In an interview with Bloomberg last Thursday, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Ma Ying-jeou (
While Ma's comments are an improvement over his previously naive remark that unification is the KMT's eventual goal and his suggestion of putting aside long-term concerns to focus on the short and mid-term peaceful development of cross-strait relations, they still show a distinct lack of Taiwanese consciousness. His words are designed to put Taiwan right into China's "united front" trap and are a betrayal of public expectations.
Ma's proposed peace agreement can be likened to a man forcing a woman to marry him with the promise that he would not beat her if she agrees.
There are several major flaws in Ma's plan.
First, it is a denial of Taiwan's sovereignty. Past surveys have shown that the Taiwanese think Taiwan is independent, and that the country's official title is the Republic of China. There is a major consensus on this issue among most Taiwanese and the different political parties. But since Ma's peace agreement proposes to exchange Taiwan's independence for China's promise not to use violence, it is based on the supposition that Taiwan is not a sovereign and independent nation. If the winner of the 2008 presidential election denies that Taiwan is an independent country, how would he or she be any different from the leaders of Hong Kong and Macau?
Second, the agreement would strangle Taiwan's future. Ma said that the peace agreement would not include a provision for eventual unification, that the decision should be left to Taiwan's 23 million people and that unification could only occur after China had developed freedom, democracy and prosperity. But inking a "one China" consensus would put Taiwan on a one-way road to unification, severely limiting the country's future options -- just as the Sino-British Joint Declaration did for Hong Kong in 1984.
Third, the conditions for a cross-strait peace agreement are unequal. Peace and non-violence are the basic principles underlying the international community's solution to conflict. If Taipei were to sacrifice future possibilities in exchange for Beijing's promise not to attack the country in the short or medium term, Taiwan would be walking straight into China's trap without getting anything in return.
Fourth, a cross-strait peace agreement could become an excuse for China to take military action against Taiwan. Such an agreement would guarantee that the cross-strait status quo is maintained for a period of time. But if Taiwan refuses to accept China's demand for unification after the expiration of the agreement, Beijing could attack Taiwan by claiming that it has declared independence or that the preconditions for unification no longer exist.
Ma's peace proposal is nothing new. The idea of such an agreement was first raised during former US president Bill Clinton's administration when China expert Kenneth Lieberthal proposed an agreement for the mid term. The US' "track two" program to facilitate diplomacy between China and Taiwan led to a substantial amount of discussion, but Taiwan did not agree to the talks because of the potential problems it would cause. Even the US did not push for the signing of such an accord.
By bringing up the same old issue again, Ma has only highlighted the blind spots in the KMT's cross-strait policy, along with his own naivete.
The cancelation this week of President William Lai’s (賴清德) state visit to Eswatini, after the Seychelles, Madagascar and Mauritius revoked overflight permits under Chinese pressure, is one more measure of Taiwan’s shrinking executive diplomatic space. Another channel that deserves attention keeps growing while the first contracts. For several years now, Taipei has been one of Europe’s busiest legislative destinations. Where presidents and foreign ministers cannot land, parliamentarians do — and they do it in rising numbers. The Italian parliament opened the year with its largest bipartisan delegation to Taiwan to date: six Italian deputies and one senator, drawn from six
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) sits down with US President Donald Trump in Beijing on Thursday next week, Xi is unlikely to demand a dramatic public betrayal of Taiwan. He does not need to. Beijing’s preferred victory is smaller, quieter and in some ways far more dangerous: a subtle shift in American wording that appears technical, but carries major strategic meaning. The ask is simple: replace the longstanding US formulation that Washington “does not support Taiwan independence” with a harder one — that Washington “opposes” Taiwan independence. One word changes; a deterrence structure built over decades begins to shift.
Recently, Taipei’s streets have been plagued by the bizarre sight of rats running rampant and the city government’s countermeasures have devolved into an anti-intellectual farce. The Taipei Parks and Street Lights Office has attempted to eradicate rats by filling their burrows with polyurethane foam, seeming to believe that rats could not simply dig another path out. Meanwhile, as the nation’s capital slowly deteriorates into a rat hive, the Taipei Department of Environmental Protection has proudly pointed to the increase in the number of poisoned rats reported in February and March as a sign of success. When confronted with public concerns over young
China has long given assurances that it would not interfere in free access to the global commons. As one Ministry of Defense spokesperson put it in 2024, “the Chinese side always respects the freedom of navigation and overflight entitled to countries under international law.” Although these reassurances have always been disingenuous, China’s recent actions display a blatant disregard for these principles. Countries that care about civilian air safety should take note. In April, President Lai Ching-te (賴清德) canceled a planned trip to Eswatini for the 40th anniversary of King Mswati III’s coronation and the 58th anniversary of bilateral diplomatic
RSS