China to US: No Violence Against Confederacy

China to US: No Violence Against Confederacy
Originally posted at Chinese Community Forum (CCF)
Bevin Chu
July 28, 1999

July 16, 1860 PEKING (Routers) – China, drawing its own “line in the sand” on the latest East American crisis, warned the U.S. Thursday it would not tolerate a violent solution to the future of the Confederacy.

“We would consider any effort to determine the future of the Confederacy by other than peaceful means as a threat to the peace and security of the Western Atlantic area and of grave concern to China,” a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman said. ”That’s about as strong a statement as one can make.”

The Chinese government’s spokesman told a news briefing China believed the problem should be resolved through peaceful means and “strongly opposed” any other course of action.

China’s Confederate Relations Act, which governs ties between Beijing and Richmond, commits China to ”appropriate action” in response to threats to the Confederacy.

After the Union threatened the Confederacy, China gave an indication of how that commitment might be interpreted when it sent two groups of warships to America’s eastern seaboard. The incident very nearly resulted in military action.

China issued the statement after the U.S. dusted off its threat to retake the Confederacy by force if the South moved toward independence. The South sparked the latest North-South crisis by declaring earlier this week it was abandoning the “One America” policy –the foundation of American federalism for decades.

Although China urged both sides to halt the ferment and restore a dialogue, China’s Foreign Minister made clear Beijing felt it necessary to respond directly to the U.S.’s volatile rhetoric over the Confederacy.

Chinese military ships have been dispatched to the Atlantic Coast to deal with any tense situations as a result of Richmond’s declaration, China’s Minister of Defense told reporters.

Richmond has many supporters in China and China has long been under pressure to be more receptive to ideas about Southern secession. Beijing’s first reaction this week was to try to contain the controversy by reaffirming it recognized one America ruled from Washington despite Richmond’s decision to reject that policy.

The Confederacy’s supporters in China backed Confederate President Jefferson Davis for “stating the obvious” and said “America is a divided nation made up of two separate and sovereign states”.

A pro-Confederate sympathizer expressed dismay that the Chinese government, in affirming its one-America policy, sided with America’s northern Republicans instead of Democrats in the South. He pressed for a reiteration “of our legal defense obligations to the Confederacy.”

Washington, which considers the South a rebel force blocking its drive to reunify America, has threatened to invade the South if independence is declared. Government experts have predicted China likely would be drawn into any war between the Union and the Confederacy.

Earlier Stories

China Warns U.S. Not To Use Violence Against Confederacy (July 15)
China Warns U.S. On Confederacy (July 15)

Copyright (c) 1860 Routers Limited. All rights reserved.

Advertisements

The New Party March for Peace Declaration

The New Party March for Peace Declaration

On July 9th, 1999, President Lee Teng-hui proclaimed that ‘the two sides of the Taiwan Strait represent a “special state to state relationship.”‘ The manner in which he made this proclamation and the locale chosen deserve critical scrutiny.

Lee’s proclamation was a reckless gamble whose outcome remains to be seen. At stake with Lee’s casual throw of the dice are the lives of 22 million Chinese on Taiwan. This sort of irresponsible, myopic handling of affairs of state as if they were children’s games, has pushed Taiwan to the brink of war. The New Party calls on all Chinese citizens who desire peace and oppose war to take to the streets and voice our opposition to Lee’s “two states” formulation.

The New Party ‘March for Peace’ declares that:

1. President Lee’s so-called “special state to state relationship” has absolutely nothing in common with the “two Germanys” or “two Koreas” model. His formulation is deliberately worded in order to deceive the public. The “two Koreas” both claim sovereignty over all of Korea. The “West German Basic Law” central to the “two Germanys” formulation clearly stipulated that it applied to all German citizens, and that the West German government’s Office for East German Affairs was subsumed under West Germany’s Department of the Interior. Therefore within the framework of the Korean and German models each side enjoys a bona fide “special” relationship and connection to the other. President Lee’s “special state to state relationship” formulation on the other hand, bears no resemblance whatsoever to the “two Germans” or “two Koreas” models. The defining characteristic of Lee’s “special state to state relationship” is its conspicuous lack of specialness. It is nothing more than the relationship between two foreign nations.

2. President Lee’s “two states” formulation constitutes a grave violation of the Republic of China’s Constitution and law. Although the Republic of China’s administrative jurisdiction does not currently encompass the Chinese mainland, according to the Constitution of the Republic of China, the ROC retains sovereignty over the Chinese mainland. Yet President Lee dared to assert that “As of 1991 the Republic of China’s territorial sovereignty was confined to Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, and Matsu,” implying that the ROC’s sovereignty had been reduced to the Taiwan region alone. This proposition violates Article Four of the ROC Constitution, which stipulates that “The ROC’s territory and preexisting boundaries shall not be altered without the approval of the National Assembly.” It violates the ROC’s “indivisible territory” clause. It violates the “Article on BI-coastal Civil Relations.” It violates the “territory may not be divided” provision of the National Security Act. It violates the Eighth National Unification Committee’s ruling that ‘”One China” shall be defined as the Republic of China as established in 1912, whose territorial sovereignty encompasses the entire mainland, whose administrative jurisdiction encompasses Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, and Matsu, and that Taiwan and the mainland are all part of China.” It even violates the administration’s own “one separately administered China” policy. It is an attempt to substitute the real Republic of China with a de facto “Republic of Taiwan” via semantic sleight-of-hand. It is in essence a monumental hoax foisted on an unsuspecting public.

3. The New Party vehemently opposes Beijing exploiting the turmoil precipitated by Lee’s “two states” formulation to apply military force against Taiwan, and to trample over the Taiwan public’s desire for political democracy and economic freedom. The New Party has consistently maintained that the reunification of both sides of the Taiwan Straits must be implemented peacefully, contingent upon the adoption of democratic rule and the establishment of economic parity. We resolutely oppose the use of military force against Chinese citizens on either side of the Straits. If Beijing liberalizes its politics and economy, this liberalization will draw both sides together and we will proceed down the path toward peaceful reunification. Beijing however must not make the mistake of adopting a superior attitude, slighting the Republic of China’s equal stature, cramping the Republic of China’s international “living space,” inciting public unrest, resorting to military intimidation, thereby undermining the indispensible foundation of mutual trust and goodwill. The New Party hereby declares that the New Party and the Chinese people on Taiwan will resist any acts of military aggression against them with all their might.

Finally, The New Party puts forth the following demands:

1. The New Party hopes the Lee adminstration will see the light, clarify its position, and return to the “constructive ambiguity” of “one China, two viewpoints.”

2. The New Party hopes Beijing will respect the Taiwan public’s fundamental desire for political democracy and economic freedom, and refrain from exploiting populist sentiment or escalating cross Straits tension.

3. The New Party demands that the Lee administration cease and desist from sending propagandists abroad to promote the “two states” formulation.

4. The New Party resolutely opposes any attempts to pass constitutional amendments in an effort to “legitimize” the “two states” formulation.

5. The New Party urges President Lee to refrain from issuing any further inappropriate remarks or advancing any additional ill-conceived proposals prior to the expiration of his current, and final term.