CHINA'S hawks and doves seem to have found in the anti-secession law, adopted on March 14, a delicate compromise. But it is clear to both sides that while the new legislation is effective in preventing separatism, it is insufficient to bring about unification with Taiwan.

Still, the Chinese military is happy to have a law that draws a"" red line'' limiting the separatist activities of the Taiwanese
authorities. In particular, they are happy with the provision, specified in Article 8,allowing for the use of non-peaceful means,
because it is entirely subject to Beijing's interpretation whether"" possibilities for a peaceful reunification'' are ""completely
exhausted''.

""Should they cross the line, the law empowers us to take whatever means necessary to bring Taiwan back to our fold,'' said an army delegate to the National People's Congress, the Chinese parliament, whose annual session has just ended.

People's Liberation Army (PLA) delegates said that in the past 10 years Beijing had been extremely passive in its response to mounting secessionist activities in Taiwan and that this had frustrated the military.

""The new law ends the practice of listening to what (Taiwanese President) Chen Shui-bian says and observing what he does. From now on, it is watch what he does but listen to what I say,'' one delegate was quoted as having said in the People's Daily's account of the closed-door debate.

""Although the law will not proactively bring about unification, it will put a stop to Taiwan's continual drift away from China,''
said another.

Dovish politicians are also happy with the law because it is more placatory and less belligerent than what most had been expecting. Significantly, Section 6 of Article 7, which states that Beijing is willing to discuss with Taipei any matters related to unification, opens up huge possibilities for both sides to explore.

""What Beijing should do now is to follow up with a policy statement offering some of its flexible approaches so as to make
unification more attractive to the Taiwanese,'' said Dr Yu Yuanzhou, associate professor at the Institute of Political Science and Law of Jianghan University in Wuhan.

""The greatest flexibility of the law is found in Section 6 of Article 7, which does not preclude any form of reunion as long as it
is consistent with the "one China' principle,'' he explained. Dr Yu conducts research into the legal aspects of the unification
process. He was also the first person in China to propose a draft law on national unification, as early as in 2001. His work attracted the attention of China's top leadership. As a result, when then-vice-president Hu Jintao met Chinese-American community leaders during his visit to the United States in 2002, he disclosed that Beijing was seriously considering drafting a national unification law.

Premier Wen Jiabao also hinted that Beijing was considering such legislation when he visited London last year.

One concession Beijing could make immediately is to tell Taiwan that it is ready to drop its name the People's Republic of China (PRC) if Taiwan agrees to follow suit and discard its official title the Republic of China (ROC). The remaining common denominator for both would then be ""China''.

If Taiwan is agreeable to this proposal, unification would be considered to have been achieved, leaving the details to be thrashed out later.

Dr Yu said that it is no secret among those in the know that Beijing is willing to do this, if the other side responds
positively.

According to Mr Li Jiaquan, former director of the Taiwan Institute of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Mao Zedong himself once said that he regretted changing the name of the country from ROC to PRC, which later creat
ed the problem of ""two Chinas''.

The late Deng Xiaoping had also suggested making changes to the official title.

The then Chinese Communist Party's general secretary, Hu Yaobang, told veteran journalist Lu Keng that both Beijing and Taipei could drop the letters ""PR'' and ""RO'' respectively, retaining the common letter ""C'' as a means of achieving unification.

In this way, neither side would be subjugating the other.

During former president Jiang Zemin's time, the same idea was raised. When he met a Taiwanese delegation on Oct 29, 2000, he spelt out clearly that Beijing was willing to change the name of the country. And if both sides used ""China'' to encompass the mainland and the island, dropping the ""PR'' and ""RO'' in their current tags, then the country would be considered unified.

Citing all these precedents, Dr Yu said there is no denying Beijing's sincerity. Yet the proposal never took off because China could lay this card on the table only when talks with Taiwan, based on the ""one China'' principle, began.

And Taiwan could never agree to start such talks because the moment it did, it would be capitulating to Beijing's ""one China'' principle.

Dr Yu, in his suggested national unification law, had envisaged a loose union of the PRC and the ROC that would skilfully avoid the pitfalls of two Chinas.

However, his proposal had been discarded by the authorities, who favour the anti-secession law.

So he is now calling on scholars from both sides to make full use of the flexibility provided by Section 6 of Article 7 and come up with other ingenious ways to accommodate the differences between them.