President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) has hit a snag in his re-election campaign with talk of a cross-strait peace agreement revealing his intentions to “replace independence with gradual reunification.”
No one is opposed to peace, but no one wants it to come at the price of having to serve under a new dictatorial regime. Are we to suppose that we can live in peace and security if we become part of China? When we talk about cross-strait peace, it is important to keep an eye on the differences between the system we live under and that in China.
In the final years of his presidency, former US president Bill Clinton became more pro-China in his cross-strait policy. However, during a visit to Taiwan in 2005, speaking in a private capacity, he said signing a mid to long-term peace agreement with China would be inadvisable for three reasons. First, he said, it is not really possible to set a term for peace, and that there could be no genuine guarantees. Second, it would be leaving the problem for the next generation. And third, when the agreement expired it would actually be an excuse for China to attack Taiwan.
Clinton’s first point concerns how exactly one defines the medium or long term. However you choose to define these, the fact remains that it will be a finite period and that China won’t sign a permanent peace agreement. This would lead to the following preposterous situation: There is currently already peace in the Taiwan Strait and if we were to now sign a peace agreement with a finite term, that would imply that once the agreed period is up, China and Taiwan would enter a state of war. For Ma to sleepwalk us into a state of war with China is insanity by any measure.
When China regained the territory of Hong Kong it promised no changes for 50 years. I do not know if that is supposed to be considered long or mid-term, but the fact of the matter is that changes have already happened. The agreement signed in 1984 between the UK and China on Hong Kong’s future was a state-to-state agreement subsequently registered with the UN as an international treaty. However, China already regards Hong Kong as a domestic issue. This shows why Clinton doubted the ability to obtain any genuine guarantees after an agreement is signed. What would possess Taiwan to walk into such an obvious trap?
China and Japan also dispute the sovereignty of the Diaoyutai Islands (釣魚台), but there is no talk of a peace agreement between them. Former Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平) said the issue should be left to the next generation of leaders. Deng was the second generation and China is now led by a fourth generation, yet the issue is still to be resolved. Why doesn’t Ma just leave it to the next generation?
When any potential agreement expires, the politicians of the future will be haunted by Ma’s legacy, with no option but to re-sign the agreement or consign the country to a state of war. Furthermore, China would be sure to come up with new demands and conditions during the negotiation process, and if the talks failed to yield results, it would be just as Clinton said: China will have an excuse to launch an attack. Therefore, Ma’s intention to sign a peace agreement with China at this juncture is tantamount to selling out the next generations of Taiwanese.
One thing is for certain; if Taiwan did decide to go ahead and sign a peace deal with China, the negotiations would likely be laborious and drawn out, unless we agreed to all their demands. If we did not, China would stir up public opinion, saying how Taiwan had sabotaged the talks, and therefore hopes of peace, in such a way that it would have an excuse, with the public’s blessing, to start a war. Basically, once we go to the negotiation table, it would be very difficult to leave. Hasn’t the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) learned its lesson yet?
Paul Lin is a political commentator.
Translated by Paul Cooper
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS