Taipei, March 14 (CNA) China's "Anti-Secession Law" and the Chinese Communist Party's two communiques with Taiwan's opposition parties have had a structural impact on cross-strait relations and shackled Taiwan, the Mainland Affairs Council (MAC) argued Friday.
Addressing the media on the third anniversary of the passage of the law and less than 10 days before the March 22 presidential election, MAC Chairman Chen Ming-tong said that Beijing was the behind-the-scene mastermind of the "one law, two communiques, " strategy to box in Taiwan's future.
China passed the "Anti-Secession Law" on March 14, 2005, claiming the Taiwan Strait situation was a residual issue of the Chinese civil war in the 1940s. The law did not rule out resolving the impasse by "non-peaceful measures."
Passage of the measure ignited opposition and condemnation from Japan, the U.S. and the European Union (EU). Hundreds of thousands of Taiwanese marched in Taipei to oppose the law on March 26, 2005.
The two communiques were signed in the same year by Kuomintang (KMT) Honorary Chairman Lien Chan and People First Party (PFP) Chairman James Soong, respectively, with Chinese President Hu Jintao.
The communiques were seen by the opposition as progress in cross-strait relations. However, "politically, China will not change its 'one-China' principle; militarily, China will not tone down its military threat nor withdraw more than 1,000 missiles aimed at Taiwan,' Chen warned.
"The communiques signified, to some extent, an extension of the 'Anti-Secession Law,'" Chen suggested.
Lien, Soong and Hu jointly established a "one law, two communiques" framework that confines Taiwan to economic incorporation, de facto unification and de jure annexation, he argued.
MAC Vice Chairman Liu Te-hsun echoed Chen's comments later in the day, saying that Article Five of the "Anti-Secession Law," which has set a "high degree of autonomy" as Taiwan's ultimate status after unification, has been overlooked by many.
"The vision of the future should be better than the current reality. Is a 'high-degree of autonomy' a better offer than what Taiwan has right now? " he wondered, arguing that China needed to offer something more lucrative for Taiwan.