April, 2005

China's Anti-secession Law - A Step to Peace or War?

Rose Wu

On March 14, the National People's Congress (NPC) of the People's Republic of China enacted a law by a vote of 2,896 to 0 with two abstentions. The text of the 10-article law states that the mainland can use "non-peaceful means and other necessary measures to protect China's sovereignty and territorial integrity" if all else fails. Premier Wen Jiabao stressed the legislation was not a "war law" but one to strengthen relations with Taiwan. Nevertheless, Taiwan called the law a serious provocation.

According to the NPC vice chairman, Wang Zhaoguo, the three situations that would trigger the use of non-peaceful means under the anti-secession law are:

1. when separatist forces should act under any name or by any means to cause the fact of Taiwan's secession from China;
   
   
2. when major incidents entailing Taiwan's secession from China should occur; or
   
   
3. when possibilities for a peaceful reunification should be completely exhausted.

For Beijing, the law is, on one hand, aimed at curbing Taiwan's independence movement. On the other hand, the passage of the law is also intended to help rally nationalistic support for President Hu Jintao, who bolstered his authority by taking over former President Jiang Zemin's last official post as chairman of the State's Central Military Commission (CMC) on March 13.

Hu said at a press conference, "We shall step up preparations for possible military struggle and enhance our capabilities to cope with crises, safeguard peace, prevent wars and win the wars, if any." The law appeared to highlight the new leader's control of Taiwan policy and his resolve on the issue.

Chinese officials and scholars have debated about adopting legislation on Taiwan for years. Some of the party's more conservative members had urged a "reunification law" that set a deadline for the island to be returned to mainland rule. The anti-secession law includes no such deadline. Chinese officials said the anti-secession legislation was intended to frighten Taiwanese President Chen Shui-bian. Preparations to enact it began last year as Chen's party appeared on the verge of taking control of Taiwan's Parliament.

As expected, Taiwan's government condemned the anti-secession law as a "blank check" to invade the island and suggested it might retaliate by recommending a sensitive revision to the island's Constitution. Chen stressed that the Taiwanese people will not remain silent and will protest against this threatening law.

The island's premier, Frank Hsieh Chang-ting, called for an expansion of military spending to ensure that the island would be able to fend off an attack by the mainland. He told the media in Taipei, "It is highly important for Taiwan to maintain its military supremacy by acquiring the necessary weapons to counter any possible attack by the mainland. . . . Mr. Chen's pledges not to declare independence or change the status quo came with the precondition that Beijing did not use force against the island."

The Taiwanese people have perhaps never been as united as in their opposition to the Anti-secession Law. According to the latest opinion poll by the Institute for National Policy Research, a private think tank, 93.4 percent of the 1,067 adults surveyed would object to Beijing's use of "non-peaceful means" against Taiwan. This does not translate into general anti-mainland sentiment though with most island residents still supportive of commercial and cultural interaction across the Taiwan Strait.

In Hong Kong, there has not been much discussion about this issue since most attention locally has been drawn to the resignation of Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa and the debate over the length of his replacement's term after an election in July. However, most sentiments seem to support the bill primarily due to a narrow sense of nationalism and in order to support China to become a much stronger and powerful nation in order to compete with the United States.

From a peace movement perspective, there are strong reasons to oppose the Chinese government's passage of the anti-secession law. First of all, this law gives permission to China's top officials to use violent means to attack Taiwan whenever they want, especially since China does not have a democratic government with checks and balances. Secondly, it is extremely important for global citizens of all countries to ensure our governments use peaceful means to settle national conflicts instead of pursuing military force. In this case, an ethical ideal is to urge both governments to subscribe to the principle of non-violence, to vow that this is the most effective and rational way to resolve human and national conflicts.

As for Christians who claim to be peacemakers, we must learn from human history that the tragedy of Nazi tyranny was caused by the passive silence of the majority and blind nationalism, which allowed the violence to expand until it reached unparalleled proportions. We must also commit ourselves to building peace and ensuring justice as our life's vocation.

To achieve this goal, we must use a new lens to see faith and human relationships. It was Gandhi's conviction that every human conflict should be approached, not as a win/lose outcome, but as a win/wine outcome and that there could be a way of resolving conflict that evoked the goodness in all parties. In this way of seeking reconciliation, which honours each person's imperfect hold on truth, a higher truth emerges.

In the case of China and Taiwan, what is needed in the present crisis is creative policies and responses, not parity in military power. Peace is not the end result of violent conflict but the very means of resolving conflict non-violently. Peace is a process, a commitment to respect life, to use love and justice to transform all forms of violence; and by using non-violent means, sovereignty can also be truly protected.