Recently, some Taiwanese have said they oppose signing a peace accord with China because they believe an “accord” is based on the premise that there is “one China” and that to do so would therefore undermine Taiwan’s sovereign status.
President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) has said that the issue of cross-strait peace is unavoidable and other government officials have followed his lead in pointing out that when in office former presidents Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) and Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) proposed signing a “peace agreement” with China or establishing a framework for cross-strait peace and stability.
Ma said he hoped people would not vilify the idea, which at its core seeks to guarantee the future peace and prosperity of Taiwanese, by insisting it is intended as a covert way of selling out Taiwan and seeking unification with China. Ma was also critical of Democratic Progressive Party Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文), asking why when she discusses agreements with China it fails to ruffle feathers, but it is perceived as dangerous when he talks about the same things.
I agree when the president says we must face up to this issue and that cross-strait peace cannot be pursued on the basis of double standards. Regardless of their party affiliation, any national leader should be evaluated based on the same set of standards. National Security Bureau (NSB) Director Tsai Der-sheng (蔡得勝) put it well when he said that the government has been discussing a cross-strait peace accord since 2008. Clearly then it should be apparent to these officials that calling a document a peace accord might not seem particularly different, but it comes with international legal ramification that most certainly are different.
The problem derives from the fact that in international legal practice, a “peace accord” is generally used to end a “civil war” while a “peace agreement” is used to end armed conflict between two nations. A peace “framework” on the other hand is a more neutral term and essentially has no pre-conditions, and can be used to end a civil war or regulate conflicts of an “international” nature. The nature of such a framework depends on the status of the signatories and the content of what is agreed. While they may only differ by one word, documents signed as “accords” “agreements” or “frameworks” are very different things in practice.
While the government insists it will do everything in its power to protect the “sovereignty of the Republic of China [ROC]”, it has still failed to quell the doubts and fears of Taiwanese. That is because the ROC Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) leaders refer to is “the ROC that has existed ever since 1912,” and in an international sense that still means “China.”
It thus seems that the sovereignty they want to protect is still “Chinese sovereignty” and a peace accord of that nature would end up being explained as a document used to stop a “Chinese civil war.” Such a setup would constitute an attempt to diminish Taiwan’s status as it currently exists.
In others words, it would involve taking something that has an international nature and transforming it into part of a Chinese “civil war.” This is in turn part of a broader effort to “internalize” cross-strait problems.
Taiwanese national identity is a very unique phenomenon: some hold that only the ROC can represent the nation, while others believe that Taiwan is a nation in its own right. Of course, others say that the ROC is Taiwan and that the Taiwan is the ROC and that in any case, these are all “nations.” Such ideas can seem somewhat confused and strange.
However, they are able to coexist with and therefore need to be allowed room for flexibility and explanation.
Unfortunately, Ma keeps on saying things like “the Republic of China is our country and Taiwan is our home,” while pointedly avoiding ever saying “Taiwan is our country.” The logical extension of this is for KMT leaders to say that the ROC is “the ROC that has existed ever since 1912” and then to sign documents containing words like “peace” or “accord” to create an illusion of peace, while utilizing these “accords” to clarify and follow the “one China” principle.
To “admit” current problems with cross-strait relations are a mere extension of a “civil war” and refuse international assistance all in exchange for a piece of paper from China promising peace is really not really a very sensible thing to do.
At this point in time, I hope something can be done before it is too late. I would like to urge government leaders to propose the signing of a “peace agreement” or search for a “framework” for peaceful interaction that would maintain the “status quo” and do their utmost to leave enough room for each party involved to explain its point of view.
Chiang Huang-chih is a professor of law at National Taiwan University.
TRANSLATED BY DREW CAMERON
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
Former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) trip to China provides a pertinent reminder of why Taiwanese protested so vociferously against attempts to force through the cross-strait service trade agreement in 2014 and why, since Ma’s presidential election win in 2012, they have not voted in another Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) candidate. While the nation narrowly avoided tragedy — the treaty would have put Taiwan on the path toward the demobilization of its democracy, which Courtney Donovan Smith wrote about in the Taipei Times in “With the Sunflower movement Taiwan dodged a bullet” — Ma’s political swansong in China, which included fawning dithyrambs