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
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers
RSS