Talk:Anti-Secession Law of the People's Republic of China

This is a controversial topic, which may be disputed. Please read this talk page discussion before making substantial changes. (This message should only be placed on talk pages.)

---

/Archive1 - the proposed law (green paper) by a scholar Yu Yuanzhou, taken from www.peacehall.com (http://www.peacehall.com/news/gb/pubvp/2004/05/200405190839.shtml).

Contents

1 "suggestion by a scholar" 2 Rename of this article 3 Non-floating currency reform?! 4 Reaction from the international community 5 Modified 6 ROC would not exist if independece were declared? 7 Proposed law-clean up 8 anti-annexation law 9 Some information on US congressional reaction 10 Mainlnd China 11 Former Proposal

"suggestion by a scholar"

"suggestion by a scholar" sounds very silly and awkward. Why not used "proposed" in parenthesis then? --Jiang 21:39, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Duly moved as you suggested. Thank you. -- Kaihsu 22:13, 2004 Aug 2 (UTC)

Rename of this article

The proposed law is now titled 反分裂国家法 (literally anti-sucession of the state law). Should this article be renamed accordingly? See also google search (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22%E7%B5%B1%E4%B8%80%E6%B3%95%22+%22%E5%8F%8D%E5%88%86%E8%A3%82%E5%9C%8B%E5%AE%B6%E6%B3%95%22&meta=) about the change. — Instantnood 19:31, Feb 19 2005 (UTC)

The proposed law that will be put before the full NPC is different from the one proposed by Yu Yuanzhou. I think it's necessary to modify this article to reflect the actual law, and reference Yu Yuanzhou as a possible origin. then move. --Jiang 01:59, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Jiang, for working on this. We need to clean this up and make the text tighter, but maybe later.... – Kaihsu 10:56, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)

Non-floating currency reform?!

Whoa, the proposed currency is fixed to gold? WTF? Which major industrial country still has a non-floating currency? This deserves some extensive coverage over the ramifications, especially in regards to trade policy with the US. If the renminbi is no longer informally fixed to the dollar, then that could drastically change the competitiveness of Chinese exports. I'm not an expert on the subject so I don't feel comfortable analyzing it, but someone who knows more about it should do a write-up. Kent Wang 17:03, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Reaction from the international community

This article missed the reaction from the international community, which needs to be supplemented.Mababa 02:16, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Modified

The historical claim is based on Chinese settlement of Taiwan during the Ming and Qing dynasties; including formal incorporation into the Qing empire in 1885 by Emperor Guangxu.

The sentence above was modified. It looks obsurd to use settlements for claims of sovereignty. Settlement does not imply sovereignty, otherwise Israle could have the sovereignty of Gaza already. Or perhaps Afican countries could claim all over the world since every single Homo Sapien springs from African settlements in other part of the world. If this sentence is the PRC official position, please restore that text when the source is attributed and refered. During the Ming dynasty, Taiwan was under Dutch rule. Even the Tungning Empire is an independent country signs trade treaties with western countries. That sentece does not comform the historical reality.Mababa 03:57, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

By contrast, the pan-blue coalition has stated that they support a one China, different interpretations and the 92 consensus and would be willing to negotiate with the PRC on those terms. It is worth of noting that the so-called "one China, different interpretations" interpretation supported by the Taiwanese pan-blue coalition has been rejected by the PRC officials as part of the PRC defined 92 consensus.

Sentences above removed. The pan-blue did not support the one China, different interpretations and the 92 consensus as a response specifically toward the enactment of the anti-secession law. That was their general value all the time. Most of the major pan-blue party still condemn the law.[3] (http://news.yam.com/ettoday/politics/200503/20050314532340.html) Only the New party, a small negligible minor party, specifically resorted the one-china definition as part of their response.[4] (http://news.yam.com/tdn/politics/200503/20050315538196.html)Mababa 04:11, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

• Taiwan also expresses skepticism on the PRC's offer of "equal status", pointing out that the PRC still consistantly opposes its participation in international bodies such as the WHO. -- Can you cite a reference?

http://www.mac.gov.tw/english/english/macpolicy/bj8906-1.htm -- See entry #30 70.57.139.181 06:15, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes but all of these statements were made before the offer of equal status. I'm looking for a statement that the MAC or anyone else made after Hu's four point speech or in response to the anti-secession law that says in effect "we don't trust Beijing because of its position on WHO". Roadrunner 06:37, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Here is a news on MAC's response in much more detail.[5] (http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2005/03/15/2003246311) MAC did not specifically referred to the WHO issue, but did blasted the law as an `irrational act'.Mababa 06:45, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Taiwanese scholar also suggests that Wen's analogy between US the anti-cession law and PRC anti-cession law was logically unsound by pointing out that Taiwan was never part of PRC.[6] (http://www.libertytimes.com/2005/new/mar/today/today-fo11.htm) A dispute perhaps worth of being reflected in the article for the both sides.Mababa 06:50, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

ROC would not exist if independece were declared?

Jiang left the following in the edit summary: " ROC would not exist if independence was declared; they made it clear the law was aimed at a specific grp, not Taiwan in general "

According to the text of the law, independence under whatever form or banner (以任何形式獨立) is also independence. IMHO this will include equating Taiwan with ROC (independence by adopting the banner of ROC) and officially renounce the claim on the continent. — Instantnood 11:05, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

Proposed law-clean up

clean up tagged

This article is way too long. The proposed law by the PRC scholar should be isolated into a separate article. The historical introduction should be extracted from that section and incoporated into the Anti-secession law article.Mababa 05:55, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This article is far from being too long. I dont know what you mean by "historical introduction"--Jiang 22:49, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Really? It seems loose and discordantto have two laws, one passed and one proposed, to be listed here in one article, IMO.

When I mean historical introduction, I was refering to the segement from "Although Taiwan was ceded to Japan in the treaty......" to "Premier Wen Jiabao pronounced to a group of Chinese expatriates in London that serious consideration of such a law would be taken." Mababa 23:30, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

anti-annexation law

is it supposed to be "anti-annexation" law or "anti anti-session law"? If you translate word by word from chinese (反反國家分裂法) it's "anti anti-session," but it does sound a bit awkward. Is there any official translation? Wareware 12:24, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've heard it refeered to as what you mentioned, as well as "反併吞法" ("anti-annexation law")... I don't think there's an official name for it yet since it is still proposed.--Loren 14:35, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Some information on US congressional reaction

• Chinese Anti-Secession Law Is Disturbing the Status Quo in the Taiwan Strait (http://www.fapa.org/Anti-Secession%20Law/INDEX.htm)

There could be some useful information on the US congress reactions in the FAPA link above. Mababa 05:45, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Mainlnd China

Instntnood has placed this in his mainland China category. This is entirely incorrect. First, since it directly relates to how the PRC thinks it is dealing with it's own (claimed) provinces, specifically Taiwan it is incorrect to use the term mainland China, which excludes Taiwan. Second, national laws dealing with interactions of member states specifically aren't regional laws. SchmuckyTheCat 14:46, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes from the political point of view it's deal with the PRC. But as a law it is only applied, valid and applicable within mainland China. It is not a national law as stated in the Annex III of the basic laws of the two SARs. — Instantnood 15:01, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Doesn't the article say something to that effect? "state press mentioned explicitly that the law was not intended to be applied to Hong Kong and Macao." Good, gotcha covered. You say Article III is the legal basis for that? Add it! don't leave it out expecting people to find it in a talk pge. SchmuckyTheCat 15:13, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Former Proposal

I moved that section of the former proposal to it's own article. That much text about a completely different law was confusing. Both rticles are still marked with cleanup SchmuckyTheCat 15:29, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have incoporated part of the background introduction from the proposed law article. I also removed the clean up tag and trimed the external links.Mababa 03:45, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)