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
George Santayana wrote: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” This article will help readers avoid repeating mistakes by examining four examples from the civil war between the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) forces and the Republic of China (ROC) forces that involved two city sieges and two island invasions. The city sieges compared are Changchun (May to October 1948) and Beiping (November 1948 to January 1949, renamed Beijing after its capture), and attempts to invade Kinmen (October 1949) and Hainan (April 1950). Comparing and contrasting these examples, we can learn how Taiwan may prevent a war with
A recent trio of opinion articles in this newspaper reflects the growing anxiety surrounding Washington’s reported request for Taiwan to shift up to 50 percent of its semiconductor production abroad — a process likely to take 10 years, even under the most serious and coordinated effort. Simon H. Tang (湯先鈍) issued a sharp warning (“US trade threatens silicon shield,” Oct. 4, page 8), calling the move a threat to Taiwan’s “silicon shield,” which he argues deters aggression by making Taiwan indispensable. On the same day, Hsiao Hsi-huei (蕭錫惠) (“Responding to US semiconductor policy shift,” Oct. 4, page 8) focused on
Taiwan is rapidly accelerating toward becoming a “super-aged society” — moving at one of the fastest rates globally — with the proportion of elderly people in the population sharply rising. While the demographic shift of “fewer births than deaths” is no longer an anomaly, the nation’s legal framework and social customs appear stuck in the last century. Without adjustments, incidents like last month’s viral kicking incident on the Taipei MRT involving a 73-year-old woman would continue to proliferate, sowing seeds of generational distrust and conflict. The Senior Citizens Welfare Act (老人福利法), originally enacted in 1980 and revised multiple times, positions older
Nvidia Corp’s plan to build its new headquarters at the Beitou Shilin Science Park’s T17 and T18 plots has stalled over a land rights dispute, prompting the Taipei City Government to propose the T12 plot as an alternative. The city government has also increased pressure on Shin Kong Life Insurance Co, which holds the development rights for the T17 and T18 plots. The proposal is the latest by the city government over the past few months — and part of an ongoing negotiation strategy between the two sides. Whether Shin Kong Life Insurance backs down might be the key factor
RSS