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
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS