In an interview of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) with the Chinese-language newspaper the Liberty Times (the Taipei Times’ sister publication), Ma appears concerned over accusations that he is selling out Taiwan, and repeatedly denies that any of the pacts with China are harmful to Taiwan’s sovereignty.
The more harmful parts of the cross-strait agreements erode Taiwan’s national sovereignty, while the less harmful parts destroy the interests of the Taiwanese public at large. This is true of all these agreements.
For example, in violation of international practice, talks about direct cross-strait flights have not included fifth freedom rights — the right to operate connecting flights — thus designating such flights as domestic. According to international treaties such as the Convention on International Civil Aviation and the Convention on the High Seas, aircraft and ships have nationalities and should be treated as an extension of national territory. They must fly their national flag. But do aircraft and ships traveling across the Taiwan Strait currently fly their national flag? And worse, the Ma administration is cooperating with China in treating Taiwan as a local government by banning foreign aircraft and ships from operating cross-strait services. These measures are all aimed at defining cross-strait air and shipping lanes as domestic. I want to ask Ma if this harms our national sovereignty, and if this is evidence that all criticism of the government for selling out Taiwan is “empty.”
Furthermore, when it comes to the issue of submitting cross-strait agreements to the legislature for review, Ma goes even further in distorting facts when he says that “according to the Rules Governing the Processing of Treaties and Agreements (條約及協定處理準則), the Cabinet only has to submit [such agreements] that it has passed to the legislature for its reference.”
In reality, Article 7 of these rules states that, “The competent authorities shall consult with related committees of the Legislative Yuan on general guidelines and principles before reaching an agreement on the text of a treaty.”
Article 3 of these rules also clearly defines “treaties” as “international written agreements ... the contents of which directly involve issues of national interest and are legally binding; and the contents of which directly involve people’s rights and obligations, and are legally binding” while defining “agreements” as “international written agreements other than treaties ... whatever their particular designations or how they are formulated.”
To date, Taiwan and China have signed 12 agreements, none of which has been submitted for legislative review. Could it really be that these agreements are not issues of national interest, that they are not legally binding, and that they do not directly involve people’s rights and obligations? Not only have they not been submitted for legislative review, Ma also clearly violates rules by not consulting the relevant legislative committees. Despite talking so much nonsense, he still dares quote the rules. Has he not read them, or is he simply lying to our faces?
A final point: Ma says that, “signing an [economic cooperation framework agreement] ECFA with China … is a necessary condition [for signing free trade agreements with other countries].”
This is simply nonsense. Ma should provide evidence of which countries won’t sign a free trade agreement with Taiwan simply because we do not have an ECFA with China. What countries set such conditions? When the nation’s president makes such baseless and illogical statements, it is not so strange that the public would lose confidence in him.
Huang Kun-huei is chairman of the Taiwan Solidarity Union.
TRANSLATED BY PERRY SVENSSON
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS