What should Taiwan’s response the the anti-secession law be?
Surrender immediately
Ignore it
Pass an anti anti-secession law
Hold a referendum on whether China should invade Taiwan
Grant the PRC independence from the ROC
Hold missile tests off the coast of Beijing
0voters
So, they’re just about to announce the ‘anti-secession law’ in the National People’s Conference which is going on this week in China. There seem to be a load of unanswered questions about it: What will it actually contain? What will Taiwans response be? What should Taiwan’s response be? What will be the international reaction? I’m interested in peoples thoughts on any of the above questions … but the biggest question that I can’t find a good answer for is:
What on earth is the point of the thing?
The stated aim seems to be to provide a legal basis for an attack on Taiwan. WTF? Apart from the implication that there isn’t a legal basis for attack now, noone is going to care about the legality of it if push does come to shove. The Chinese (who are willing to speak publically) would support an attack, the Taiwanese (who live on the island) would be a bit upset by an attack, while most Western nations would denounce an attack (and do something/nothing based on their own self interest). Noone is going to say “Well, normally I’d be against a war, but they’ve passed this law, so it must be OK …”
The obvious effect in Taiwan of the law is to piss every off - possibly enough to disrail any efforts to start cross-strait talks (which for the first time in 5 years there seemed to be some real interest in), and in general push Taiwanese sentiment further away from China.
The only reason I can find for the law is that has something to do with internal politics in China (keeping the hard-liners happy? trying to prove that Wen/Hu’s have the LanPa to address any issue?) - but I know little about Chinese politics.
WTF indeed. That’s not the stated aim. That’s the aim ascribed it by Taiwan and the world press who hears it from Taiwan.
This is not to convince others the legality of it, but to codify what is already spoken policy on the PRC’s part, making the most salient parts of that policy not be subject to manipulation by any side. Look, the US has its TRA and uses it to interject its actions. TW has its defensive referendum law. PRC basically says, laws are the fad? Fine.
The obvious effect, and the intended effect, has already been seen even before the law is up for vote: CSB basically renounced Taidu in this term and repudiated writing a new constitution and changing names for kicks.
This law has nothing to do with the internal politics of the PRC because basically everyone in the PRC agrees this is a necessary clarification, a reminder of resolve and the gravity of the situation involved to the Taiwan leadership, in light of the Taidu activities of the last few years.
It is a way of telling the hardcore TIers who plug their ears: wake up and smell the coffee. PRC loathes to exercise any military option on Taiwan, which is why reunification isn’t on agenda, though talks are; but they would not tolerate de jure independence, that’s for sure.
And by the way, TW can only realistically pass an anti “anti-secession law” law (to denounce the law, perhaps), not to pass an anti “anti-secession” law, which would be a secession law, which would be a “major Taidu incident” as PRC calls it, which would trigger war.
Hmm … that’s as clear as mud. This is a PRC law - so it’s only stopping manipulation from within the PRC. If you mean it might avoid misinterpretation from other nations - well, I guess that’s possible, but it’s not exactly as if the PRC has kept it’s homicidal obsession with Taiwan a secret. Anyone who doesn’t believe that China will back up its words with action isn’t going to be convinced by more words/laws.
This sort of delusional statement is what makes me think it’s internal PRC politics. No sane observer of Taiwanese politics would seriously consider that CSBs recent statements (basically reiterating what he’s been saying for the last 5 years) were because of a law he hasn’t even seen yet. However, I’m sure it would play really well in mainland China: “Our glorious leaders have got that renegade so-called ‘president’ on the run without firing a shot!”
This is for the benefit of hardcore TIers? Yeah - it’s really impressing them :loco:
If you think that, then CSB is obviously too subtle for you. No sane observer of Taiwanese politics would not know that CSB has said a billion contradictory things to different people in the last 5 years. If you insist CSB was just reiterating what he has been saying to you, fine; but it certainly is news to a lot of people like the TIers who are going beserk these past days, including his so-called ‘advisors.’
[quote=“david”]
This is for the benefit of hardcore TIers? Yeah - it’s really impressing them :loco:[/quote]
Telling those guys is a bonus. Nobody cares if they are impressed or not; IMO they are considered clowns in a sideshow as far as PRC is concerned.
[quote=“zeugmite”][quote=“david”]
This sort of delusional statement is what makes me think it’s internal PRC politics. No sane observer of Taiwanese politics would seriously consider that CSBs recent statements (basically reiterating what he’s been saying for the last 5 years) were because of a law he hasn’t even seen yet.
[/quote]
If you think that, then CSB is obviously too subtle for you. No sane observer of Taiwanese politics would not know that CSB has said a billion contradictory things to different people in the last 5 years. If you insist CSB was just reiterating what he has been saying to you, fine; but it certainly is news to a lot of people like the TIers who are going beserk these past days, including his so-called ‘advisors.’[/quote]
CTI news broadcast of TI’ers who were proclaiming in English “Taiwan, Yes!” happened this morning
I have to agree with zeugmite, the law is aimed at Taidu supporters in the ROC government.
For 50 years the KMT, without vocalizing Taidu intentions, never had to deal with a law from the PRC on the subject that the ROC existed outside of the control of the PRC.
Taidu supporters are living up the persception of being trouble makers in spades.
[quote=“gunner”][quote]
For 50 years the KMT, without vocalizing Taidu intentions, never had to deal with a law from the PRC on the subject that the ROC existed outside of the control of the PRC.
Taidu supporters are living up the persception of being trouble makers in spades.
[/quote]
KMT dragged Taiwan into this mess. they’ve simply passed the baton for future generations to clean up the mess.[/quote]
Maybe one could see if there are parallels in the Cross Straits issue and the North-South Korea issue.
Ah yes, that question … asked and answered in many different threads
It’ll be interesting to watch whether the anti-secession law will speed up Japan’s move to amend its “peace” constitution. In the past there’s been a lot of domestic public opposition to such proposals, but China’s recent actions (submarine intrusion, anti-secession law, increased defense spending) have boosted the argument for amendments. Once the amendments are passed, the framework for a China-Japan military confrontation will be complete.
Japan has its own right-wing politics and sees what it wants to see. I don’t think anything that China does or does not do is the issue here or that there is any reasonable “way” that China can act to please Japan – that’s a ridiculous notion in itself. Japan is not the helpless little guy here. It has a “peace constitution” and a “self defense force” but in fact its navy is the strongest in Asia (after the US). It obviously is putting it to good use by pursuing an agenda of sea-grab by dubiously claiming various submerged rocks a thousand miles away in order to claim the EEZ around them, the type of thing that would be shouted down if China were to try it. Japan is not reacting to a threat from a position of weakness. It is reacting from a position of strength, that is, to China’s rise in general, economically included. It is inevitable since it has gotten used to being the single dominating Asian state for about a century, even after losing WWII.
Obviously there’s no reasonable purpose behind it, but I’d still like to know what it says – not some general summary of it by a news reporter, but the actual text, preferably in English but Chinese would suffice. I searched for a while this morning and couldn’t find a draft. Has anyone seen a draft of the actual text?
Here’s the text of the draft law, as published by the China Times. Other Taiwanese newspapers have also published it, but I’m not sure if they are exactly the same.
Good job. Thanks. But maybe I exaggerated a little (ok, I lied) when I said Chinese would suffice; I intended to have someone help decipher it for me.
Can you tell me what it says about attacking Taiwan? Does it describe specifically what steps by Taiwan could lead to that?
Some PRC guy in the news was saying that use of force would be only the last resort. Does the law refer to any other tactics other than use of force, in the event Taiwan commits the forbidden acts?
In response to your comment, I believe PRC lawmakers have reviewed several different drafts.
[quote=“Mother Theresa”]Good job. Thanks. But maybe I exaggerated a little (ok, I lied) when I said Chinese would suffice; I intended to have someone help decipher it for me.
Can you tell me what it says about attacking Taiwan? Does it describe specifically what steps by Taiwan could lead to that?
Some PRC guy in the news was saying that use of force would be only the last resort. Does the law refer to any other tactics other than use of force, in the event Taiwan commits the forbidden acts?
In response to your comment, I believe PRC lawmakers have reviewed several different drafts.[/quote]
There is no description of “use of force,” only “non peaceful means” which PRC spokesperson has said included sanctions and such, also.
Oh, they don’t mention “use of force,” only “non peaceful means.” That’s reassuring.
Does it state what might trigger such non-peaceful means? I’m sure it wouldn’t be so specific as to refer to changing the name, constitution, etc., but there must be something such as "taking steps to. . . " How do they put it?
No sane observer of Taiwanese politics would not know that CSB has said a billion contradictory things to different people in the last 5 years. If you insist CSB was just reiterating what he has been saying 
No sane observer of Taiwanese politics would not know that CSB has said a billion contradictory things to different people in the last 5 years. If you insist CSB was just reiterating what he has been saying 
