Anti-Secession Law - Background

Background

Taiwan was formally incorporated into the Qing Dynasty in 1683. It was then ceded by China to Japan in perpetuity in the Treaty of Shimonoseki of 1895. At the end of World War II, it was then surrendered by Japan in 1945 to the Kuomintang (KMT) Administration of the Republic of China. After the declaration of the People's Republic of China in 1949, Taiwan and some neighbouring islands continued to be controlled by Republic of China forces. In its official view, the People's Republic of China (PRC) government considers Taiwan to be a province of China. According to the PRC, it is the sole legitimate government of China, and thus should also rule Taiwan. According to the PRC argument, the government of the Republic of China ceased to represent the sovereignty of China when it lost control of the Chinese mainland between 1949 and 1950. Thus, the PRC argues, the PRC succeeded to the sovereignty of China in 1949-1950, including that over Taiwan, although Taiwan continued to be under the administration of the old Republic of China government.

The official Republic of China (ROC) view is that it did not cease to exist in 1949 and has continued to function as a sovereign political entity in Taiwan to the present day, making the relationship between the PRC and ROC similar to that between other partitioned states (such as North Korea and South Korea). The PRC's position has been acknowledged by most nations, by adopting some version of the "One-China policy", although some nations prefer to take an ambiguous approach on this issue. More extreme advocates of Taiwan independence oppose both the PRC's and the ROC's claim to Taiwan and the legality of the Chinese sovereignty over 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 discussion of reunification only if the economic and political systems of the two sides of the straits were comparable. A majority of Taiwanese appear to support the "status quo" but there are different opinions in Taiwanese society, with the PRC, and in the international community over what the status quo is. A full 74 percent of the Taiwanese public agree that "Taiwan is an independent sovereign country"

The re-election of Chen Shui-bian to the ROC Presidency, led many to conclude that there was a growth in Taiwan independence sentiment and that a new Taiwanese identity is 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 try to capitalize on this trend to win a majority in the Legislative Yuan of Taiwan. Among some Taiwanese Independence supporters, it is believed that a pan-green majority could force a crucial referendum for constitutional reform and, perhaps, to further move the island toward de jure independence. Many Taiwanese independence supporters, including former President Lee Teng-Hui, argued that Taiwan should declare independence before 2008 on the theory that international pressure over the Beijing Olympics would prevent the PRC from using force against Taiwan.

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 sufficient incentives to gain Taiwanese public support for reunification and at the same time, it seemed that many in Taiwan did not take Beijing's stated threats to use force seriously. The ROC government had defined the status quo such a way that a de jure declaration of independence could be argued to not represent a change in the status quo. Some Chinese believe these events lead to the formulation in 2003 and 2004 of the Anti-Secession Law.

In early 2004 a similar, proposed law had already appeared. Titled 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), it was authored by a Chinese academic Yu Yuanzhou (余元洲), a professor from the Jianghan University in Wuhan who does not have a formal governmental position, as a suggestion to create formal a legal basis for the People's Republic of China's unification with Taiwan. Although no formal legislative action was taken on the document the heavy debate surrounding it and the suggestion that some sort of anti-secession law would be passed was viewed by many in Taiwan as evidence of hostile intent by the PRC government towards Taiwan independence supporters.

In December 2004 the ROC Legislative elections, although the then ruling DPP party actually increased its share of votes in the legislature and remained the largest single party there, the pan-blue coalition maintained a razor-thin majority, which surprised many. However, this result may have been less a reflection of popular sentiment than a testament to the effectiveness of the KMT's more frugal nomination of candidates (116) compared with the DPP's over-nomination of candidates (122) and the KMT's rigid party rules for allotment of votes to its candidates within individual districts. This election result 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 its Taiwan policy in the past had been reactive rather than proactive and it was necessary for the PRC to show initiative rather than merely react to events. Furthermore, Beijing expressed residual distrust for Chen Shui-bian. Many Western experts have argued that the PRC's decision-making system was rigid, and that plans put into place to deal with a pan-green victory had simply developed too much momentum to be shut down.

In announcing the drafting of the law in December, 2004, the state press mentioned explicitly that the law was not intended to be applied to Hong Kong and Macau.