Chinese president Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) has said that the two sides of the Taiwan Strait share a common fate. Despite Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) presidential candidate Frank Hsieh's (謝長廷) almost conciliatory statement that there is a "one China" framework in Taiwan's Constitution and the pan-blue camp's position that peace negotiations must be predicated on an acceptance of the "one China" principle, the prospects of a peace agreement between China and Taiwan are slim.
Both China's "one China" principle and Hsieh's and the pan-blue camp's "one China" stance address the issue of Taiwan's sovereignty. Yet China uses the phrase to clarify its position on sovereignty, while Hsieh and the pan-blue camp use the phrase to blur their stands on sovereignty.
Although linguistic ambiguity can serve a difficult political environment, terms like "peace negotiations" are much less abstract. For this reason, it is necessary for the legal relationship between parties to be clear. That's why China and Taiwan first have to agree on the core meaning of sovereignty.
Is there a party among them or above them that has sovereignty over both? Do both countries agree that they don't represent each other internationally? Should they create a new higher institution to represent both? These issues cannot be avoided.
In 1972, East and West Germany signed a Basic Treaty rejecting the use of force against each other. It was basically a peace treaty. Although the two sides had different positions about sovereignty, they eventually agreed to recognize that their highest legal powers did not include the other party's territory and that the jurisdiction of each part of Germany was confined to its own territory.
Negotiators avoided using the term "sovereignty." They also promised that neither could represent the other internationally. It looked like they had avoided the issue of sovereignty, but outside of the territory of both Germanies, there was no higher jurisdiction above the two. In practice, the jurisdiction mentioned in the treaty was the same as sovereignty.
After the two parties again declared that each had kept its position on the definition of the country, both parties signed the basic treaty with their respective names of Bundesrepublik Deutschland (BRD) and Deutsche Demokratische Republik (DDR) and both simultaneously entered the UN.
Such a detailed approach to the issue of sovereignty is absolutely necessary for a peace treaty. China has refused to accept the concept of two Chinas, or one China and one Taiwan peace agreement Hu is proposing reflects his views on sovereignty.
China cannot accept the approach taken by the two Germanies. Whether it is Hu at the Chinese Communist Party's 17th National Congress talking about "one country, two systems" or the language contained in the "Anti-Secession" Law (反分裂國家法) saying that Taiwan would be granted some international space, it is all very clear that Taiwan would not have the sovereign jurisdiction the two Germanies agreed on in their Basic Treaty.
So as soon as a peace treaty is signed, Taiwan's status will at best be a little better than Hong Kong's. As soon as a peace treaty is signed, Taiwan's international space will be a lot smaller than what it is now.
There are people in Taipei who long for a peace treaty with China. But such an agreement would give Taiwan's sovereignty away. Taiwan wants to be autonomous and therefore will have to assess any peace offer from China very carefully. Unless China magically becomes a lot more rational, peace negotiations are not to be expected in the near future.
Lin Cho-shui helped draft the Democratic Progressive Party's Taiwan Independence Clause.
Translated by Anna Stiggelbout
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath