In a recent interview with an international media organization, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) restated that his goal in cross-strait relations was to sign a peace agreement with Beijing before 2012. He based the agreement on the precondition that Taiwan would not seek independence and China would not attack Taiwan.
Such an agreement is no different from defining cross-strait relations as domestic.
In legal terms, this would not be a peace agreement signed by two states on an equal footing, but rather a domestic ceasefire agreement within the framework of the civil war between the KMT and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). To be blunt, it could also be called a surrender by the KMT. Ma said during the interview that cross-strait hostilities have not yet ceased; therefore it was obvious that he wants to handle cross-strait relations within the KMT-CCP Civil War framework.
Not seeking independence amounts to recognizing China's claim that Taiwan is part of its territory. But if Taiwan is not an independent nation, then why do we have an elected president and public representatives? What would be Ma's qualification for running for the office of president? Ma's stated goal clearly infringes on the people's right to self-determination and rejects the sovereignty of his own country. If Ma were to implement his cross-strait policy, he would clearly meet the requirements for committing an act of treason.
Ma's talk about not seeking independence echoes China's mantra of opposition to de jure Taiwan independence. In fact, de jure independence is merely an empty phrase defined by China as a means to justify the use of military force against Taiwan, to interfere in Taiwan's internal affairs and to use as a bargaining chip when dealing with the US.
In fact, de jure Taiwan independence is evolving everyday. For example, does Taiwan's issuance of new national identification cards include the 1.3 billion Chinese people? And travelers holding passports issued by the Taiwanese government are traveling around the world everyday, while every foreigner entering Taiwan is required to obtain a visa issued by the Taiwanese authorities.
On top of that, verdicts issued by courts in the US, Germany, Italy and many other countries do not treat international treaties signed by China as binding on Taiwan -- in other words, Taiwan is not part of China's territory. These legal actions are based on the precondition that Taiwan is a country.
If, as China claims, de jure Taiwanese independence is a valid pretext for China to take military action against Taiwan, China would have done so long ago. China only wants to monopolize the right to define the meaning of "de jure Taiwan independence" to be able to use the threat of military force as a means for intervening in Taiwan's constitutional reform, national referendums, democratic development and other domestic Taiwanese issues, and to blocking other countries and international organizations from recognizing Taiwan's status.
Most importantly, Ma's proposal in fact works in concert with China's "Anti-Secession" Law and indicates that Taiwan's government is willing to accept the conditions stipulated in the law for resorting to "non-peaceful means to stop Taiwan's secession from China." This deprives the people of Taiwan of their right to self-determination, which is enshrined in the UN's Human Rights Convention.
Vincent Wang is an attorney-at-law.
Translated by Lin Ya-ti
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS