In an interview with The Associated Press (AP) in October last year, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) said he would engage in political negotiations with China if he is re-elected. He later denied having made such a comment, protested the matter strongly and requested that AP correct its “error.” For the past year, there have been no major changes in cross-strait relations, but on Monday, Ma unexpectedly said he expected a cross-strait peace agreement to be negotiated and signed with China in the next decade.
However, a peace accord that lacks systemic guarantees or an international arbitration mechanism is like a house built on sand: There is no way it can last.
An agreement that takes as its foundation the belief that a powerful nation can be persuaded to voluntarily adhere to a set of agreed rules is tantamount to paving the way for invasion.
History has shown that mistaken peace agreements not only fail to bring about peace, they can cause havoc.
Although the background to the expansion of Nazi Germany and the Chinese invasion of Tibet were different, the catastrophes brought about by mistaken peace agreements were similar. Taiwan cannot afford to overlook such historic examples and make the same mistakes.
Ma has said he would only promote a peace agreement if three preconditions were met, namely, a high level of public support, a clear national need and legislative supervision. These are all basic conditions that pertain to Taiwan internally. However, Ma did not say one word about the conditions that would have to be met by the other party to the negotiations.
The Taiwanese public needs to understand that a nation’s attitude to democracy and freedom and the extent to which it respects human rights is likely to influence the way that country honors a peace agreement it has signed with another country.
How on earth are we supposed to expect a regime that suppresses freedom and democracy within its own borders to honor an agreement they have made with us? China has not even been willing to symbolically remove the missiles it aims at Taiwan, so what meaning would a peace agreement have?
As soon as a peace agreement that is blind to the facts and fawning in nature came into being, Taiwanese would lose the right to choose their future. In addition, such an agreement could also cause the international community to misjudge the situation in the Taiwan Strait, while also removing obstacles to Chinese expansion. Such a peace agreement would be a castle of sand built on compromises and retreat, offering no systemic guarantee of peace in Taiwan.
In the past, because China would not accept the fact of Taiwan’s existence, Beijing did everything it could to keep it out of international organizations like the UN. This is the main threat to peace and stability in the Western Pacific region.
Ultimately, peace in the Taiwan Strait requires a resolution to the problem of Taiwan’s participation in the international community and the incorporation of international standards to monitor the issue.
A systemic way of protecting peace in the Taiwan Strait is what all Taiwanese hope for.
Lee Ying-yuan is a former Cabinet secretary-general.
Translated by Drew Cameron
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US