Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Hung Hsiu-chu (洪秀柱) earlier this week attracted widespread media attention by visiting China.
Since her trip, there has been much discussion over its purpose, pros and cons, as well as its effect on Taiwan.
However, most ordinary Taiwanese do not understand why Hung’s trip would be worth discussing.
Considering that the party she represents has turned its back on mainstream public opinion and how different her political views are from the majority in her party, it is surprising that the trip received so much media coverage.
Hung understood that given the difficulty of her situation, she needed a good reason to legitimize her visit to China and her solution was to promote something that she thought could bring a miracle: a cross-strait peace agreement.
Apparently, she thought that would help her win the approval of Taiwanese, while the contribution would justify the trip.
Promoting a peace agreement is hardly a new idea. As early as 20 years ago, Kenneth Lieberthal, then-senior director for Asia at the US National Security Council during then-US president Bill Clinton’s administration, advocated the signing of a 30-year cross-strait peace agreement. The suggestion led to some debate both inside and outside the government.
When Clinton visited Taiwan after stepping down, Taiwanese officials asked him about his opinion on a cross-strait peace agreement.
Clinton replied by posing two questions:
First, does Taiwan trust China to abide by the agreement?
Second, if China violates the agreement, does Taiwan have any way to impose sanctions or counterbalance China?
When the answers to both questions were in the negative, Clinton said: “This makes the answer pretty clear to me.”
Today, the situation across the Taiwan Strait has become increasingly dangerous as a result of China’s rising insolence and military aggression.
Would a peace agreement really be enough to maintain peace in the Strait?
The only way Taiwan can protect itself from China is to expand its relations with other countries and gain more allies who share its values and interests. Support from the international community would give Taiwan more leverage against China.
Even if Taiwan had the opportunity to sign a peace agreement with China, it should emulate Egypt and Israel, who signed a peace treaty endorsed by then-US president Jimmy Carter.
Only by internationalizing the issue would such an agreement be effective. If this is not the case, any peace agreement with China is likely to fail.
Wu Li-pei is a former national policy adviser.
Translated by Tu Yu-an
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