled out officially introducing such legislation. On the other hand, Hsieh pointed out that the PRC law has already infringed with the ROC soverignty and that the situation has compromised ROC sovereignty and thus met the criteria for initiating a defensive referendum. However, whether a defensive referendum would be invoked is under the discretion of the incumbent ROC president, says Hsieh.http://yam.udn.com/yamnews/daily/2564075.shtml A protest march against the PRC law took place on March 26 and it was widely reported that one million Taiwanese participated the protest. Both the former President Lee Teng-hui and the incumbent President Chen Shui-bian joined the march. However, Chen Shui-bian announced in advance that he would only attend the march without giving a speech. On the other hand, most politicians from the pan-blue coalition did not participate in any protest march, although they claimed that they would not disuade their supporters from attending if they ever wished. The turnout of the march became an subject of political debate in Taiwan, with the the mayor of Taipei city, Ma Ying-jeou, downplaying the participant number to arround 270,000, while the march organizers claiming the goal of one million participants was reached. International response US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice commented the law as "not necessary," while White House spokesman Scott McClellan called its adoption "unfortunate," adding "It does not serve the purpose of peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait." In speaking about the law the United States repeated that it remained supportive of the one China policy, did not support Taiwan independence, and opposed any unilateral action to change the status quo. The U.S. House of Representatives approved a resolution criticizing China for the approval of the PRC law in Beijing. The resolution expressed grave concern about the law and said the PRC law provides a legal justification for PRC to use force against Taiwan, in its words, altering the status quo in the region.http://www.voanews.com/english/2005-03-16-voa60.cfm In response to the enactment of the PRC law, the EU issued a statment urging "all sides to avoid any unilateral action that could stoke tensions," and recalled the "constant principles that guide its policy, namely its commitment to the principle of one China and the peaceful resolution of dispute...and its opposition to any use of force."http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_world/view/137386/1/.html http://www.fapa.org/Anti-Secession%20Law/INDEX.htm Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi said "I wish both parties would work towards a peaceful resolution and I hope that this law will not have negative effects." Australia foreign minister Alexander Downer stated that if war were to occur in the Taiwan Straits that Australia would be required under the ANZUS treaty to consult with the United States but depending on the situation that it would not necessarily commit the Australia to war. He said that "we don't think that China should resolve the Taiwan question militarily, that it has to be done through negotiations with Taiwan. Downer further commented that Australia would have preferred it had China not passed the anti-secession law. Several other nations expressed support for China's anti-secession law, including: Proposed National Unification Promotion Law The proposed National Unification Promotion Law of the People's Republic of China (Chinese: 中华人民共和国国家统一促进法) is a document that appeared in early 2004 as a suggestion to create formal a legal basis for the People's Republic of China's unification with Taiwan. It was authored by a Chinese scholar Yu Yuanzhou (余元洲), a professor from the Jianghan University in Wuhan who does not have a formal governmental position. Although no formal legislative action has been taken on the document the heavy debate surrounding it and knowledge that some sort of anti-secession law would be passed was viewed by many in Taiwan as evidence of hostile intent on the part of the PRC. See also External links
|
 |
|
| Copyright 2005-2009 OnPedia.com. All Rights Reserved |
|
|