The Japanese media recently quoted President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) as saying he was not opposed to discussing a political agreement about unification or a peace agreement with China. The day after that quote appeared in the Japanese press, the presidential office criticized the report, saying it was subjective and prejudiced. With those words still ringing in our ears, Ma then announced that Taiwan would negotiate a peace agreement with China within the next 10 years.
This issue is extremely important to Taiwanese and the future of the nation, and as such a national consensus needs to be achieved to ensure any proposal has the legitimacy it needs before a formal announcement. It is therefore very worrying to see Ma’s slipshod and rushed approach to the issue.
According to former Chinese president Jiang Zemin (江澤民) and current Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤), any so-called peace agreement with Taiwan would seek to end the civil war between the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), and return Taiwan to “the motherland.” This is not what Ma means when he talks about a mechanism to prevent war between the two nations.
In 1951, Tibet was forced to sign the “Agreement of the Central People’s Government and the Local Government of Tibet on Measures for the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet” under threat of war. After the agreement was signed, the People’s Liberation Army continued massacring Tibetans, revealing the agreement to be a useless piece of paper.
A peace accord that prevents war touches on many complex issues, including the status of the parties to the agreement, the establishment of a framework for peace, the planning of the peace process, how to execute the agreement, international monitoring, a restructuring of national defense, as well as international arbitration. Every step of this process would be difficult.
Considering how China has behaved toward Taiwan, it is difficult to argue that the environment will be conducive to the signing of a peace agreement any time soon.
First, would it be possible for Taiwan to sign an agreement with the “Central People’s Government” as the “Local Government of Taiwan”? If we cannot even agree on the title of the document, how can we expect to agree on anything else?
Any peace agreement that fails to prevent war, even if it is wrapped in a pretty package, is nothing more than a unification agreement in disguise. A peace agreement ending a civil war between the CCP and the KMT, or a peace agreement similar to the one signed by Tibet, is essentially an agreement for Taiwan to return to the so-called “motherland.” Ma simply prefers to dress up this transitional arrangement in an inoffensive way.
Furthermore, Beijing defines cross-strait issues as domestic affairs because it wants to eliminate international interference, particularly the international peace and safety mechanisms included in the UN Charter. There are currently no regional security institutions that could ensure the validity of such an agreement, nor is there a joint bilateral defense system. The only safety net would be the US’ Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) and the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the US and Japan — the latter applying to areas around Japan, including the Taiwan Strait.
Any cross-strait peace agreement would not only fail to guarantee Taiwan’s security, it would also give China an excuse to demand that the US discontinue arms sales to Taiwan.
Ma’s proposal is ambiguous and irresponsible. If he is not the idiot here, then we are certainly the fools.
Chen Rong-jye is a professor of law and a former secretary-general of the Straits Exchange Foundation.
Translated by Kyle Jeffcoat
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