3-23-05, 8:58 am

The National People's Assembly of the Popular Republic of China, the Chinese Parliament, meeting in its third plenary session on March 14, unanimously passed the Anti-secession Law. The document, with 10 precise articles, summarizes a historical position, principle and desire of the Chinese people, its government and the Chinese Communist Party.

Due to China's current dimension in the world, that fact caused broad repercussion and resulted in the United States' reaction to the contrary. Secretary of State Condolezza Rice criticized the law affirming, 'It will increase the tension in Asia'. In Taiwan, local supreme authority, Mr. Chen Shuibian, defender of separatist theses, has promised to organize massive demonstrations against the law. In Brasil, the law was labeled as 'brash' by certain vehicles with the lack of decorum that characterizes the media when it comes to defend ideological positions.

The issue requires sobriety and objectivity. It is not outside the limits of Brazil's interests, since the country has just stablished a strategic partnership with the great Asian nation. A strong and peaceful China corresponds to our national interests and coincides with the core objectives of the Brazilian foreign policy of contributing to building a multipolar world. The progressive forces, especially communists, received the news regarding the passed law with satisfaction, viewing the sovereign act of the Chinese National Assembly as a step forward in the defense of China's territorial integrity and in strengthening its national power, which is important to the general struggle for socialism in the world.

What does that Anti-secession Law declares? 'The Law is written according to the Constitution as affirmed in article 1 to restrain and fight against the secession of Taiwan from China by secessionists in the name of 'Taiwan's independence', promoting the peaceful national reunification, keeping peace and stability in Taiwan Strait, safekeeping China's national sovereignty and territorial integrity, defending the fundamental interests of the Chinese nation'.

Those words lead to another question: how the Taiwan issue appeared and what are the origins of the separatist threats? The Taiwan Island, called Formosa by the Portuguese, is an undisputable part of China. By the end of World War II, as Japan surrendered, Chine recovered Taiwan and the Penghu Islands, retaking sovereignty over Taiwan, which had been interrupted in 1895 when, after an occupation war in China, Japan imposed on the Chinese monarchical government of the Qing dinasty the Shimonoseki Treaty, taking Taiwan by force. A publication issued on February 2000 by the Office of Taiwanese issues and the Office of Information of the State Council of the People's Republic of China outlined an interesting chronology on the evolution of the issue and presented legal grounds that support the thesis of China's sovereignty over Taiwan and the acceptance of that political and juridical fact by the international community: 'In July 1937, Japan started a generalized war of aggression against China. In December 1941, the Chinese government announced to the other countries of the world in its Declaration of war against Japan that China annulled all treaties, agreements and contracts regarding relations between the two countries, including the Shimonoseki Treaty, and that the country would recover Taiwan.

The Cairo Declaration signed by the governments of China, United States and England on December 1943, declared that Japan should return China's Northeastern region, Taiwan, the Penghu Islands and other usurped Chinese territories. In the Potsdam Declaration, signed in 1945 by China, The United States and England (and later by the Soviet Union), it was reiterated: `The terms of the Cairo Declaration must be met.' In August the same year Japan surrendered and in the Articles regarding its rendition Japan compromised to `fully respect the obligations listed in the Potsdam Declaration'. On October 25, the Chinese government recovered Taiwan and the Penghu Island and retook the exercise of sovereignty over Taiwan.

On October 1, 1949 still according to the document the foundation of the People's Central Government of the People's Republic of China was proclaimed, which, substituting the Government of the Republic of China, is the single legal government of all China and the single legitimate representative of China in the world. From that moment on, China defined its historical position. It is a matter of substituting an old power with a new one inside the same unchanged subject of international law, as the original sovereignty and borders of the Chinese territory do not suffer any change. With due reason, the People's Republic of China enjoys China's full sovereignty and exerts it all over its territory, including Taiwan.

The fact that the Guomindang forces, under the leadership of Chang-Kaishek, retreated to Taiwan after its defeat in the civil war and then called that undisputable part of the Chinese territory 'Republic of China', proclaimed to be the 'Government of the Republic of China', does not change the fundamental notion that the central government of the People's Republic of China has the right to exert sovereignty on Taiwan. That is why Taiwan has been considered a rebel province and its 'leaders' are viewed as 'local authorities in Chinese territory'.

The Anti-secession Law is based on that logic and principle according to which 'there is only one China in the world' (Article 2) and proclaims 'The State will not tolerate secessionist forces that seek `Taiwan's independence' to separate Taiwan from China under any name or any form' (id.). Based on that principle, the People's National Assembly reiterates by means of the Anti-secession Law the purposes of the peaceful reunification of the country by pacific means, being the adhesion to the principle of 'a single China' the ground to understandings and that sought-after peaceful reunification. An important aspect highlighted in the approved text is the decision to respect Taiwan's options: 'After the fulfilment of the peaceful reunification of the country, Taiwan may apply systems that are different from those of the continental part and enjoy a high degree of autonomy' (Article 8). The Anti-secession Law defines in Article 6 a set of measures aimed at keeping peace and stability in the region of the Taiwan Strait and promoting the relations between both sides.

Since 1971, when the UN General Assembly approved resolution 2578, expelling the Taiwan representative and restablishing the position of the People's Republic of China in the UN, there have been clear advances in the international community's understanding of the Taiwan issue and the acceptance of the principle that there is only one China in the world. In 1972, China and Japan restablished diplomatic relations with the understanding by the Japanese side that the 'Government of the People's Republic of China is the only legal government of China' and that 'Taiwan is an undisputable part of the territory of the People's Republic of China'. In 1978 the United States recognized that 'Government of the People's Republic of China is the only legitimate government of China'. The United States' authorities also declared that they 'recongnize China's position, that is, there is only one China and Taiwan is part of China'. It was based on those grounds that China and the United States restablished diplomatic relations in December that year. It is also with regard to the criterion of recognizing that there is only one China in the world that the People's Republic of China maintains normal and stable diplomatic relations with 165 countries.

Despite such advances in the international community's understanding, the efforts to promote the peaceful reunification and the progress achieved in the exchange between both sides of the Taiwan Strait, lately there have been some setbacks that led the Chinese authorities to adopt the Anti-secession Law. In Taiwan, the secessionist threats have increased with efforts made by local authorities that are for separation, which would be achieved by means of a 'constitutional reform', some sort of legal mark of an 'independent sovereign State'.

Externaly, despite formally respecting the terms of three joint communiquis made with the Chinese government where it committed to comply with the policy of a single China, the United States are in practice acting in the contrary, making it difficult to achieve the conditions necessary to a peaceful reunification.

It is in such circumstances that the Anti-secession Law passed by the People's National Assembly grants the Chinese State the right to use 'non-peaceful means and other measures necessary to protect China's territorial sovereignty and integrity' in case the secessionist forces provoke the 'secession of Taiwan from China or the occurrence of important incidents that imply the secession of Taiwan from China, or in case there is no possibility of a peaceful reunification'.

Critics of the Anti-secession Law, especially the leaders the United States' imperialism who expressed themselves by means of Condolezza Rice, are covering the efforts made by China to achieve a peaceful unification and separating from that context and conditions the decision to use non-peaceful means. It is understandable, since there is a clear disquiet in the United States' dominant circles with the progresses made by China and its growth in the international scene. Elementary as it is, a nation and a people deciding to reach the last consequences when it is a matter of defending their sovereignty and the integrity of their territory is also understandable.



--Carvalho is the Vice President of the Communist Party of Brazil (PCdoB), person in charge of international relations. Director of CEBRAPAZ, the Brazilian Center of Solidarity to the Peoples and Struggle for Peace.