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
The conflict in the Middle East has been disrupting financial markets, raising concerns about rising inflationary pressures and global economic growth. One market that some investors are particularly worried about has not been heavily covered in the news: the private credit market. Even before the joint US-Israeli attacks on Iran on Feb. 28, global capital markets had faced growing structural pressure — the deteriorating funding conditions in the private credit market. The private credit market is where companies borrow funds directly from nonbank financial institutions such as asset management companies, insurance companies and private lending platforms. Its popularity has risen since
The Donald Trump administration’s approach to China broadly, and to cross-Strait relations in particular, remains a conundrum. The 2025 US National Security Strategy prioritized the defense of Taiwan in a way that surprised some observers of the Trump administration: “Deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving military overmatch, is a priority.” Two months later, Taiwan went entirely unmentioned in the US National Defense Strategy, as did military overmatch vis-a-vis China, giving renewed cause for concern. How to interpret these varying statements remains an open question. In both documents, the Indo-Pacific is listed as a second priority behind homeland defense and
In an op-ed published in Foreign Affairs on Tuesday, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) said that Taiwan should not have to choose between aligning with Beijing or Washington, and advocated for cooperation with Beijing under the so-called “1992 consensus” as a form of “strategic ambiguity.” However, Cheng has either misunderstood the geopolitical reality and chosen appeasement, or is trying to fool an international audience with her doublespeak; nonetheless, it risks sending the wrong message to Taiwan’s democratic allies and partners. Cheng stressed that “Taiwan does not have to choose,” as while Beijing and Washington compete, Taiwan is strongest when
US Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent and Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng (何立峰) are expected to meet this month in Paris to prepare for a meeting between US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平). According to media reports, the two sides would discuss issues such as the potential purchase of Boeing aircraft by China, increasing imports of US soybeans and the latest impacts of Trump’s reciprocal tariffs. However, recent US military action against Iran has added uncertainty to the Trump-Xi summit. Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs Wang Yi (王毅) called the joint US-Israeli airstrikes and the
RSS