Written by Laurence Brahm - Published by South China Morning Post on 01/18/2005

Beijing’s announcement of anti-secession legislation initially sent shockwaves through Taiwan. But since then, a deal has been reached to resume direct flights across the Taiwan Strait during the Lunar New Year holiday. So what is happening?

Foreign diplomats and journalists were baffled as to why Beijing should wish to restate through legislation something that is already clearly understood. To read its intentions, one must look not just from an international angle, but also from a domestic perspective. The legislation reveals not only the determination of President Hu Jintao’s administration, but also echoes its broad social mandate.

China’s historic collective unconscious holds that territorial boundaries are sacred. This has evolved into the national ethos of non-aggrandisement while making it the duty of the state not to lose an inch of territory. In ancient times, emperors who last territory had their tombs downsized. Clearly, this is not what Mr Hu has in mind.

The sensitivity of Taiwan’s separatism cannot be underestimated in the mainland. It is important to see that the weight of political stakes differs on either side of the strait. If Taiwan’s president, Chine Shui-bian, suddenly declared that he wanted to integrate or “reunify” with the mainland, he might face a barrage of opinions, anger and outrage. But there would also be support, and social upheaval would not figure.

But if Mr Chen began moves towards separatism, the social fury unleashed in the mainland would be uncontainable. The implications of this may not be fully understood by Taipei or some foreign governments.

First, Beijing’s policy of “peaceful reunification” remains. The new legislation is not a basis for war. Rather, the intention may be to draw a clear line to avert war. Ancient strategic philosophy can shed light: Sun Tzu wrote that “when I wish to avoid battle…simply draw a line on the ground…diverting the enemy from going where he wishes”.

Second, Beijing is aware of a small but active rural minority in Taiwan’s southern Tainan region who seek separation and the elimination of island’s ethnic Chinese identity. The legislation is clearly aimed at sending this group an unequivocal message.

Third, the Taiwan issue has always been more than a Beijing-Taipei or communist-Kuomintang problem. It has been affected, in large part, by the United States, which chose to recognize the island prior to president Richard Nixon’s visit in 1972, when the “one-China” issue became the centerpiece of Sino-US relations, and China’s economy opened after the US embargo was lifted. China-US ties are, in substance, held together by three communiqués, which all reiterate this point and carry provisions to bar US arms sales to the island.

While the Bush administration has stood against any change in status, implicitly negating independence moves by Mr Chen, it has also upped arms sales. Contradicting the three communiqués, congressional legislation for the defence of Taiwan remains on the US statue books. While such legislation is outdated and inconsistent with world realities, it leaves certain questions unanswered. By enacting anti-separatist legislation, Beijing intends to stop these questions being asked.

Mr Chen finds himself in an awkward position. Taiwan’s political environment does not support independence initiatives. Initiating dialogue with Beijing could prove easier. Mr Chen now faces the question of how history will view his use of power. He may need to change agendas, given the political mood at home and Beijing’s conditions.

While the announcement of anti-separatist legislation closes Mr Chen’s options, the surprise deal on direct flights presents an opening and possible first step towards dialogue. Sun Tzu taught that: “To a surrounded enemy, you must leave a way of escape.” He also believed that the best strategy was to win a war without fighting.

Laurence Brahm is a global activist, international mediator, political columnist and author. He is the leading advocate of a fresh development paradigm - The Himalayan Consensus - an innovative approach to development.

Back to Top