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
Jan. 1 marks a decade since China repealed its one-child policy. Just 10 days before, Peng Peiyun (彭珮雲), who long oversaw the often-brutal enforcement of China’s family-planning rules, died at the age of 96, having never been held accountable for her actions. Obituaries praised Peng for being “reform-minded,” even though, in practice, she only perpetuated an utterly inhumane policy, whose consequences have barely begun to materialize. It was Vice Premier Chen Muhua (陳慕華) who first proposed the one-child policy in 1979, with the endorsement of China’s then-top leaders, Chen Yun (陳雲) and Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平), as a means of avoiding the
As the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) races toward its 2027 modernization goals, most analysts fixate on ship counts, missile ranges and artificial intelligence. Those metrics matter — but they obscure a deeper vulnerability. The true future of the PLA, and by extension Taiwan’s security, might hinge less on hardware than on whether the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) can preserve ideological loyalty inside its own armed forces. Iran’s 1979 revolution demonstrated how even a technologically advanced military can collapse when the social environment surrounding it shifts. That lesson has renewed relevance as fresh unrest shakes Iran today — and it should
The last foreign delegation Nicolas Maduro met before he went to bed Friday night (January 2) was led by China’s top Latin America diplomat. “I had a pleasant meeting with Qiu Xiaoqi (邱小琪), Special Envoy of President Xi Jinping (習近平),” Venezuela’s soon-to-be ex-president tweeted on Telegram, “and we reaffirmed our commitment to the strategic relationship that is progressing and strengthening in various areas for building a multipolar world of development and peace.” Judging by how minutely the Central Intelligence Agency was monitoring Maduro’s every move on Friday, President Trump himself was certainly aware of Maduro’s felicitations to his Chinese guest. Just
In the US’ National Security Strategy (NSS) report released last month, US President Donald Trump offered his interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine. The “Trump Corollary,” presented on page 15, is a distinctly aggressive rebranding of the more than 200-year-old foreign policy position. Beyond reasserting the sovereignty of the western hemisphere against foreign intervention, the document centers on energy and strategic assets, and attempts to redraw the map of the geopolitical landscape more broadly. It is clear that Trump no longer sees the western hemisphere as a peaceful backyard, but rather as the frontier of a new Cold War. In particular,