US embassy cable - 04TAIPEI4023

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, Cross Strait Politics 
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?."