Well, folks, is China gonna invade Taiwan, or are they gonna control themselves and just issue a new law that has little meaning for cross-strait relations? This weekend, like tomorrow, the National People's Congress is gonna meet and pass a law aimed at keeping Taiwan on a short leash. This website will monitor the situation with news reports and commentary, and if China does invade, we will stay here and fight alongside the Taiwanese people and tell bully China to shove it!

Michael A. Lev, Chicago Tribune, reporting from Beijing
Philip P. Pan, Washington Post, reporting from Beijing
Bruce Klingner, reporting from Hong Kong
Mark Kolvin, Australia
Tamora Vidaillet in Beijing
John Taylor, Australia


Several things could happen:

1. China passes a very watered-down anti-secession law and steps back from the fray
NO. IT DID NOT.
2. China passes a very strong-toothed law and ups the ante. SORT OF, YES.
3. China invades Taiwan on Monday (in 2050?) NO.
4. The US comes to Taiwan's rescue on Tuesday (in 2051?) NO NEED TO.
5. World War III breaks out on Wednesday (in 2053?) JUST KIDDING.

Note: This blogger is in Taiwan, a country with very few friends in the world community. We support Taiwan's nationhood, its defacto independence and its wonderful, friendly, hospitable people, full of life and dreams.

this news just in! TUESDAY, March 8th...

CNN news is reporting....

Beijing lays down law over Taiwan

Monday, March 7, 2005 Posted: 10:10 PM EST (0310 GMT)

China reserves the legael right to use military action against Taiwan if peaceful means fail to stop the democratic island nation from pursuing s--called independence, under a stupid new law unveiled Tuesday in an 11-page document.

That's the bad news.

But the sort of good news is:

[In the event of any armed conflict, China would take the utmost care to protect civilians and foreigners, as well as their property...including those on Taiwan?]

The really good news is:

The document also stated that China wants to negotiate with Taiwan "as equal partners" and discussed strengthening education, sporting and cultural ties across the Taiwan Strait.

More good news here"

China Offers `Equal Footing' in Taiwan Talks

Chinese leaders sweetened their call for talks on Taiwan's future, as the island nation's leaders stiffened their condemnation of Beijing legislation that may lay the framework for reunification by force.

`` We insist on one China,'' Communist Dictator Wen Jia-bao said in his annual address to the mind-controlled National Brainwashed-People's Congress today. ``We insist on cross-strait negotiations based on equal status for both sides.''

The ``equal status'' reference, unusual in China's Taiwan lexicon, came a day after Communist Dictator Bully President Hu Jin-tao told a group of brainwashed and mindcontrolled congressional dupes that re-unification should be based on ``consultation on an equal footing,'' and after a Communist Party spokesman said the proposed anti-secession law wasn't war mobilization against Taiwan.

``I'm happy to hear he said `equal footing.' This is the first time I've heard that,'' said Andrew Yang, secretary-general of the Taiwan Council of Advanced Policy Studies in Taipei. ``Free and democratic Taiwan has sought this for a long time, and communist China has finally agreed. They're agreeing to equal footing because they want to minimize suspicion from Taiwan toward this anti-secession law. They are trying for some damage control.''

[To contact the editor responsible for this story
Bruce Grant in Hong Kong at]
bruceg@bloomberg.net

Meanwhile, here's what one US commentator, based in Hawaii at the Pacific Forum CSIS, had to say last week in the pages of the pro-Taiwan, left-leaning Taipei Times.

HEADLINE: Much ado about China's so-called "anti-secession" law

Text: Ralph Cossa

Date: March 4, 2005

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/edit/archives/2005/03/04/2003225415

It is not uncommon in the US to condemn movies we haven't seen or criticize books we haven't read based solely on their titles or our worst fears regarding their presumed or rumored contents. It seems our compatriots in Taiwan have adopted this same trait.

I'm talking, of course, about the critical reaction in Taipei -- and in some circles in Washington -- to Beijing's proposed "anti-secession" law, which is slated to be enacted by the soon-to-be-convened National People's Congress (NPC). While the text is yet to be seen, this has not prevented many in both capitals from severely condemning the legislation.

It is difficult to be too critical of this tendency, having been guilty of it myself. During a recent trip to Beijing I found myself expressing concerns over the implications of the legislation, regardless of its contents. The big question is, "Why now?" At a time when there finally seems to be some modest progress in cross-strait relations -- the unprecedented direct flights between Taiwan and China during the Lunar New Year holiday period and the sending of two senior Chinese representatives to the memorial service for veteran cross-strait negotiator Koo Chen-fu (辜振甫) -- why does Beijing think it necessary to pursue it?

The simple answer seems to be continuing deep distrust of President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁). The legislation had its genesis in Chen's surprise re-election in March last year and received added impetus last fall when Beijing's experts -- like most Taiwan-watchers, not to mention Chen himself -- were predicting victory for the pan-green camp in December's legislative elections. When the outcome was a pleasant surprise -- from Beijing's perspective, at least -- the new law had already gained too much momentum to be abandoned. Besides, Beijing interlocutors argued, the results of the legislative elections, while admittedly making it harder for Chen to carry out his "splittist" agenda, were not likely to persuade him to alter his overall independence agenda. His tactics might change, but not his objective.

The main Chinese "concession" in response to the legislative elections was to rename the bill. The "Unification Law" -- a title which implied an aggressive and impatient outlook -- became anti-secession legislation aimed merely at "preserving the status quo."

Since US President George W. Bush has repeatedly stated that he opposes any unilateral change to the status quo, this new legislation "puts Beijing's One China principle squarely in line with Washington's One China policy," it was argued. It also "underscores China's respect for the rule of law."

While these arguments are not particularly convincing, they do represent a growing sophistication -- and a willingness to throw the Bush administration's logic back at Washington.
The counter-arguments -- that the legislation will incite and empower Beijing's critics in Washington and Taipei and could breathe new life into Chen's presumed "independence agenda" by handing him an excuse for counter-legislation or another referendum -- failed to impress Chinese officials, who sent a clear signal about their ambiguous legislation: If you want to make suggestions as to how we can word the legislation more effectively, or make it less inflammatory, then we are all ears; but if you try to talk us out of introducing the new law, "save your breath!"

It was claimed that once we actually saw the legislation -- and it would be made public immediately after approval by the NPC -- we would see that all the furor had been "much ado about nothing."

Perhaps. But regardless of its content, the proposed legislation presents an opportune target Chen will find hard to resist shooting at.

If Chen sees his second-term legacy as building a bridge across the Taiwan Strait, he might indeed see this legislation as the "opportunity for dialogue" that Beijing claims it will represent. By laying down what is not allowed -- independence -- the legislation will open the door for serious cross-strait dialogue as long as this "red line" is not crossed. If Chen is more intent on consolidating Taiwan's separation from China, however, he will approach the legislation like the trial lawyer he was, exploiting loopholes and finding ways of turning even the most passive of statements into a justification for the pursuit of his agenda.

Assuming that Beijing proceeds with this legislation -- and, regrettably, I see no reason to assume otherwise -- the ball, like it or not, will be in Chen's court once again. He would do well to wait until seeing the legislation before locking himself into any course of action as he currently seems to be doing. Earlier threats to introduce counter-legislation or hold an anti-annexation referendum are now wisely being described as "options" rather than definite outcomes by the Presidential Office, even if certain coalition members are demanding harsher action.

The Bush administration seems to be waiting, wisely in my view, to see the wording of the legislation before reacting. One hopes that Taiwan and its friends in the US Congress will do the same.

It would be much wiser in the long run to examine how the legislation might be turned to Taipei's geopolitical advantage, rather than to merely exploit it for domestic political purposes, as tempting as that course of action might be.

[Note: Ralph Cossa is president of the Pacific Forum CSIS, a Honolulu-based non-profit research institute affiliated with the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. This story has been viewed 13,233 times. ]

NEXT: