If Taiwan splittist forces, under any pretense, using any method, cause the actuality of Taiwan splitting out of China, or if a major incident that will lead to Taiwan splitting out of China happens, or if the conditions for peaceful reunification are completely lost, the country should take non-peaceful methods and other necessary means and protect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the country.
Article 9 of the draft law is significant because it authorizes the state council (executive branch) and the central military commission (Hu Jintao and the top PLA brass) to start a war without putting it through the ritual of the national people’s congress (legislature). They are only required to report to the npc after the act.
Not that the rubber-stamp npc has any real say in the government, but it’s just an insurance policy set up to cover the a$$e$ of the top leadership. It allows the executive branch and the military brass to plot and launch the war from their smoky backrooms without telling “congress,” so to speak.
So far I’ve seen nothing to back up this claim. Status quo means different things to Beijing and Taipei, and the definition of Taiwan’s split from China is by no means clear in the law. Beijing could easily interpret the law into something like: “Taipei’s definition of status quo is an act of secession.”
One interesting example of Beijing’s viewpoint came from Chinese foreign minister Li Zhaoxing’s press conference a few days ago, where he said something like “Taiwan doesn’t have a constitution, and I don’t know Hsieh Chang-ting (Frank Hsieh).”
No. The PRC is not about to take “non-peaceful” actions if today’s conditions remained. Ergo, the PRC’s interpretation is the status quo is not an actuality of Taiwan split out of China. That is pretty clear.
But its brilliance lies in that it defined the status quo, which Taiwan cannot reject. If it says nothing about the law, it acquiesces to the said status quo. If it complains about the law, then it implies the law has force vis a vis Taiwan. Checkmate.
A gambit? Yes. Unless Taiwan turns the chessboard over, there is not much it can do.
[quote=“Levitator”]
One interesting example of Beijing’s viewpoint came from Chinese foreign minister Li Zhaoxing’s press conference a few days ago, where he said something like “Taiwan doesn’t have a constitution, and I don’t know Hsieh Chang-ting (Frank Hsieh).”[/quote]
Li Zhaoxing is a straight shooter. But of course Taiwan doesn’t have a constitution. Only the ROC does. Even CSB knows that, which is why he will, er, was going to, make a new one.
[quote=“zeugmite”][quote=“Levitator”]
One interesting example of Beijing’s viewpoint came from Chinese foreign minister Li Zhaoxing’s press conference a few days ago, where he said something like “Taiwan doesn’t have a constitution, and I don’t know Hsieh Chang-ting (Frank Hsieh).”[/quote]
Li Zhaoxing is a straight shooter. But of course Taiwan doesn’t have a constitution. Only the ROC does. Even CSB knows that, which is why he will, er, was going to, make a new one.[/quote]
It should be noted that the ROC doesn’t exist in the PRC’s dictionary either because the ROC died in 1949, according to the PRC. In other words, in the eyes of the PRC the existing governing entity in Taiwan actually doesn’t exist, whether it is ROC or Taiwan or ROC on Taiwan or ROC (Taiwan). It’s simply not there.
I will have to say that it’s a sure-fire prescription for war.
Well, I don’t think the PRC thinks the governing entity in Taiwan doesn’t exist. Of course it exists. It just dismisses what it used to claim to be, which is the legitimate government of China. PRC doesn’t have an aversion to the ROC nearly as much as the other way around, because the ROC was, afterall a government of all China for a time. PRC just thinks it has replaced it as the legitimate one. So really there are two things that PRC objects to: (1) that the ROC is a legitimate government of China; (2) that Taiwan is territorially not a part of China.
Since Taiwan doesn’t claim (1) any more, PRC is pretty much neutral on the issue of ROC.
Some time ago, there was a quote that said “the PRC doesn’t accept ROC (as in recognize it thereby de-legitimize itself), but will tolerate it.” Which is to say, if the ROC took the same position from the other side, talks can happen. This is the so-called “1992 Concensus.” This is fundamentally different from the position PRC takes on any form of assertion that would imply Taiwan territorially does not belong to China, whatever the governing body of Taiwan may be called.
With regard to Taiwan, it is not a matter of governing or autonomy that PRC (indeed, Chinese people, too) cares about, it is the territory issue (and consequently the one-ness of China). Without understanding this, nothing makes sense.
Random flotsam to offer up… a friend of mine whose family was split in 1949, has relatives in the PLA. He also has relatives who are high ranking politicos here in Taiwan. In any event, he said that the PLA are in meetings about the “practical implementation” of this anti-secession law for 2005. Apparently, it seems that the CCP feels that 2005 is far enough from the Olympics to risk playing their gambit. Otherwise, they would have to wait until after 2008 and who knows what Taiwan’s political landscape will look like then. Not to mention their own country’s status, Japan’s and US’s.
That would seem to make some sense if you wonder why was it that the US and Japan felt compelled to make a joint statement regarding Taiwan which was totally unprecedented at this point in time? Why stir the pot when the pot isn’t near boiling? And, CSB’s renunciation of Taidu and his continued speeches in Mandarin rather than Taiyu as it was in 2004 and late 2003
I think CSB’s change of heart and use of Mandarin has more to do with appealing to voters.
Honestly, I don’t see any good reason for a succesful PLA invasion yet. They have bought some advanced weapons, but they are only a fraction of PLA equipment and still in the process of integration. Also, they are still in the process of acquiring the most advanced stuff like air-borne radars and phased-array fire control systems. They are quite a few years away from getting there, to say the least. And they don’t quite have the landing capability for a full-scale invasion yet.
Apart from military invasion, they could use other means like sanctions and blockades to break the Taiwanese will, but they are likely to drag on much longer and give other countries the chance to intervene.
That said, the US, Japanese and Taiwanese militaries are all quietly making their small moves, apparently making preparations just in case.
Taiwan just started moving a marine brigade from Taichung airport to a base in Taipei County. I guess it’s a move away from traditional military thinking, anticipating a strike on Taichung cutting the island in half, to the lastest “decapitation” thinking anticipating a strike on the top leadership and nerve centers. They are doing it very quietly so the move barely receives attention in the media. Before that, they already added artillery and armored units to the military police command guarding Taipei.
Also, the US government is in talks with Japan to set up a base on a tiny island called Shimochijima near the southern end of the Okinawa island group. It’s about 400 km away from Taiwan, far closer than current US bases in Okinawa proper. There’s also news that Japan may set up an anti-sub base there after the Chinese sub intrusion.
In Japan, the government just decided to swap the old F-4 Phantom fighters on its air force base on Okinawa with newer F-15 fighters from Japan proper. Of course, the process won’t begin until a budget is passed and so on.
These are small ongiong moves and there’s no need to panic. But they are something to keep an eye on over the next few years.
I view the law simply as a way for the PRC to lay down a historical paper trail to support a war/whatever action against Taiwan, and to legitimize governing of the “province” afterwards. In this way they can in the future to any UN et al. complaints: “Bu hao yisi, :shrugs:, but this little piece of paper says it was always ours and what we’d do”
It’s sort of like water torture, one drop at a time. But who can complain about one little drop of water?
He didin’t say it would end in China’s favor. These laws are all strategic posturing to get the most benefit for each actor without war. Of course if somebody wanted war, they wouldn’t need laws, eh? Iraqis on the board, agree?
Any realistic time-frame for attack … that is, the soonest possible time … I wanna book a plane ticket! Sounds like they’re still busy shopping for blowing-up toys and that could keep them occupied for a couple of months??? :tic:
Am I right in thinking that this law now requires adherence to ‘one china’ by Taiwan as a prerequisite for any talks? Of course, that’s what they’ve been saying for a while - but it hasn’t been law before …
It’s as if the PRC is doing everything they can to ensure that Taiwan won’t start up talks with them :loco:
BTW: Europa, there’s no need to worry about any imminent attack - the law also mentions that they’re not going to hurt a single foreigner in any attack, so you’re safe whatever happens.
One thing this law accomplished was to continue to confuse John Q. Public about the Taiwan / China issue. Now it has even more of them scratching their heads. I am sure if you ask them in a couple of weeks about Taiwan and China they will say something like, “I thought that Taiwan and China was same country.” The headlines all call it China’s anti-secession bill aimed at Taiwan’s independence supporters. (TAIWAN IS ALREADY INDEPENDENT!!!) Quite a brilliant PR event, even shows CHina voting on TV, so that the uninformed from Germany, USA, Australia and so on, will be even confused about democracy in China. That Chinese Communist Party is the greatest spin artist in the world, amazing diplomacy!
If that is the case I am very glad that the US and Japan have decided to defend Taiwan should the communists strike. In the meantime I hope more than half of Taiwan shows up at the anti-“People’s Republic” of China rally
COMMENTARY: … and most people in Taiwan (over 80%) have shown in all recent surveys that they have no desire to unite with China, while about 36% our of this group favor gradual independence and their opinions spread more and more every year. The KMT have gotten votes mostly due to their proposed policies, not because of the fact that they mostly used to support unification (that has changed recently as they now lean a bit towards taiwan independence too), leaving the po-China but unpopular PFP and New Party losing more votes every year (they took the brunt of the Pan-blue half-million-vote-loss in 2004).
As I’ve been advocating for the longest time, everyone should read up on international law, (as none of our rants have substance otherwise). China has revoked Taiwan due to the Treaty of Shimoneski and has lost the territory permanently (treaties are law, no other means are recognized), no subsequent treaties were made to hand the territory of Taiwan to China. China can only make a treaty with the current government of Taiwan (whether it recognizes it or not) to annex the territory. There are no other means of annexation, except with a military invasion. China’s methods of trying to politically isolate Taiwan works by using economic measures of encouragement (in order to recognize us, you must not recognize Taiwan, or no trade!), yet all of its excess growth was done by Taiwanese-owned companies (sourced from Xinhua and China’s own database) so its really ironic.
What is China’s purpose then? Really I think its just to provide a easy scapegoat for the people of China, otherwise the people of China would concentrate on other things, like the fact that the CCP is responsible for giving China one of the worlds worst human rights records. That means murder, suppression, and lots of it.[/quote]
Hobart is right about the perception of the Taiwan /China relationship in any country outside of Asia.
However, I think the anti-secession law is a good thing. For too long there has been too much ambiguity about the circumstances underwhich China would invade Taiwan. This law makes their position clear, and doesn’t change their position. It just helps to define it. I think that is a good thing ahead of the rewrite in the constitution. There is no point in burying your head in the sand and saying fuck off China leave us alone, because that is just never ever going to happen. China’s power is just going to grow and grow until one day it will just engulf Taiwan. It may not happen for a while, but it will happen.
