The answer to that question remains elusive, as China has yet to officially release the draft text of the proposed law. It has largely been a war of rhetoric (short of official doctrine), emanating from Chinese press organs garnering rapid reaction in kind from the shores of Taiwan. One of the best summations comes from The Heritage Foundation's John Tkacik:

On Friday, December 17, 2004, the Standing Committee of the Chinese National People’s Congress (NPC) announced its intention to include a new “anti-secession law” in its legislative agenda for the March session. Draft language for the law will likely be published in time for consideration at the upcoming December 25-29 NPC Standing Committee session.

But this law should not be treated as legislation so much as propaganda. Press reports indicate that the law will oblige the Chinese military to invade Taiwan immediately upon some future Taiwanese “declaration of independence,” but China’s existing National Defense Law and its legislation governing national territory already require that the military defend China’s homeland. One draft of a “unification law” (a precursor to this “anti-secession law”) touted by professor Yu Yuanzhou at Wuhan University even mandates that the People’s Liberation Army immediately attack the Taiwan-held offshore islands of Quemoy and Matsu as soon as the Army is able to do so—and the attack “would not be limited to conventional weapons.” This kind of nonsense passes for rational legislative discourse in China but should not be humored by either the Administration or Congress.

This so-called “anti-secession law” has only two purposes: to serve as propaganda and as diplomatic leverage against the U.S. relationship with Taiwan.

First, note the March 2005 timeframe for final passage, a high-intensity 60-day window as of this writing. There is time for much modification to the text in whatever form it currently takes. Any change(s) will surely be adaptations from perceived reaction, with more attention paid to American reflex than even Taiwan itself.

Second, also note the subtle shift from ‘unification law’ to ‘anti-secession law’. Unification implies an existing separation, one that China adamantly refuses to acknowledge. Therefore, ‘anti-secession’ is much more palatable internally. Also note that Yu’s original conceptual ‘unification law’ expressly states that any invasion “would not be limited to conventional weapons.” Yu may be blustering, but his statements must be taken at face value.

Third, and most importantly, are Tkacik’s conclusions as to China’s agenda driving this law (short term). At this point, it is purely propaganda as there is to date no actual text released. The only references to judge by are the published and broadcast bellicose words of military officers, low-to-mid-level government spokesmen and university professors.

What is The Objective Behind China’s Anti-Secession Law?

The most important observation is indeed that China’s law is intended to measure Washington more so than Taipei, as Taipei is not forestalling a Chinese invasion of the island, but rather forward deployed American military might. A favorable Chinese trade surplus of epic and historical proportions with America is also a factor that cannot be rapidly dismissed from the Chinese decision making process.

While no one could deny that China ultimately intends to retake Taiwan, it does not need to do so now. Mao Zedong himself said to President Richard Nixon in 1972 that China could wait 100 years to regain Taiwan. Today’s Chinese leaders may not be so patient, but they do not see themselves as prepared yet for military confrontation with America: A goal to which they stridently work towards. Also, Mao did not enjoy the economic benefits of the single most lopsided trade imbalance in international history. It is likely that China’s communist leaders still value consistent, heavy volume exports of flip-flops and plastic gadgets in return for great sums of cash and advanced technology more than they value taking back the island of Taiwan.

This reality provides the perspective that allows the ‘anti-secession law’ to be seen as more of an American test than a Taiwan threat. It would be interesting to peer into the mind of President Bush and discern just how much of his Inaugural Address was meant for Chinese consumption.

The ultimate analytical challenge is to correctly recognize when Beijing’s economy and military can tolerate the loss of American trade and Chinese military assets in battle more than Beijing’s pride can tolerate another year, another month, another day of a breakaway Taiwan. This is precisely when the moment of truth will have arrived.

Taiwan’s Reaction: Shouts Across the Water

Taiwan’s reaction has been firm and consistent to date, fearing that even the consideration of such a law is an indicator that China is resolved to use force and intends to do so sooner rather than later. It has also been asserted in Taiwan that what China is doing is laying the legal groundwork not just for the invasion of Taiwan, but specifically for the purposes of arresting and imprisoning elected Taiwan government officials on charges akin to treason and sedition.

Beijing has been actively engaging in "psychological, legal and media warfare" in pushing to enact an "anti-secession law," which he (Taiwan President Chen Shui-bian) said is aimed at establishing a mainland-based legal justification for a military invasion of Taiwan.

From earlier in the same article produced from an interview with President Chen:

"We will continue to actively seek the resumption of cross-strait talks, which we have tried to re-open over the last four years," Chen said.

He pointed out, however, that Beijing has been sharply increasing its military buildup in recent years with a double-digit annual growth rate of military expenditures along with its economic expansion.

China's rapid military expansion poses a serious threat to regional stability and peace, he warned…He condemned Beijing's move as an attempt to unilaterally change the status quo in the Taiwan Strait.

It has been asserted in Taiwan that what China is doing is laying the legal groundwork not just for the invasion of Taiwan, but specifically for the purposes of arresting and imprisoning elected Taiwan government officials on charges akin to treason and sedition. There is talk also of a legal counter by the Taiwan government in the form of a referendum:

Taiwan would introduce an "anti-annexation" law and might hold a referendum if China enacts a law aimed at preventing the island becoming independent, President Chen Shui-bian has warned.

"China is attempting to alter the peaceful status quo in the Taiwan Strait and to unilaterally decide and deal with cross-strait issues through such a law," he said in an interview with Japan's Mainichi Shimbun newspaper, released late yesterday by Chen's office.

"If (China's) National People's Congress passes the 'anti-secession law' in March, Taiwan people would be forced to take to the streets or push for an 'anti-annexation law," he said.

Taiwan is not alone in fearing that China is attempting to ‘create a legal basis’ for invading and taking the island by military force. China and Taiwan have co-existed for half a century, one a totalitarian communist dictatorship and the other an emerging democracy. The communist government decides to internally pass a law declaring the other democratic government illegal. This is essentially what most expect will transpire come March 2005. This is legal grounds?

This view is echoed by Dan Blumenthal & Randy Scheunemann writing for National Review:

As world attention has focused in the past weeks on continuing violence in Iraq and disaster relief in southeast Asia, decisions made in Beijing and Washington have quietly pushed both countries closer toward a confrontation in the Taiwan Strait. Avoiding military conflict over Taiwan has always required a strong deterrent posture from Washington so the People's Republic understands the costs of any precipitous action. Instead, while Beijing has been laying a pseudo-legal justification for war against Taipei, Washington has been signaling timidity.

On December 17, Beijing announced that it would "pass" an "anti-secession" law squarely aimed at Taiwan in a transparent move to lay the predicate for military attack. Of course, the Chinese government does not "pass" anything — it dictates. The puppet parliament obligingly scheduled the proposed law for final action in its March session.

The "anti-secession law" is the latest move in Beijing's dangerous new game: Realizing that democratic Taiwan will never voluntarily decide to become part of a dictatorial China, Beijing is moving to "reunify the motherland" with force. China's massive military buildup — including some 600 ballistic missiles aimed at Taiwan — is now augmented with a "law" designed to give a veneer of legitimacy to Beijing's martial intent.

Needless to say, there is now a renewed sense of urgency for Taiwan’s defense planners and increased arms purchases from America is expected.

In the interview, Wu was optimistic that an alliance between President Chen Shui-bien's Democratic Progressive Party and James Soong's People First Party would enable passage in the legislative session beginning Feb. 15 of a special budget that would include $15 billion to buy U.S.-provided new weapons. The Bush administration has encouraged Taiwan to approve funding for the arms package, which Taipei says is needed to defend against a major Chinese arms buildup.

Some have wondered if such an anti-secession law would convince the Taiwan government to restart their dormant nuclear weapons research capabilities in an attempt to create a nuclear deterrent. Taiwan is capable of doing just that, though the timeframe to completion would be suspect.

A Taiwan legislator said in the fall of 2004 that President Chen had created a 5-member team to explore the possibility of resurrecting the nuclear weapons program. Whether or not such an exploratory panel exists or existed is debated. While Taiwan does have four functioning nuclear plants with 2 reactors each and a contested fifth due operational within a few years, developing a weapon would take time. It would be virtually impossible for this development to live long in secrecy, making the period between start and production highly provocative and perilous times with China certainly not waiting around to see deployment of nuclear weapons. Also, it must be taken into consideration that Taiwan does not have a delivery vehicle obtained or developed on hand, further complicating the issue.

Taiwan began diverting some of its traditional defense funds in the late 1990’s to work with the US developing a cooperative Theater Missile Defense (TMD) system, a conscious decision to focus on missile defense rather than missile competition or any fancied version of the MAD strategy of deterrence.

A January 2, 2005, op-ed in the Taipei Times not only illustrated Taiwan’s general proclivity for a defensive posture, but also states some common sense observations about the Chinese offensive mindset:

China has enormous military power, yet it has the audacity to accuse Taiwan of being a "troublemaker" and the "biggest threat and danger to peace and security in the Taiwan Strait and the Asia-Pacific region." What a charade.

The (Chinese PLA) white paper also declares that China insists on a defensive military policy.

But if China had truly adopted a defensive policy, how does Beijing explain the military preparations it has made to engulf Taiwan?

Taiwan does not have the capability to invade China. If China did not intend to invade Taiwan, peace in the Taiwan Strait may be secured on a permanent basis. Under the circumstances, what kind of threat can possibly exist in the other direction?

Chinese military preparations to invade Taiwan and become a regional hegemon is the real source of tension and instability in the region.

The white paper brazenly says that "stopping Taiwan independence is the sacred duty of the Chinese military forces," and revisits the so-called "three absolutes" and "one never."

These are absolute opposition to any form of independence activities, absolute opposition to any country selling arms to Taiwan and absolute opposition to military alliances between Taiwan and any other country, as well as never allowing anyone to split Taiwan from China.

In a word, the target of the 30,000-word white paper is Taiwan. China does not even hide its intention to use force against Taiwan.

With such a severe threat hanging over it, Taiwan must give top priority to building up adequate defensive capabilities.

In view of recent developments in the international arena, the US' willingness to sell Taiwan advanced arms such as submarines, anti-submarine aircraft and Patriot missiles presents, therefore, an invaluable opportunity. Taiwan must seize this opportunity.

Taiwan asked for strong public condemnation of the Chinese anti-secession law intentions, as Taiwan knows that the most effective deterrent to China is a strong and forceful American stance side-by-side with Taiwan.

Senior U.S. officials privately describe the proposed law as a threat to regional peace but have said little in public.

U.S. officials have argued that they could exert more influence on Beijing through "quiet diplomacy" and that they want to see the text of the law before speaking out, Wu said.

In Taiwan, "we are quite afraid that if they (Americans) don't make public opposition to the law by the time the (the specific text of the law is published), it may be too late already," Wu said.

"If you look at the concept of the law it's really very provocative. So we tried to relay our position and our worries to the American side," he added.

Quiet diplomacy. Splendid. That will no doubt instill fear in the Chinese dictatorship and bolster the Taiwan public with confidence.

"When I mentioned the name of the former US ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie, the Americans understood immediately what I was getting at," Wu said yesterday (28Jan05), suggesting that Iraq had invaded Kuwait because Glaspie had not opposed such a plan during a meeting with former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein before the 1991 Gulf War.

Again, Taiwan’s best defense (possibly only true defense) is a strong and forceful American stance side-by-side with them. If we falter, what then?

Does America really stand to repeat for the people of Taiwan what President George H. W. Bush did for the Kurds in the north and Shiites in the south of Iraq in 1991? Our support was pledged to them. If they would only rise up and fight their oppressor we would come to their aid and fight with them, side-by-side. And so they did. George H. W. Bush (and thus America) then deemed it too politically messy and we merely diverted our eyes as the defenseless were slaughtered and mass graves were filled, many of which are precisely the ones that American forces are uncovering to this day in Iraq.

If we falter now with only ‘quiet diplomacy’ to offer, will this compel Taiwan to begin the desperate yet still futile process of developing a nuclear deterrent indigenously?

Quiet diplomacy is bad news for all.