MEDIA REACTION: CHINA'S "ANTI-SECESSION" LAW

UNCLAS TAIPEI 004023

SIPDIS

DEPARTMENT FOR INR/R/MR, EAP/RSP/TC, EAP/PA, EAP/PD - ROBERT
PALLADINO
DEPARTMENT PASS AIT/WASHINGTON

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: OPRC KMDR KPAO TW
SUBJECT: MEDIA REACTION: CHINA'S "ANTI-SECESSION" LAW

A) "China Legislates the `Anti-Secession Law' and [It] Has
Nothing to Do With Taiwan"

The pro-independence "Liberty Times" editorialized (12/21):

". Taiwan and China are respective countries on each side of
the Taiwan Strait, and the interactions between Taiwan and
China are being conducted in accordance with international
law. The so-called `anti-secession law' has nothing to do
with Taiwan. From the point of `Republic of China,' the one
that actually conducted the secession was the `People's
Republic of China' established in 1949, but not the
`Republic of China' established in 1912. However, `Taiwan'
has nothing to do with the `People's Republic of China'
established in 1949. According to international law, as a
matter of fact, Taiwan still belonged to Japanese territory
before the 1952 San Francisco Peace Treaty became effective.
The Republic of China was established in 1949 and Taiwan,
thus, has never been a part of the `People's Republic of
China.'

"Hence, even if China legislates the `anti-secession law,'
it can only apply to the domain within the People's Republic
of China and has nothing to do with Taiwan.."

B) "Suspending the Issue of Unification: [Chinese president]
Hu Expects the Powers in Taiwan to Maintain the Status Quo."

Chen Yu-chun, a research fellow and Director of American
Studies at Chinese Cultural University noted in the
conservative, pro-unification "United Daily News" (12/21):

". The moves that Beijing declares to push for the anti-
secession law and Beijing's declaration, after Taiwan's
legislative elections, regarding `the key to develop the
Cross-Strait relations depends on the position Taiwan adopts
in the future' are intertwined. The purpose is that
maintaining the status quo is the priority in cross-Strait
relations in the foreseeable future. Moreover, the anti-
secession law does not involve the issue of national
unification, therefore [Chinese President] Hu did not
mention in his speech in Macao the issue of anti-secession
law as was expected by the outside world.."

C) "The Wording by the United States on the `anti-secession
law'"

Journalist Norman Fu noted in the centrist, pro-status quo
"China Times" (12/21):

". The English translation for the law China is about to
legislate is `anti-session law'. From the history [of the
Civil War in the United States,] the purpose [of China] is
to point directly at the United States. To maintain the
integrity of the territory and sovereignty, the United
States did not hesitate to wage war that left more than
600,000 deaths. Therefore, isn't it another version of the
Civil War if China does not hesitate to resort to arms to
resist Taiwan independence? The reason China used the word
`secession' is to remind the United States of the Civil War.
The acts of secession and treason were not allowed by the
United States, and how can China, whose people have a deep-
rooted thinking of unification be different?."