Anti-Secession Law: Difference between revisions

Anti-Secession Law
Anti-Secession Law
Simplified Chinese	反分裂国家法
Traditional Chinese	反分裂國家法
Hanyu Pinyin
Transcriptions
Standard Mandarin
Hanyu Pinyin	Fǎn-Fēnliè Guójiā Fǎ
Wade–Giles	Fan3-Fên1-lieh4 Kuo2-chia1 Fa3

Anti-Secession Law
Anti-Secession Law
	National Emblem of the People's Republic of China
National People's Congress
Enacted by	National People's Congress
Enacted	March 14, 2005
Signed by	Hu Jintao
Commenced	March 14, 2005
Summary
	A Law formulated in accordance with the Constitution, for the purpose of opposing and checking Taiwan's secession from China by secessionists in the name of "Taiwan independence", promoting peaceful national reunification, maintaining peace and stability in the Taiwan Straits, preserving China's sovereignty and territorial integrity, and safeguarding the fundamental interests of the Chinese nation.
Keywords
	National Security, Secession, Taiwan
	Status: In force

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Latest revision as of 01:07, 1 November 2024

The Anti-Secession Law (Chinese: 反分裂国家法) is a law of the People's Republic of China, passed by the 3rd Session of the 10th National People's Congress. It was ratified on March 14, 2005, and went into effect immediately. President Hu Jintao promulgated the law with Presidential Decree No. 34.^[1] Although the law, at ten articles, is relatively short, Article 8 formalized the long-standing policy of the PRC to use military means against Taiwan independence in the event peaceful means become otherwise impossible. The law does not explicitly equate "China" with the People's Republic of China (referred to in the law as "the State").

Background

Taiwan was formally incorporated into the Qing dynasty in 1683. After the First Sino-Japanese War, it was ceded by the Qing to the Empire of Japan in perpetuity in 1895. At the end of World War II, it was surrendered by Japan to the Kuomintang (KMT) administration of the Republic of China. After the establishment of the People's Republic of China in 1949, Taiwan and some neighboring islands continued to be controlled by the Republic of China government. In 1952, the Treaty of Taipei nullified all treaties, conventions and agreements previously concluded between China and Japan before December 9, 1941. Currently, the People's Republic of China (PRC) government considers Taiwan to be a province of China. According to the PRC, it is the sole legitimate government of China, and the government of the Republic of China ceased to hold sovereignty over China when it lost control of the Chinese mainland following the Chinese Civil War. It argues that the PRC assumed sovereignty over the entirety of China in 1949–1950, including Taiwan, although the latter remained under the administration of the Republic of China government.^{[citation needed]}

The official Republic of China (ROC) view is that it did not cease to exist in 1949 and has continued to function as a sovereign political entity in Taiwan to the present day, making the relationship between the PRC and ROC similar to that between other partitioned states (such as North Korea and South Korea). Official recognition by most international organizations (such at the United Nations and World Health Organization) rests largely with the PRC. In 1992, the "One-China policy" was agreed between the governments of both sides whereby each would assert that there was only 'one China', while disagreeing about which side was the legitimate government of it. However, some advocates of Taiwan independence oppose both the PRC's and the ROC's claim to Taiwan and the legality of the Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan.^{[citation needed]}

Multiple opinion polls conducted in Taiwan have indicated that there is very little support for immediate unification on the PRC's terms or for an immediate declaration of independence.^[2] Polls have also consistently shown that a large majority of Taiwanese would support discussion of unification only if the economic and political systems of the two sides were comparable.^[3] A majority of Taiwan residents appear to support the "status quo" but there are different opinions in Taiwanese society, within the PRC, and within the international community, over what the status quo is. A full 74 percent of the Taiwanese public agree that "Taiwan is an independent sovereign country"^[4]^[5]

The re-election of Chen Shui-bian to the ROC Presidency,^[6] led many to conclude that there has been an increase in Taiwan independence sentiment and that a new Taiwanese identity is emerging on the island which is opposed to identification with China. During the 2004 ROC Legislative Election, the strategy of the pan-Green coalition was to try to capitalize on this trend to win a majority in the Legislative Yuan of Taiwan. Among some Taiwanese Independence supporters, it is believed that a pan-green majority could force a crucial referendum for constitutional reform and, perhaps, to further move the island toward de jure independence. Many Taiwanese independence supporters, including former President Lee Teng-Hui, argued that Taiwan should declare independence before 2008 on the theory that international pressure over the Beijing Olympics would prevent the PRC from using force against Taiwan.^{[citation needed]}

These events in late 2004 caused a great deal of alarm in Beijing. Observers indicated that many in Beijing believed that its policies toward Taiwan had failed both because it did not have sufficient incentives to gain Taiwanese public support for unification and at the same time, it seemed that many in Taiwan did not take Beijing's stated threats of force seriously. The ROC government had defined the status quo in such a way that a de jure declaration of independence could be argued to not represent a change in the status quo. Some Chinese^[who?] believe these events led to the formulation in 2003 and 2004 of the Anti-Secession Law.^{[citation needed]}

In early 2004 a similar proposed law had been tabled. Titled the National Unification Promotion Law of the People's Republic of China (Chinese: 中华人民共和国国家统一促进法), it was authored by a Chinese academic Yu Yuanzhou (余元洲), a professor from Jianghan University in Wuhan who did not hold any formal governmental position, as a suggestion to create a formal legal basis for the People's Republic of China's unification with Taiwan. Although no formal legislative action was taken on the document, the heavy debate surrounding it, and the suggestion that some sort of anti-secession law would be passed, was viewed by many in Taiwan as evidence of hostile intent by the PRC government towards Taiwan independence supporters.^{[citation needed]}

In the December 2004 ROC Legislative elections, although the ruling DPP party increased its share of votes in the legislature and remained the largest single party there, the pan-blue coalition gained a razor-thin majority, which surprised many. However, this result may have been less a reflection of popular sentiment than a testament to the effectiveness of the KMT's more frugal nomination of candidates (116) compared with the DPP's over-nomination of candidates (122) and the KMT's rigid party rules for allotment of votes to its candidates within individual districts.^[7] This election result ended most prospects of an immediate declaration of independence and also called into question whether there really had been an increase in Taiwanese independence sentiment. Despite this, the PRC proceeded with the drafting of the anti-secession law. The main reasons given to foreign interlocutors were that the PRC leadership believed that its Taiwan policy in the past had been reactive rather than proactive and that it was necessary for the PRC to show initiative. Furthermore, Beijing expressed a residual distrust of Chen Shui-bian. Many foreign experts have argued that the PRC's decision-making system was rigid and that plans put into place to deal with a pan-green victory had simply developed too much momentum to be shut down.^{[citation needed]}

In announcing the drafting of the law in December 2004, the Head of the Legal Affairs Committee of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (Chinese: 全国人大常委会法制工作委员会负责人) mentioned explicitly that the law was not intended to be applied to Hong Kong and Macau.^[8]

Development

In December 2004, the PRC state news agency Xinhua reported that the National People's Congress in its upcoming session would enact an 'anti-secession law', without specifying further details.^{[citation needed]}

In a rare moment of agreement, politicians in Taiwan from both the Pan-green coalition and Pan-blue coalition reacted negatively towards this development. Some politicians have proposed that the ROC enact an 'anti-annexation law' to counter the proposed PRC law. Various opinion polls have revealed that 80% of Taiwan residents oppose such an 'anti-secession law' and a majority agree that a defensive referendum should be held in the advance of such a law to protect the status quo.^[9]

President Chen Shui-bian commented on the 'anti-secession law' during his 2005 new year speech: "Such actions will not only unilaterally change the status quo of peace in the Taiwan Strait, but will also pose the greatest threat to regional stability and world peace." Whereas the PRC Paramount leader Hu Jintao said "We will definitely not allow anyone to separate Taiwan from China by any means," in his New Year's Eve speech.^[10]

Although the PRC's official English translation of the law is the Anti-Secession Law, the Mainland Affairs Council in Taiwan has consistently translated it as Anti-Separation Law as secession implies that Taiwan is a part of the PRC. The Mainland Affairs Council and the ROC government has argued that the relationship across the Taiwan Strait is not analogous to the situation during the American Civil War since Taiwan was never part of the PRC.^{[citation needed]}

Early reaction

Reaction in Hong Kong

At the time the unification law was proposed by legal scholar Yu Yuanzhou, the press in Hong Kong expressed concern that it would lead to legislation by stealth of the anti-treason or anti-secession provision of the Basic Law Article 23 legislation in 2003.^{[clarification needed]} These concerns were addressed when a mainland China official stated explicitly the law would not be added to Annex III of the Basic Law, which means that it would not be applicable to Hong Kong. After the passage of the law in March 2005, there was very little reaction in Hong Kong and news of the law was far overshadowed by the resignation of Hong Kong's chief executive, Tung Chee-Hwa.^{[citation needed]} In the 15 years since the law was passed, it has cast a long shadow over Hong Kong.^[11]

Reaction in Taiwan

A rally flag used in the 3-26 protests. Word on the flag reads:"democracy, peace, guard Taiwan", while the ribbon below writes "anti annexation, guard Taiwan".

In Taiwan, the passage of the law was condemned by officials and politicians from both the Pan-Green Coalition and the Pan-Blue Coalition, although there were differences in the content of their criticism. Supporters of the Pan-Green Coalition tended to react angrily to the spirit and content of the law as an infringement of what they saw as Taiwanese sovereignty. By contrast, supporters of the Pan-Blue Coalition, while stating that they opposed the law and the threat of force against Taiwan, called for more dialogue with the PRC and pointed to parts of the law in which Beijing showed hitherto unseen flexibility.^{[citation needed]}

Opinion polls indicated widespread opposition to the law among the general public. Some questioned whether Beijing had the authority to enact such a law as they claim that Taiwan is not under the PRC jurisdiction (See Political status of Taiwan). The Pan-Green Coalition, in particular, reacted with distaste and there have been calls for an "anti-annexation law" to be passed by the legislature. Premier Frank Hsieh pointed out that the PRC law had already infringed on ROC sovereignty and thus met the criteria for initiating a "defensive referendum" under the ROC constitution. However, he added that whether a defensive referendum would be invoked is at the discretion of the ROC president.^[12]

On March 25, 2008, DPP legislators tabled a bill titled the "Anti-Annexation Peace Law" at the procedural committee level in the legislature, which would have stated that "Taiwan and China are not subordinate to each other"; that "Taiwan is a sovereign state"; and that "the relationship between Taiwan and China is one between two states". It would have expressed hope that the Taiwan issue be resolved peacefully, but that if the status quo of the Taiwan Strait should change, the President would have the power to deal non-peacefully with "China's annexation". The bill was rejected at the procedural committee level by a vote of 11:2 and was not presented to the legislature.^[13]

International responses

United States Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice commented that the law was "not necessary", while White House spokesman Scott McClellan called its adoption "unfortunate", adding "It does not serve the purpose of peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait". In speaking about the law, the United States repeated that it remained supportive of the One China policy as the US defines it, that it did not support Taiwan independence, and opposed any unilateral action to change the status quo. The United States House of Representatives approved a resolution criticizing the PRC for the approval of the PRC law in Beijing. The resolution expressed grave concern about the law and said the PRC law provides a legal justification for PRC to use force against Taiwan, in its words, altering the status quo in the region.^[14]

In response to the enactment of the PRC law, the European Union issued a statement urging "all sides to avoid any unilateral action that could stoke tensions," and recalled the "constant principles that guide its policy, namely its commitment to the principle of one China and the peaceful resolution of dispute...and its opposition to any use of force."^[15]^[16] Later, on 14 April 2005, the European Parliament adopted an own-initiative report by Elmar Brok MEP, with paragraph 33 stating:

[The European Parliament expresses] its deepest concern at the large number of missiles in southern China aimed across the Taiwan Straits and at the so-called "anti-secession law" of the People's Republic of China that in an unjustified way aggravates the situation across the Straits; calls on the People's Republic of China and on the R.O.C. in Taiwan to resume political talks on the basis of mutual understanding and recognition in order to promote stability, democracy, human rights and the rule of law in east Asia.^[17]

Australian foreign minister Alexander Downer stated that if war were to occur in the Taiwan Straits, Australia would be required under the ANZUS treaty to consult with the United States but depending on the situation that it would not necessarily commit Australia to war. He said that "we don't think that the PRC should resolve the Taiwan status question militarily, that it has got to be done through negotiations with Taiwan". Downer further commented that Australia would have preferred it had China not passed the anti-secession law.^[18]

References

^ "中华人民共和国主席令第三十四号". Archived from the original on 2005-05-09.
^ "民意调查（民国95年3月31日～4月2日）「民众对当前两岸关系之看法」结果摘要". Archived from the original on 2007-09-27. Retrieved 2006-10-22. Summary Results, Opinion Poll on Cross-Strait Relations, Mainland Affairs Council, Republic of China
^ "第四次「大陆政策与两岸关系」大型面访民意调查结果分析报告". Archived from the original on 2007-09-27. Retrieved 2006-10-22. Fourth Major Opinion Poll on Mainland Policies, Mainland Affairs Council, Republic of China
^ MAC webmaster (27 June 2009). "Combined Analysis Report on Public Opinion Surveys on Cross-Strait Relations in 2007". Archived from the original on 27 September 2011. Retrieved 19 December 2010.
^ Diversity Amid Globalization 4th Edition by Rowntree, Lewis, Price and Wyckoff
^ (In which Chen increased his standing from 39.30% in a three-way race in 2000 to 50.11% in a two-way race) Gunde, Richard (2004-03-26). "The Election in Taiwan: A Forum". University of California Asia Institute. p. 1. Archived from the original on 2007-03-26. Retrieved 2007-02-10.
^ (according to Liu Yi-chou (劉義周), director of National Chengchi University's Election Study Center) Staff Reporter (2004-12-13). "Saturday not a defeat for DPP, analysts say". Taipei Times. p. 3. Archived from the original on 2007-09-29. Retrieved 2007-02-09.
^ "反分裂国家法不适用香港、澳门特别行政区_中国人大网". National People's Congress. Archived from the original on 2022-03-03. Retrieved 2022-03-03.
^ "蕃薯藤-新聞-民調：近八成民眾認為反國家分裂法為犯台藉口". Archived from the original on 2005-03-17. Retrieved 2004-01-02.
^ "Dailytimes - Your Right To Know". Archived from the original on 2006-02-26.
^ Albert, Eleanor M. (March 2020). "Revisiting China's Anti-Secession Law". The Diplomat. Archived from the original on 17 February 2016. Retrieved 4 March 2020.
^ http://yam.udn.com/yamnews/daily/2564075.shtml^{[permanent dead link‍]}
^ 綠提反併吞和平法　遭國民黨封殺 Archived May 18, 2011, at the Wayback Machine (Pan-Green proposes Anti-Annexation Peace Law; rejected by Kuomintang)
^ "VOA News - US House Criticizes China Bill on Taiwan Secession". Archived from the original on 2005-04-02. Retrieved 2005-03-17.
^ "News". Archived from the original on 2005-03-16. Retrieved 2005-03-15.
^ "FAPA - Important Issues - UN Campaign". Archived from the original on 2005-04-14. Retrieved 2005-03-23.
^ http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+TA+P6-TA-2005-0132+0+DOC+PDF+V0//EN "Common Foreign and Security Policy". European Parliament. 2003. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2011-05-20.
^ "Alexander Downer, Minister for Foreign Affairs, Interview - Sky Television with David Speers". Archived from the original on 2005-06-15. Retrieved 2005-07-06.

[1] "中华人民共和国主席令第三十四号". Archived from the original on 2005-05-09.

[Poll06-2] "民意调查（民国95年3月31日～4月2日）「民众对当前两岸关系之看法」结果摘要". Archived from the original on 2007-09-27. Retrieved 2006-10-22. Summary Results, Opinion Poll on Cross-Strait Relations, Mainland Affairs Council, Republic of China

[Poll4-3] "第四次「大陆政策与两岸关系」大型面访民意调查结果分析报告". Archived from the original on 2007-09-27. Retrieved 2006-10-22. Fourth Major Opinion Poll on Mainland Policies, Mainland Affairs Council, Republic of China

[4] MAC webmaster (27 June 2009). "Combined Analysis Report on Public Opinion Surveys on Cross-Strait Relations in 2007". Archived from the original on 27 September 2011. Retrieved 19 December 2010.

[5] Diversity Amid Globalization 4th Edition by Rowntree, Lewis, Price and Wyckoff

[6] (In which Chen increased his standing from 39.30% in a three-way race in 2000 to 50.11% in a two-way race) Gunde, Richard (2004-03-26). "The Election in Taiwan: A Forum". University of California Asia Institute. p. 1. Archived from the original on 2007-03-26. Retrieved 2007-02-10.

[7] (according to Liu Yi-chou (劉義周), director of National Chengchi University's Election Study Center) Staff Reporter (2004-12-13). "Saturday not a defeat for DPP, analysts say". Taipei Times. p. 3. Archived from the original on 2007-09-29. Retrieved 2007-02-09.

[8] "反分裂国家法不适用香港、澳门特别行政区_中国人大网". National People's Congress. Archived from the original on 2022-03-03. Retrieved 2022-03-03.

[9] "蕃薯藤-新聞-民調：近八成民眾認為反國家分裂法為犯台藉口". Archived from the original on 2005-03-17. Retrieved 2004-01-02.

[10] "Dailytimes - Your Right To Know". Archived from the original on 2006-02-26.

[Albert_2020-11] Albert, Eleanor M. (March 2020). "Revisiting China's Anti-Secession Law". The Diplomat. Archived from the original on 17 February 2016. Retrieved 4 March 2020.

[12] ttp://yam.udn.com/yamnews/daily/2564075.shtml^{[permanent dead link‍]}

[13] 綠提反併吞和平法　遭國民黨封殺 Archived May 18, 2011, at the Wayback Machine (Pan-Green proposes Anti-Annexation Peace Law; rejected by Kuomintang)

[14] "VOA News - US House Criticizes China Bill on Taiwan Secession". Archived from the original on 2005-04-02. Retrieved 2005-03-17.

[15] "News". Archived from the original on 2005-03-16. Retrieved 2005-03-15.

[16] "FAPA - Important Issues - UN Campaign". Archived from the original on 2005-04-14. Retrieved 2005-03-23.

[17] ttp://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+TA+P6-TA-2005-0132+0+DOC+PDF+V0//EN "Common Foreign and Security Policy". European Parliament. 2003. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2011-05-20.

[18] "Alexander Downer, Minister for Foreign Affairs, Interview - Sky Television with David Speers". Archived from the original on 2005-06-15. Retrieved 2005-07-06.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

@@ Line 31: / Line 31: @@
 The '''Anti-Secession Law''' ({{zh|s=反分裂国家法}}) is a [[law]] of the [[China|People's Republic of China]], passed by the 3rd Session of the [[10th National People's Congress]]. It was ratified on March 14, 2005, and went into effect immediately. [[President of the People's Republic of China|President]] [[Hu Jintao]] promulgated the law with Presidential Decree No. 34.<ref>{{cite web |title = 中华人民共和国主席令第三十四号 |url = http://www.china.org.cn/chinese/zhuanti/ffl/810447.htm |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20050509183603/http://www.china.org.cn/chinese/zhuanti/ffl/810447.htm |archive-date = 2005-05-09 }}</ref> Although the law, at ten articles, is relatively short, Article 8 formalized the long-standing policy of the PRC to use military means against [[Taiwan independence movement|Taiwan independence]] in the event peaceful means become otherwise impossible. The law does not explicitly equate "[[Greater China|China]]" with the People's Republic of China (referred to in the law as "the State").
-The Anti-Secession Law is the only law passed by the National People's Congress that has neither the prefix "People's Republic of China" nor "Decision/Resolution of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress."<ref>{{Cite web |title=《反分裂国家法》全文 |url=https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/ce/cggb/chn/ztlm/twwt/bjzl/t215245.htm |access-date=2022-03-03 |website=www.fmprc.gov.cn |archive-date=2022-03-03 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220303181800/https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/ce/cggb/chn/ztlm/twwt/bjzl/t215245.htm |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Anti-Secession Law adopted by NPC (full text) |url=https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-03/14/content_424643.htm |access-date=2022-03-03 |website=www.chinadaily.com.cn |archive-date=2021-11-06 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211106001947/https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-03/14/content_424643.htm |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=人大立法--法治网 |url=http://www.legaldaily.com.cn/rdlf/content/2022-03/02/content_8681123.htm |access-date=2022-03-03 |website=www.legaldaily.com.cn |archive-date=2022-03-03 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220303210044/http://www.legaldaily.com.cn/rdlf/content/2022-03/02/content_8681123.htm |url-status=live }}</ref>
 == Background ==
 {{Main|Political status of Taiwan|Taiwan independence movement}}
-[[Geography of Taiwan|Taiwan]] was formally [[Taiwan under Qing rule|incorporated]] into the [[Qing dynasty]] in 1683. After the [[First Sino-Japanese War]], it was [[Treaty of Shimonoseki|ceded]] by the Qing to the [[Empire of Japan]] [[Taiwan under Japanese rule|in perpetuity]] in 1895. At the end of [[World War II]], it was surrendered by Japan to the [[Kuomintang]] (KMT) [[Taiwan after World War II|administration]] of the [[Republic of China (1912–49)|Republic of China]]. After the establishment of the [[China|People's Republic of China]] in 1949, Taiwan and some neighboring islands continued to be controlled by the [[Taiwan|Republic of China]] government. In 1952, the [[Treaty of Taipei]] nullified all treaties, conventions and agreements previously concluded between China and Japan before December 9, 1941. Currently, the People's Republic of China (PRC) government considers [[Taiwan]] to be a [[Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China|province of China]]. According to the PRC, it is the sole legitimate government of China, and the government of the [[Republic of China]] ceased to hold sovereignty over China when it lost control of the Chinese mainland following the [[Chinese Civil War]]. It argues that the PRC assumed sovereignty over the entirety of China in 1949–1950, including Taiwan, although the latter remained under the administration of the Republic of China government.
+[[Geography of Taiwan|Taiwan]] was formally [[Taiwan under Qing rule|incorporated]] into the [[Qing dynasty]] in 1683. After the [[First Sino-Japanese War]], it was [[Treaty of Shimonoseki|ceded]] by the Qing to the [[Empire of Japan]] [[Taiwan under Japanese rule|in perpetuity]] in 1895. At the end of [[World War II]], it was surrendered by Japan to the [[Kuomintang]] (KMT) [[Taiwan after World War II|administration]] of the [[Republic of China (1912–49)|Republic of China]]. After the establishment of the [[China|People's Republic of China]] in 1949, Taiwan and some neighboring islands continued to be controlled by the [[Taiwan|Republic of China]] government. In 1952, the [[Treaty of Taipei]] nullified all treaties, conventions and agreements previously concluded between China and Japan before December 9, 1941. Currently, the People's Republic of China (PRC) government considers [[Taiwan]] to be a [[Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China|province of China]]. According to the PRC, it is the sole legitimate government of China, and the government of the [[Republic of China]] ceased to hold sovereignty over China when it lost control of the Chinese mainland following the [[Chinese Civil War]]. It argues that the PRC assumed sovereignty over the entirety of China in 1949–1950, including Taiwan, although the latter remained under the administration of the Republic of China government.{{cn|date=June 2024}}
-The official Republic of China (ROC) view is that it did not cease to exist in 1949 and has continued to function as a sovereign political entity in Taiwan to the present day, making the relationship between the PRC and ROC similar to that between other partitioned states (such as [[North Korea]] and [[South Korea]]). Official recognition by most international organizations (such at the [[United Nations]] and [[World Health Organization]]) rests largely with the PRC. in 1992, the "[[One-China policy]]" was agreed between the governments of both sides whereby each would assert that there was only 'one China', while disagreeing about which side was the legitimate government of it. However, some advocates of [[Taiwan independence]] oppose both the PRC's and the ROC's claim to Taiwan and the [[legal status of Taiwan|legality of the Chinese sovereignty]] over Taiwan.
+The official Republic of China (ROC) view is that it did not cease to exist in 1949 and has continued to function as a sovereign political entity in Taiwan to the present day, making the relationship between the PRC and ROC similar to that between other partitioned states (such as [[North Korea]] and [[South Korea]]). Official recognition by most international organizations (such at the [[United Nations]] and [[World Health Organization]]) rests largely with the PRC. In 1992, the "[[One-China policy]]" was agreed between the governments of both sides whereby each would assert that there was only 'one China', while disagreeing about which side was the legitimate government of it. However, some advocates of [[Taiwan independence]] oppose both the PRC's and the ROC's claim to Taiwan and the [[legal status of Taiwan|legality of the Chinese sovereignty]] over Taiwan.{{cn|date=June 2024}}
 Multiple opinion polls conducted in Taiwan have indicated that there is very little support for immediate unification on the PRC's terms or for an immediate declaration of independence.<ref name="Poll06">{{cite web |url = http://www.mac.gov.tw/gb/gb/mlpolicy/pos/9504/po9504ch.htm |title=民意调查（民国95年3月31日～4月2日）「民众对当前两岸关系之看法」结果摘要 |access-date=2006-10-22 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070927004145/http://www.mac.gov.tw/gb/gb/mlpolicy/pos/9504/po9504ch.htm |archive-date=2007-09-27 }} Summary Results, Opinion Poll on Cross-Strait Relations, Mainland Affairs Council, Republic of China</ref> Polls have also consistently shown that a large majority of Taiwanese would support discussion of [[Chinese unification|unification]] only if the economic and political systems of the two sides were comparable.<ref name="Poll4">{{cite web |url=http://www.mac.gov.tw/gb/gb/mlpolicy/pos/880511/po8805.htm |title=第四次「大陆政策与两岸关系」大型面访民意调查结果分析报告 |access-date=2006-10-22 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070927004118/http://www.mac.gov.tw/gb/gb/mlpolicy/pos/880511/po8805.htm |archive-date=2007-09-27 }} Fourth Major Opinion Poll on Mainland Policies, Mainland Affairs Council, Republic of China</ref> A majority of Taiwan residents appear to support the "status quo" but there are different opinions in Taiwanese society, within the PRC, and within the international community, over what the status quo is. A full 74 percent of the Taiwanese public agree that "Taiwan is an independent sovereign country"<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.mac.gov.tw/ct.asp?xItem=50453&ctNode=5913&mp=3 |title=Combined Analysis Report on Public Opinion Surveys on Cross-Strait Relations in 2007 |author=MAC webmaster |date=27 June 2009 |access-date=19 December 2010 |archive-date=27 September 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110927050007/http://www.mac.gov.tw/ct.asp?xItem=50453&ctNode=5913&mp=3 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>Diversity Amid Globalization 4th Edition by Rowntree, Lewis, Price and Wyckoff</ref>
@@ Line 55: / Line 53: @@
   | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20070326095407/http://international.ucla.edu/asia/print.asp?parentid=9435
   | url-status = live
-  }}</ref> led many to conclude that there has been an increase in Taiwan independence sentiment and that a new Taiwanese identity is emerging on the island which is opposed to identification with China. During the 2004 ROC Legislative Election, the strategy of the [[pan-Green coalition]] was to try to capitalize on this trend to win a majority in the Legislative Yuan of Taiwan. Among some Taiwanese Independence supporters, it is believed that a [[pan-green]] majority could force a crucial referendum for constitutional reform and, perhaps, to further move the island toward de jure independence. Many Taiwanese independence supporters, including former President [[Lee Teng-Hui]], argued that Taiwan should declare independence before 2008 on the theory that international pressure over the Beijing Olympics would prevent the PRC from using force against Taiwan.
+  }}</ref> led many to conclude that there has been an increase in Taiwan independence sentiment and that a new Taiwanese identity is emerging on the island which is opposed to identification with China. During the 2004 ROC Legislative Election, the strategy of the [[pan-Green coalition]] was to try to capitalize on this trend to win a majority in the Legislative Yuan of Taiwan. Among some Taiwanese Independence supporters, it is believed that a [[pan-green]] majority could force a crucial referendum for constitutional reform and, perhaps, to further move the island toward de jure independence. Many Taiwanese independence supporters, including former President [[Lee Teng-Hui]], argued that Taiwan should declare independence before 2008 on the theory that international pressure over the Beijing Olympics would prevent the PRC from using force against Taiwan.{{cn|date=June 2024}}
-These events in late 2004 caused a great deal of alarm in Beijing.  Observers indicated that many in Beijing believed that its policies toward Taiwan had failed both because it did not have sufficient incentives to gain Taiwanese public support for unification and at the same time, it seemed that many in Taiwan did not take Beijing's stated threats of force seriously. The ROC government had defined the status quo in such a way that a de jure declaration of independence could be argued to not represent a change in the status quo. Some Chinese{{who|date=January 2016}} believe these events led to the formulation in 2003 and 2004 of the Anti-Secession Law.
+These events in late 2004 caused a great deal of alarm in Beijing.  Observers indicated that many in Beijing believed that its policies toward Taiwan had failed both because it did not have sufficient incentives to gain Taiwanese public support for unification and at the same time, it seemed that many in Taiwan did not take Beijing's stated threats of force seriously. The ROC government had defined the status quo in such a way that a de jure declaration of independence could be argued to not represent a change in the status quo. Some Chinese{{who|date=January 2016}} believe these events led to the formulation in 2003 and 2004 of the Anti-Secession Law.{{cn|date=June 2024}}
-In early 2004 a similar proposed law had been tabled. Titled the [[Proposed National Unification Promotion Law|National Unification Promotion Law of the People's Republic of China]] ({{zh |s = 中华人民共和国国家统一促进法 }}), it was authored by a Chinese academic Yu Yuanzhou (余元洲), a professor from [[Jianghan University]] in [[Wuhan]] who did not hold any formal governmental position, as a suggestion to create a formal legal basis for the [[People's Republic of China]]'s unification with Taiwan. Although no formal legislative action was taken on the document, the heavy debate surrounding it, and the suggestion that some sort of anti-secession law would be passed, was viewed by many in Taiwan as evidence of hostile intent by the PRC government towards Taiwan independence supporters.
+In early 2004 a similar proposed law had been tabled. Titled the [[Proposed National Unification Promotion Law|National Unification Promotion Law of the People's Republic of China]] ({{zh |s = 中华人民共和国国家统一促进法 }}), it was authored by a Chinese academic Yu Yuanzhou (余元洲), a professor from [[Jianghan University]] in [[Wuhan]] who did not hold any formal governmental position, as a suggestion to create a formal legal basis for the [[People's Republic of China]]'s unification with Taiwan. Although no formal legislative action was taken on the document, the heavy debate surrounding it, and the suggestion that some sort of anti-secession law would be passed, was viewed by many in Taiwan as evidence of hostile intent by the PRC government towards Taiwan independence supporters.{{cn|date=June 2024}}
 In the December 2004 ROC Legislative elections, although the ruling [[Democratic Progressive Party|DPP]] party increased its share of votes in the legislature and remained the largest single party there, the [[pan-blue coalition]] gained a razor-thin majority, which surprised many. However, this result may have been less a reflection of popular sentiment than a testament to the effectiveness of the KMT's more frugal nomination of candidates (116) compared with the DPP's over-nomination of candidates (122) and the KMT's rigid party rules for allotment of votes to its candidates within individual districts.<ref>(according to Liu Yi-chou (劉義周), director of National Chengchi University's Election Study Center) {{cite news
@@ Line 72: / Line 70: @@
   | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20070929134119/http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2004/12/13/2003214878
   | url-status = live
-  }}</ref>  This election result ended most prospects of an immediate declaration of independence and also called into question whether there really had been an increase in Taiwanese independence sentiment.  Despite this, the PRC proceeded with the drafting of the anti-secession law.  The main reasons given to foreign interlocutors were that the PRC leadership believed that its Taiwan policy in the past had been reactive rather than proactive and that it was necessary for the PRC to show initiative.  Furthermore, Beijing expressed a residual distrust of Chen Shui-bian.  Many foreign experts have argued that the PRC's decision-making system was rigid and that plans put into place to deal with a pan-green victory had simply developed too much momentum to be shut down.
+  }}</ref>  This election result ended most prospects of an immediate declaration of independence and also called into question whether there really had been an increase in Taiwanese independence sentiment.  Despite this, the PRC proceeded with the drafting of the anti-secession law. The main reasons given to foreign interlocutors were that the PRC leadership believed that its Taiwan policy in the past had been reactive rather than proactive and that it was necessary for the PRC to show initiative.  Furthermore, Beijing expressed a residual distrust of Chen Shui-bian. Many foreign experts have argued that the PRC's decision-making system was rigid and that plans put into place to deal with a pan-green victory had simply developed too much momentum to be shut down.{{cn|date=June 2024}}
 In announcing the drafting of the law in December 2004, the Head of the Legal Affairs Committee of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress ({{Lang-zh|s=全国人大常委会法制工作委员会负责人}}) mentioned explicitly that the law was not intended to be applied to [[Hong Kong]] and [[Macau]].<ref>{{Cite web |title=反分裂国家法不适用香港、澳门特别行政区_中国人大网 |url=http://www.npc.gov.cn/npc/c199/200412/5e837fdc954f4197a6bc102b14cb23a9.shtml |access-date=2022-03-03 |website=National People's Congress |archive-date=2022-03-03 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220303182317/http://www.npc.gov.cn/npc/c199/200412/5e837fdc954f4197a6bc102b14cb23a9.shtml |url-status=live }}</ref>
-==Provisions==
-The Law is composed of ten articles. Articles one to five are aspirational. Articles six to nine set out in general terms the procedures for promoting [[cross-strait relations]], negotiation, and resolution of the issue. Article ten sets the date of operation.<ref>{{cite web |title=Anti-Secession Law (Full text)(03/15/05) |url=https://www.mfa.gov.cn/ce/ceus/eng/zt/999999999/t187406.htm |website=Embassy of the People's Republic of China in the United States of America |access-date=8 January 2022 |archive-date=8 January 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220108080223/https://www.mfa.gov.cn/ce/ceus/eng/zt/999999999/t187406.htm |url-status=live }}</ref>
-'''Article one''' states that the aim of the law is to prevent "Taiwan's secession from China" and promote [[Chinese unification|unification]]. Stabilizing the [[Taiwan Straits]] area and protecting the interests of the [[Zhonghua Minzu]] are also purposes of the law.
-'''Articles two to four''' outline the PRC government's view of the present [[political status of Taiwan]]. This view is that mainland China and Taiwan belong to one China, that there is only one China and that the [[sovereignty]] of that one China is indivisible; the "Taiwan issue" is a residual problem of the Chinese Civil War and is an internal affair of China.
-'''Article five''' maintains that the [[one China principle]] is the basis for resolution of the issue and that the State must seek all possibilities of "peaceful reunification." The same section also states that, following "peaceful reunification," Taiwan will enjoy a high level of autonomy and operate under a system different from mainland China. Although this would appear to be similar to the "[[one country, two systems]]" scheme, highly unpopular in Taiwan, it is not so named.
-'''Article six''' deals with cross-strait relations. It states that in order to maintain peace and stability in the Taiwan straits and to foster cross-strait relations, the State should
-#encourage people-to-people contact to foster closer relations and understanding
-#encourage cross-strait economic exchanges
-#encourage scientific and cultural exchanges
-#joint efforts to fight crime and
-#encourage efforts to maintain peace and stability in the Taiwan straits.
-'''Article seven''' deals with cross-strait negotiation. It states that the State shall support negotiations and consultations on both sides of the straits with equal status, with different modalities, and in differing stages. The topics of such talks can include
-#ending the states of hostilities across the straits
-# developing rules for cross strait relations
-# the means of promoting unification
-# the political status of the Taiwanese authorities
-#appropriate means by which Taiwan can participate in international organizations, and
-# any other issues relating to unification.
-'''Article eight''' deals with non-peaceful action, and is the article which has caused the most controversy and attention. It states that the State shall use non-peaceful and other necessary means under these alternative conditions:
-#if "Taiwan independence" forces, under whatever name and method, accomplish the fact of Taiwan's separation from China,
-#or if a major event occurs which would lead to Taiwan's separation from China,
-#or if all possibility of peaceful unification is lost.
-'''Article nine''' states that in the planning and implementation of "non-peaceful and other necessary actions", the State must, as much as possible, act to protect the persons and property of Taiwanese ''civilians'' and foreigners in Taiwan, and to minimise their losses. The State must also protect Taiwanese interests in the PRC.
 == Development ==
@@ Line 114: / Line 81: @@
 President [[Chen Shui-bian]] commented on the 'anti-secession law' during his 2005 new year speech: "Such actions will not only unilaterally change the status quo of peace in the Taiwan Strait, but will also pose the greatest threat to regional stability and world peace." Whereas the PRC [[Paramount leader]] [[Hu Jintao]] said "We will definitely not allow anyone to separate Taiwan from China by any means," in his New Year's Eve speech.<ref>{{cite web |url = http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_2-1-2005_pg4_6 |title = Dailytimes - Your Right To Know |url-status=dead |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20060226080610/http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_2-1-2005_pg4_6 |archive-date=2006-02-26 }}</ref>
-Although the PRC's official English translation of the law is the ''Anti-Secession Law'', the [[Mainland Affairs Council]] in Taiwan has consistently translated it as ''Anti-Separation Law'' as secession implies that Taiwan is a part of the PRC. The Mainland Affairs Council and the ROC government has argued that the relationship across the Taiwan Strait is not analogous to the situation during the [[American Civil War]] since Taiwan was never part of the PRC.
+Although the PRC's official English translation of the law is the ''Anti-Secession Law'', the [[Mainland Affairs Council]] in Taiwan has consistently translated it as ''Anti-Separation Law'' as secession implies that Taiwan is a part of the PRC. The Mainland Affairs Council and the ROC government has argued that the relationship across the Taiwan Strait is not analogous to the situation during the [[American Civil War]] since Taiwan was never part of the PRC.{{cn|date=June 2024}}
 == Early reaction ==
-[[Beijing]] claims that this bill is the PRC's most sincere attempt at resolving the Taiwan issue peacefully (see [[Political status of Taiwan]]). However, [[Taipei]] points to Article 8 as cause for concern. Shortly after the bill was passed, President Chen Shui-bian called for a National Security meeting in Taipei to discuss the issue.
-One major topic of controversy between Beijing and Taipei is to what degree the law changes the [[status quo]] in the Taiwan Straits.  Beijing has maintained that the law preserves the status quo and creates no new conditions for the use of force.  In contrast, Taipei has argued that the law does change the status quo and gives the [[People's Liberation Army]] a "blank check" to attack Taiwan.
-Prior to the passage of the bill, a statement from Taipei's Mainland Affairs Council and a resolution overwhelmingly passed by the ROC legislature stated that the status quo is that the [[Republic of China]] is sovereign and independent. The statement and resolution were carefully worded to avoid disagreements between the pan-blue and pan-green coalition over whether the [[Republic of China]] has any residual sovereignty over [[Mainland China]].
-After the law was passed, a Mainland Affairs Council official referred to Beijing's definition of "one China" in the PRC law as fiction.{{citation needed|date=June 2020}}
-=== Reaction in mainland China ===
-Reaction within the PRC was mostly consistent. State media and the Beijing leadership all stood firmly behind the new law and vowed never to allow anyone, using any means, to "separate Taiwan from China", in any name. The National People's Congress voted unanimously in favor of the law, with two abstentions. In the run-up to the law's ratification, state media in the PRC accused those in Taiwan in favour of Taiwan independence of creating hostility to the new law and of confusing the Taiwanese into thinking that the law had hostile intent. Prior to passing the law, [[Communist Party of China|Chinese Communist Party]] (CCP) [[General Secretary of the Communist Party of China|general secretary]] [[Hu Jintao]] in a speech outlined a four-point guideline to resolving the issue.
 ===Reaction in Hong Kong===
 At the time the unification law was proposed by legal scholar [[Yu Yuanzhou]], the press in Hong Kong expressed concern that it would lead to legislation by stealth of the anti-treason or anti-secession provision of the [[Hong Kong Basic Law Article 23|Basic Law Article 23 legislation]] in 2003.{{clarify|date=June 2020}} These concerns were addressed when a mainland China official stated explicitly the law would not be added to Annex III of the [[Basic Law of Hong Kong|Basic Law]], which means that it would not be applicable to Hong Kong.  After the passage of the law in March 2005, there was very little reaction in Hong Kong and news of the law was far overshadowed by the resignation of Hong Kong's chief executive, [[Tung Chee-Hwa]].{{citation needed|date=March 2020}} In the 15 years since the law was passed, it has cast a long shadow over Hong Kong.<ref name="Albert 2020" >{{cite journal |last1=Albert |first1=Eleanor M. |title=Revisiting China's Anti-Secession Law |journal=The Diplomat |date=March 2020 |url=https://magazine.thediplomat.com/#/issues/-M0qnEN1tGWXGWRBYmd7/read |access-date=4 March 2020 |archive-date=17 February 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160217194525/http://magazine.thediplomat.com/#/issues/-M0qnEN1tGWXGWRBYmd7/read |url-status=live }}</ref>
@@ Line 134: / Line 90: @@
 [[File:326Flag.jpg|thumb|200px|A rally flag used in the 3-26 protests. Word on the flag reads:"democracy, peace, guard Taiwan", while the ribbon below writes "anti annexation, guard Taiwan".]]
-In Taiwan, the passage of the law was condemned by officials and politicians from both the [[Pan-Green Coalition]] and the [[Pan-Blue Coalition]], although there were differences in the content of their criticism.  Supporters of the Pan-Green Coalition tended to react angrily to the spirit and content of the law as an infringement of what they saw as Taiwanese sovereignty. By contrast, supporters of the Pan-Blue Coalition, while stating that they opposed the law and the threat of force against Taiwan, called for more dialogue with the PRC and pointed to parts of the law in which Beijing showed hitherto unseen flexibility.
+In Taiwan, the passage of the law was condemned by officials and politicians from both the [[Pan-Green Coalition]] and the [[Pan-Blue Coalition]], although there were differences in the content of their criticism.  Supporters of the Pan-Green Coalition tended to react angrily to the spirit and content of the law as an infringement of what they saw as Taiwanese sovereignty. By contrast, supporters of the Pan-Blue Coalition, while stating that they opposed the law and the threat of force against Taiwan, called for more dialogue with the PRC and pointed to parts of the law in which Beijing showed hitherto unseen flexibility.{{cn|date=June 2024}}
 Opinion polls indicated widespread opposition to the law among the general public. Some questioned whether Beijing had the authority to enact such a law as they claim that Taiwan is not under the PRC jurisdiction (See [[Political status of Taiwan]]). The Pan-Green Coalition, in particular, reacted with distaste and there have been calls for an "anti-annexation law" to be passed by the legislature. Premier [[Frank Hsieh]] pointed out that the PRC law had already infringed on ROC sovereignty and thus met the criteria for initiating a "defensive referendum" under the ROC constitution. However, he added that whether a defensive referendum would be invoked is at the discretion of the ROC president.<ref>http://yam.udn.com/yamnews/daily/2564075.shtml{{dead link|date=October 2016 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref>
-A protest march against the PRC law took place on March 26 and it was widely reported that one million Taiwanese participated in the protest. Both the former President [[Lee Teng-hui]] and President Chen Shui-bian joined the march. However, Chen Shui-bian announced in advance that he would only attend the march and wouldn't be giving a speech. Most politicians from the Pan-Blue Coalition did not participate in any protest march, although they claimed that they would not dissuade their supporters from attending if they wished. The turnout of the march became a subject of political debate in Taiwan, with the mayor of Taipei city, [[Ma Ying-jeou]], downplaying the participant number to around 270,000, while the march organizers claimed that the goal of one million participants was reached.
 On March 25, 2008, DPP legislators tabled a bill titled the "Anti-Annexation Peace Law" at the procedural committee level in the legislature, which would have stated that "Taiwan and China are not subordinate to each other"; that "Taiwan is a sovereign state"; and that "the relationship between Taiwan and China is one between two states". It would have expressed hope that the Taiwan issue be resolved peacefully, but that if the status quo of the [[Taiwan Strait]] should change, the President would have the power to deal non-peacefully with "China's annexation". The bill was rejected at the procedural committee level by a vote of 11:2 and was not presented to the legislature.<ref>[http://news.chinatimes.com/2007Cti/2007Cti-Focus/2007Cti-Focus-Content/0,4518,9703250361+0+0+190701+0,00.html 綠提反併吞和平法　遭國民黨封殺]  {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110518210115/http://news.chinatimes.com/2007Cti/2007Cti-Focus/2007Cti-Focus-Content/0%2C4518%2C9703250361%2B0%2B0%2B190701%2B0%2C00.html |date=May 18, 2011 }} (Pan-Green proposes Anti-Annexation Peace Law; rejected by Kuomintang)</ref>
@@ Line 147: / Line 101: @@
 In response to the enactment of the PRC law, the [[European Union]] issued a statement urging "all sides to avoid any unilateral action that could stoke tensions," and recalled the "constant principles that guide its policy, namely its commitment to the principle of one China and the peaceful resolution of dispute...and its opposition to any use of force."<ref>{{cite web |url = http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_world/view/137386/1/.html |title = News |access-date = 2005-03-15 |archive-date = 2005-03-16 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20050316023944/http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_world/view/137386/1/.html |url-status = live }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url = http://www.fapa.org/Anti-Secession%20Law/INDEX.htm |title = FAPA - Important Issues - UN Campaign |access-date = 2005-03-23 |archive-date = 2005-04-14 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20050414091039/http://fapa.org/Anti-Secession%20Law/INDEX.htm |url-status = live }}</ref> Later, on 14 April 2005, the [[European Parliament]] adopted an own-initiative report by [[Elmar Brok]] MEP, with paragraph 33 stating:
 : [The European Parliament expresses] its deepest concern at the large number of missiles in southern China aimed across the Taiwan Straits and at the so-called "anti-secession law" of the People's Republic of China that in an unjustified way aggravates the situation across the Straits; calls on the People's Republic of China and on the R.O.C. in Taiwan to resume political talks on the basis of mutual understanding and recognition in order to promote stability, democracy, human rights and the rule of law in east Asia.<ref>http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+TA+P6-TA-2005-0132+0+DOC+PDF+V0//EN {{Cite web|url=https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-6-2005-0132_EN.pdf?redirect|title=Common Foreign and Security Policy|date=2003|publisher=European Parliament|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110520142516/http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+TA+P6-TA-2005-0132+0+DOC+PDF+V0//EN|archive-date=2011-05-20}}</ref>
-The EU also decided to continue with the arms embargo, which had been imposed upon the PRC after the [[Tiananmen Square protests of 1989|Tiananmen Square Massacre]] and which had been set to expire in 2005.
-[[Japan]]ese Prime Minister [[Junichiro Koizumi]] said "I wish both parties would work towards a peaceful resolution and I hope that this law will not have negative effects."
 Australian foreign minister [[Alexander Downer]] stated that if war were to occur in the Taiwan Straits, Australia would be required under the [[ANZUS treaty]] to consult with the United States but depending on the situation that it would not necessarily commit Australia to war.  He said that "we don't think that the PRC should resolve the Taiwan status question militarily, that it has got to be done through negotiations with Taiwan". Downer further commented that Australia would have preferred it had China not passed the anti-secession law.<ref>{{cite web |url = http://www.foreignminister.gov.au/transcripts/2005/050314_sky.html |title=Alexander Downer, Minister for Foreign Affairs, Interview - Sky Television with David Speers |access-date=2005-07-06 |url-status=dead |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20050615144619/http://www.foreignminister.gov.au/transcripts/2005/050314_sky.html |archive-date=2005-06-15 }}</ref>
-Several other nations expressed support for the PRC's anti-secession law, including:
-* [[Commonwealth of Independent States|CIS]] nations: [[Russia]],<ref>{{cite web |url = http://en.rian.ru/rian/index.cfm?msg_id=5460493 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20050319105757/http://en.rian.ru/rian/index.cfm?msg_id%3D5460493 |url-status = dead |archive-date = March 19, 2005 |title=Sputnik International }}</ref> [[Belarus]],<ref name="english.people.com.cn">{{cite web |url = http://english.people.com.cn/200503/15/eng20050315_176841.html |title = Belarus supports China's anti-secession law |website = People's Daily Online |access-date = 2005-03-16 |archive-date = 2005-04-08 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20050408011115/http://english.people.com.cn/200503/15/eng20050315_176841.html |url-status = live }}</ref> [[Uzbekistan]],<ref>{{cite web |url = http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2005-03/15/content_2700128.htm |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20050913112849/http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2005-03/15/content_2700128.htm |url-status = dead |archive-date = September 13, 2005 |title=Xinhua - English }}</ref> [[Azerbaijan]]<ref>{{cite web |url=http://english.people.com.cn/200503/16/eng20050316_177001.html |title=Azerbaijan FM says unified China benefits world stability |website=People's Daily Online |access-date=2005-03-16 |archive-date=2005-03-18 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20050318062837/http://english.people.com.cn/200503/16/eng20050316_177001.html |url-status=live }}</ref>
-* [[Latin America]]n and [[Caribbean]] nations: [[Cuba]], [[Venezuela]], and [[Dominica]].<ref>{{cite web |url = http://english.people.com.cn/200503/16/eng20050316_177003.html |title = Three Caribbean countries back China's anti-secession law |website = People's Daily Online |access-date = 2005-03-16 |archive-date = 2005-03-18 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20050318062841/http://english.people.com.cn/200503/16/eng20050316_177003.html |url-status = live }}</ref>
-* [[Asia]]n and [[Middle East]]ern nations: [[Indonesia]],<ref>{{cite web|url = http://english.people.com.cn/200503/16/eng20050316_177000.html|title = Indonesia understands China's adoption of Anti-Secession Law: spokeswoman|website = People's Daily Online|access-date = 2005-03-16|archive-date = 2005-04-08|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20050408011246/http://english.people.com.cn/200503/16/eng20050316_177000.html|url-status = live}}</ref> [[Cambodia]],<ref>{{cite web|url= http://english.people.com.cn/200503/16/eng20050316_176986.html|title= Cambodia backs China's Anti-Secession Law|website= People's Daily Online|access-date= 2005-03-16|archive-date= 2005-04-08|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20050408011320/http://english.people.com.cn/200503/16/eng20050316_176986.html|url-status= live}}</ref> [[Nepal]],<ref>{{cite web |url = http://english.people.com.cn/200503/16/eng20050316_177120.html |title = Nepali gov't supports China's Anti-Secession Law |website = People's Daily Online |access-date = 2005-03-18 |archive-date = 2005-04-08 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20050408011337/http://english.people.com.cn/200503/16/eng20050316_177120.html |url-status = live }}</ref> [[Syria]],<ref>{{cite web |url = http://english.people.com.cn/200503/15/eng20050315_176890.html |title = Syria supports China's anti-secession law |website = People's Daily Online |access-date = 2005-03-16 |archive-date = 2005-03-18 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20050318062820/http://english.people.com.cn/200503/15/eng20050315_176890.html |url-status = live }}</ref> [[Pakistan]],<ref name="english.people.com.cn"/> [[North Korea]],<ref name="reactions2">{{cite web |url = http://en.people.cn/200503/16/eng20050316_177005.html |title = Int'l community supports China's adoption of anti-secession law |website = People's Daily Online |access-date = 2019-12-08 |archive-date = 2021-07-13 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20210713122713/http://en.people.cn/200503/16/eng20050316_177005.html |url-status = dead }}</ref> [[Iraq]]<ref name="reactions2" />
-* African nations: [[Ethiopia]],<ref>{{cite web |url = http://english.people.com.cn/200503/16/eng20050316_177007.html |title = Ethiopia's parliament backs China's anti-secession law |website = People's Daily Online |access-date = 2005-03-16 |archive-date = 2005-03-18 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20050318044602/http://english.people.com.cn/200503/16/eng20050316_177007.html |url-status = live }}</ref> [[Comoros]]<ref name="reactions2" />
-* the former nation of [[Serbia and Montenegro]]<ref name="reactions2" />
 == See also ==
 {{Portal|China|Law|Taiwan}}
+{{Wikisource}}
 * [[Chinese unification]]
 * [[National People's Congress Decision on Hong Kong national security legislation]], similar law regarding Hong Kong
@@ Line 176: / Line 120: @@
 {{Reflist}}
+{{Clear}}
-== External links ==
-{{Wikisource}}
-* [http://www.peacehall.com/news/gb/intl/2004/05/200405112113.shtml Report of Wen Jiabao on drafting and passing the law]
-* [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4104909.stm BBC News: China to enact anti-secession law (2004-12-19)]; [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4303907.stm BBC News: Taiwanese protest at China bill (2005-02-28)]; [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4327997.stm BBC News: China unveils controversial law]; also: [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4327997.stm China unveils controversial law], [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4328405.stm Excerpts: China's Anti-Secession Bill], [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4346283.stm China votes for Taiwan force law], [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4346629.stm Taiwan blasts China 'provocation'] (all BBC)
-*[http://www.etaiwannews.com/Taiwan/Politics/2004/12/19/1103423388.htm Taiwan News: Reaction in Taiwan]
-* [http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200503/14/eng20050314_176746.html Full text of the anti-secession law in English]
-*[[Wikinews:Hundreds of thousands protest anti-secession law in Taiwan]]
-*[http://www.people.com.cn/BIG5/shizheng/1026/3062967.html People's Daily: Anti-secession Law will not be applied in Hong Kong and Macau] (in Traditional Chinese)
-* [https://web.archive.org/web/20041228212053/http://news.xinhuanet.com/legal/2004-12/17/content_2348090.htm Xinhua: Anti-secession Law will not be applied in Hong Kong and Macau] (in Simplified Chinese)
-*[https://static1.squarespace.com/enwiki/static/58ecfa82e3df284d3a13dd41/t/5c9bfacc7817f7bd42363a98/1553726160344/hkw+report_march19+%282%29.pdf Legal Malware: Hong Kong’s National Anthem Ordinance] by Kevin Carrico for Hong Kong Watch.
-{{-}}
 {{Cross-Strait relations}}
 [[Category:Separatism in China]]
 [[Category:Laws of China]]
-[[Category:Cross-Strait relations]]
+[[Category:Cross-strait relations]]
 [[Category:2005 in law]]
 [[Category:2005 in China]]

v t e Cross-strait relations
Diplomatic posts	Hong Kong Economic, Trade and Cultural Office (Taiwan) Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in Hong Kong Macau Economic and Cultural Office (Taiwan) Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in Macau
Diplomacy	Opening of the South-North route Restoration of Taiwan strait shipping Kinmen Agreement Wang–Koo summit Cross-strait charter 2004 Taiwanese cross-strait relations referendum May 17 Statement 2005 Pan–Blue visits to mainland China Cross-strait high-level talks First Chen–Chiang summit Second Chen–Chiang summit Fourth Chen–Chiang summit Fifth Chen–Chiang summit Sixth Chen–Chiang summit Seventh Chen–Chiang summit Tuan Tuan and Yuan Yuan Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement Cross-Strait CEO Summit Cross-Strait Service Trade Agreement Jinjiang–Kinmen Pipeline 2014 Wang–Zhang meetings 2015 Xi–Chu meeting Ma–Xi meeting Straits Forum Shanghai-Taipei City Forum Second Ma–Xi meeting
Conflicts	Chinese Civil War Second Kuomintang-Communist Civil War Retreat of the government of the Republic of China to Taiwan Guanbi policy First Taiwan Strait Crisis Project National Glory Battle of Dong-Yin Battle of Dongshan Battle of East Chongwu Second Taiwan Strait Crisis Third Taiwan Strait Crisis Senkaku Islands Dispute
Incidents	Capture of the Tuapse Kashmir Princess United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758 Joint Communiqué on the Establishment of Diplomatic Relations CAAC Flight 296 China Airlines Flight 334 1987 Lieyu massacre Min Ping Yu No. 5540 incident Min Ping Yu No. 5202 1990 Guangzhou Baiyun airport collisions Qiandao Lake incident China Airlines Flight 611 Sunflower Student Movement Braga incident Anti-Black Box Curriculum Movement Wang Liqiang Freedom pineapples 2021 Solomon Islands unrest Chinese military exercises around Taiwan 2022 2023 2024 2024 Kinmen Chinese motorboat capsizing incident
Legislation	Cross-Strait Act Proposed National Unification Promotion Law Anti-Secession Law Anti-Infiltration Act
Organizations	All-China Federation of Taiwan Compatriots Alumni Association of Huangpu Military Academy Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Straits Association for Tourism Exchange Across the Taiwan Straits Central Leading Group for Taiwan Affairs China Council for the Promotion of Peaceful National Reunification Cross-Straits Common Market Foundation Cross-Strait Economic, Trade and Culture Forum Cross-Strait Peace Forum Grand Alliance for China's Reunification under the Three Principles of the People Lienchiang Cross-Strait Matters Forum Mainland Affairs Council National Unification Council Straits Exchange Foundation Taiwan Affairs Office Taiwan Competitiveness Forum Taiwan Strait Tourism Association
Concepts	1992 Consensus China Circle Chinese unification Chinese nationalism Chinese irredentism Chinese Taipei Cross-Strait Economic Zone Dang Guo Four Noes and One Without Greater China Han chauvinism One China One-China policy One Country on Each Side One country, two systems Propaganda in China Cross-strait propaganda Republic of China on Taiwan Self-determination Socialist ideology of the Kuomintang Socialism with Chinese characteristics Special non-state-to-state relations Six Assurances Taiwan, China Two Chinas Three Noes Three Links Taiwan consensus Taiwan independence movement Theory of the Undetermined Status of Taiwan United front in Taiwan Under the Roof of One China Xi Jinping Thought Zhonghua minzu
Related	Fujian–Taiwan relationship Hong Kong–Taiwan relations Hong Kong–Taiwan Economic and Cultural Co-operation and Promotion Council Taiwan–Hong Kong Economic and Cultural Co-operation Council Hong Kong and Kowloon Trades Union Council Pro-ROC camp Chinese Travel Document Taiwan Entry Permit Mainland Travel Permit for Taiwan Resident Cross-strait language database ECFA Debate HMS Aurora (12) China and the United Nations China and the World Bank Chinese intelligence activity abroad Chinese information operations and information warfare Chinese Soviet Republic Freedom of religion in China Foreign relations of China Timeline of diplomatic relations with China Political status of Taiwan Foreign relations of Taiwan Opinion polling on Taiwanese identity Timeline of diplomatic relations with Taiwan Geostrategy in Taiwan Anti-Communist Hero Milk Tea Alliance Taishang G3 Beijing–Taipei Expressway G99 Taiwan Ring Expressway China National Highway 228 (Taiwan) Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs Commission Tibet Religious Foundation of His Holiness the Dalai Lama The World Turned Upside Down Go and Reclaim the Mainland Pro-Republic of China
Category:Cross-strait relations