The First National Assembly held its eighth meeting in 1991. At the session I hosted on April 22 that year, the delegates completed two major constitutional achievements: They added 10 Articles to the Constitution of the Republic of China and abolished the Temporary Provisions Effective During the Period of Communist Rebellion.
On May 1, then-president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) officially announced that the period had ended. The media quoted the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) in what has become a famous statement: “I don’t know anymore what kind of relationship the two sides of the Taiwan Strait have.”
On Feb. 23 that year, not long before Lee’s announcement, the National Unification Council proposed the National Unification Guidelines. On March 14, the Cabinet passed the guidelines, which have been the fundamental principle for Taiwan’s China policy. It also issued a statement, “The Meaning of ‘One China,’” in which it made the pragmatic concession that the Republic of China (ROC) only has jurisdiction over Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu, despite its “de jure sovereignty” over China.
The statement said that “each side of the Taiwan Strait is administered by a separate political entity.” As far as the KMT is concerned, this statement still stands.
Political scientists generally hold that “political entity” and “state” are synonymous. Since cross-strait relations are indeed different from relations between two independent states, the government used the term “political entity” instead of “state” to show China its goodwill. Unfortunately, Beijing condemned the guidelines because of their implications.
During his interview with the Mexican daily Sol de Mexico on Aug 26 this year, Ma defined cross-strait relations as “special relations,” but not a “state-to-state” relationship, and stressed this “very important point.”
But if cross-strait relations are not considered state-to-state, can they still be described as special relations between two separate political entities? If cross-strait relations are now neither, Ma’s definition would seem to have strayed from the National Unification Guidelines.
As private cross-strait exchanges multiply, more problems are arising.
Additional Article 11 of the Constitution states that: “Rights and obligations between the people of the Chinese mainland area and those of the free area, and the disposition of other related affairs may be specified by law.”
This is the constitutional basis for separate treatment of the people on each side of the Taiwan Strait. To regulate cross-strait exchanges, the legislature later passed the Act Governing the Relations Between the Peoples of the Taiwan Area and Mainland Area (台灣地區與大陸地區人民關係條例), which is the basis for judging certain legal cases.
The “Chinese mainland area and free area” in the ROC Constitution and the “Taiwan area and mainland area” in the law are terms used to distinguish the two regions in discussing the rights and obligations of their inhabitants, as well as legal cases. Such terms are unrelated to the definition of cross-strait relations.
On Sept. 4, Presidential Office Spokesman Wang Yu-chi (王郁琦) made the surprising claim that Ma’s remarks had been based on the ROC Constitution and the above act. Calling the two sides of the Strait “Taiwan” and “the mainland area” indicates equal status, Wang said. But if the new definition of cross-strait relations is an “area-to-area” relationship, isn’t the dignified ROC president nothing but a local ruler?
Yeh Chin-fong is a former vice chairwoman of the Cabinet’s Mainland Affairs Council.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
As the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its People’s Liberation Army (PLA) reach the point of confidence that they can start and win a war to destroy the democratic culture on Taiwan, any future decision to do so may likely be directly affected by the CCP’s ability to promote wars on the Korean Peninsula, in Europe, or, as most recently, on the Indian subcontinent. It stands to reason that the Trump Administration’s success early on May 10 to convince India and Pakistan to deescalate their four-day conventional military conflict, assessed to be close to a nuclear weapons exchange, also served to
After India’s punitive precision strikes targeting what New Delhi called nine terrorist sites inside Pakistan, reactions poured in from governments around the world. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) issued a statement on May 10, opposing terrorism and expressing concern about the growing tensions between India and Pakistan. The statement noticeably expressed support for the Indian government’s right to maintain its national security and act against terrorists. The ministry said that it “works closely with democratic partners worldwide in staunch opposition to international terrorism” and expressed “firm support for all legitimate and necessary actions taken by the government of India
The recent aerial clash between Pakistan and India offers a glimpse of how China is narrowing the gap in military airpower with the US. It is a warning not just for Washington, but for Taipei, too. Claims from both sides remain contested, but a broader picture is emerging among experts who track China’s air force and fighter jet development: Beijing’s defense systems are growing increasingly credible. Pakistan said its deployment of Chinese-manufactured J-10C fighters downed multiple Indian aircraft, although New Delhi denies this. There are caveats: Even if Islamabad’s claims are accurate, Beijing’s equipment does not offer a direct comparison
To recalibrate its Cold War alliances, the US adopted its “one China policy,” a diplomatic compromise meant to engage with China and end the Vietnam War, but which left Taiwan in a state of permanent limbo. Half a century later, the costs of that policy are mounting. Taiwan remains a democratic, technologically advanced nation of 23 million people, yet it is denied membership in international organizations and stripped of diplomatic recognition. Meanwhile, the PRC has weaponized the “one China” narrative to claim sovereignty over Taiwan, label the Taiwan Strait as its “internal waters” and threaten international shipping routes that carry more
RSS