'Anti-Secession' Law has the opposite effect

March 14 marked the second anniversary of the passage of China's "Anti-Secession" Law. Over the past two years, the effect it has produced, or lack thereof, could be described as its own "four noes and one without."

First, it has no legal force in Taiwan. The People's Republic of China (PRC) has never controlled or had jurisdiction over Taiwan, so Beijing has no right to promulgate laws for Taiwan.

Second, it has no power to scare Taiwan. After the "Anti-Secession" Law was passed, some newspaper surveys indicated that the number of people advocating Taiwanese independence rose by 27 percent. In the face of such a vile law, the Taiwanese people have a clearer idea of which direction they want to choose.

Third, it has no constructive effect on cross-strait relations. China has always emphasized the need for direct links and to increase cross-strait contact. But a law that treats Taiwan as its enemy only increases cross-strait hostility.

Fourth, it has no acceptance in the international community. At the end of 2005, the Government Information Office commissioned Gallup to sample the attitudes of leaders and citizens in the US, Japan, Britain, France and Germany. The results showed that 75 percent were opposed to the law, 80 percent supported Taiwan's entry into the WHO and more than 60 percent believed Taiwan was a sovereign and independent country.

The one "without" is that the law is without any legitimacy. Today's China still lacks democratic elections and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) relies on purges to continue its rule, yet it still feels it can pass laws against democratic Taiwan and strip its people of their rights. This contradiction takes away any legitimacy it may have. The acceptance of using military force against Taiwan that lies at the law's core is an example of violent thinking that is at odds with global trends.

As the anniversary of the law approached, President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) offered a clear and forceful attack on the law with his "four wants and one without" speech. He said that Taiwan should be independent, should change its name, should have a new constitution and should develop, and that there is no question of political right or left, only independence or unification. At the same time, the speech set the tone for pan-green presidential candidates. The future leader of Taiwan should not be afraid of threats from the CCP, should not fear attacks by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and should be brave and wise enough to follow the direction of Chen's "four wants."

Last year at a symposium in Taipei, Soochow University professor Lo Chih-cheng (羅致政) talked about Taiwan's direction in the following way: During Chiang Kai-shek's (蔣介石) rule, the "Republic of China [ROC] came to Taiwan." During his son Chiang Ching-kuo's (蔣經國) rule, the "ROC was living in Taiwan." During former president Lee Teng-hui's (李登輝) time in power, the "ROC was located in Taiwan." Now, the "ROC is Taiwan." I hope one day this will become "Taiwan is Taiwan."

Whether or not China uses force against Taiwan will of course first be decided by China's domestic economic and political situation, and secondly by the attitude of Taiwan's leaders. The weaker you appear, the more room dictators allow themselves to dream.

When People First Party Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜) and former KMT chairman Lien Chan (連戰) visited Beijing in 2005, it seemed that everyone in China, from officials to commoners, was gripped by unification fever. China has shied away from any bully-boy tactics against Taiwan during the past two years, and one clear reason is that the "Anti-Secession" Law did not produce any of the effects that had been hoped for.