It has recently been suggested that Taiwan should sign a “peace agreement” with China in the belief it will help reduce tensions in the Taiwan Strait. In general, the term “peace agreement” refers to anything aimed at bringing an end to a bloody conflict such as an armistice signed by warring states, a ceasefire agreement between two sides in a civil war or methods to resolve a border dispute with a neighboring nation. Not one of the 192 member nations of the UN has signed any form of “peace agreement” with Taiwan and yet still somehow manage to peacefully coexist with Taiwan. The one exception is of course China.
Nobody believes that the problems between Taiwan and China are the result of Taiwan encroaching on China. The Taiwanese government gave up on its ridiculous national policy of “reconquering the Mainland” long ago and officially abrogated the Temporary Provisions Effective During the Period of National Mobilization for Suppression of the Communist Rebellion (動員戡亂時期臨時條款) in 1991. Since then, Taiwan has demonstrated goodwill toward China by conducting business and investing large amounts of money in the country, so much so that it sometimes comes across as trying to curry favor with China.
In other words, the tensions in the Taiwan Strait are a direct result of the threat China poses to Taiwan, a nation over which it has never held sovereignty. At present, China has more than 1,000 missiles pointing at Taiwan, a number that continues to increase. China has even promulgated an “Anti-Secession” Law that is nothing more than a blatant attempt to legitimize its claims to sovereignty over Taiwan and a legal fig-leaf for widespread efforts to exclude Taiwan from the international arena.
In the event of a kidnapping, the situation is resolved when the kidnapper releases the victim unconditionally, there is no question of both sides negotiating or signing an agreement. If the kidnapper insists on “negotiating,” he or she does so to extort a ransom and the victim is expected to pay a price for freedom. This is a perfect metaphor for the nature of cross-strait relations, with China threatening Taiwan. In truth, all that is required to secure lasting peace in the Taiwan Strait is for China to renounce the use of military force against Taiwan. There is no need for China to keep pretending that “peace talks” are necessary.
China supports “peace talks” because these are the perfect way to force Taiwan to pay a price — whether belittling its nationhood or forcing it to concede sovereignty.
What Taiwan should do is openly call China on its misdeeds in front of the international community. It is important to stand up and explain how China breaches the principles of freedom, democracy, self determination and human rights and the extent to which it acts in ways that run counter to the UN Charter and the norms of international law.
The government must demand that China behave like a modern and civilized nation and respect the sovereignty of Taiwanese. To recklessly enter into “peace talks” with China would be to walk into a trap.
We must never forget that in 1951, Tibet signed a “peace agreement” with Beijing that is similar in form to “one country, two systems.” Within a decade, the People’s Liberation Army had occupied the country and butchered countless people. Since then China has moved huge numbers of Han Chinese into Tibet, so that Tibetans are now a minority in their own country. Tibet’s tragic fate at the hands of China is something that Taiwanese cannot afford to forget.
Peng Ming-min is a former presidential adviser.
TRANSLATED BY DREW CAMERON
A response to my article (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” Aug. 12, page 8) mischaracterizes my arguments, as well as a speech by former British prime minister Boris Johnson at the Ketagalan Forum in Taipei early last month. Tseng Yueh-ying (曾月英) in the response (“A misreading of Johnson’s speech,” Aug. 24, page 8) does not dispute that Johnson referred repeatedly to Taiwan as “a segment of the Chinese population,” but asserts that the phrase challenged Beijing by questioning whether parts of “the Chinese population” could be “differently Chinese.” This is essentially a confirmation of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formulation, which says that
On Monday last week, American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) Director Raymond Greene met with Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers to discuss Taiwan-US defense cooperation, on the heels of a separate meeting the previous week with Minister of National Defense Minister Wellington Koo (顧立雄). Departing from the usual convention of not advertising interactions with senior national security officials, the AIT posted photos of both meetings on Facebook, seemingly putting the ruling and opposition parties on public notice to obtain bipartisan support for Taiwan’s defense budget and other initiatives. Over the past year, increasing Taiwan’s defense budget has been a sore spot
Media said that several pan-blue figures — among them former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) chairwoman Hung Hsiu-chu (洪秀柱), former KMT legislator Lee De-wei (李德維), former KMT Central Committee member Vincent Hsu (徐正文), New Party Chairman Wu Cheng-tien (吳成典), former New Party legislator Chou chuan (周荃) and New Party Deputy Secretary-General You Chih-pin (游智彬) — yesterday attended the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) military parade commemorating the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II. China’s Xinhua news agency reported that foreign leaders were present alongside Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), such as Russian President Vladimir Putin, North Korean leader Kim
Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) Chairman Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌) is expected to be summoned by the Taipei City Police Department after a rally in Taipei on Saturday last week resulted in injuries to eight police officers. The Ministry of the Interior on Sunday said that police had collected evidence of obstruction of public officials and coercion by an estimated 1,000 “disorderly” demonstrators. The rally — led by Huang to mark one year since a raid by Taipei prosecutors on then-TPP chairman and former Taipei mayor Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) — might have contravened the Assembly and Parade Act (集會遊行法), as the organizers had