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
There will be a new presidential administration in the United States in January 2025. It will be important for the Lai (賴清德) administration and America’s next administration to get on the same page quickly and visibly in respective efforts to bolster Taiwan’s security, economic vitality, and dignity and respect on the world stage. One key measure for doing so will be whether Washington and Taipei can coalesce around a common narrative for moving US-Taiwan relations forward. In recent years, Washington and Taipei have leaned into fear as a motivator for coordinated action. For a time, both sides publicly reinforced each other’s
Recently, the Liberty Times (the Taipei Times’ sister newspaper) published three of my articles on the US presidential election, which is to be held on Nov. 5. I would like to share my perspective on the intense and stalemated presidential election with the people of Taiwan, as well as Taiwanese and Chinese Americans in the US. The current consensus of both major US political parties is to counter China and protect Taiwan. However, I do not trust former US president Donald Trump. He has questioned the US’ commitment to defending Taiwan and explicitly stated the significant challenges involved in doing so. “Trump believes
The government is considering building a semiconductor cluster in Europe, specifically in the Czech Republic, to support Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s (TSMC) new fab in Dresden, Germany, and to help local companies explore new business opportunities there. Europe wants to ensure the security of its semiconductor sector, but a lack of comprehensive supply chains there could pose significant risks to semiconductor clusters. The Czech government is aggressively seeking to build its own semiconductor industry and showing strong interest in collaborating with Taiwanese companies. Executive Yuan Secretary-General Kung Ming-hsin (龔明鑫) on Friday said that Taiwan is optimistic about building a semiconductor cluster in
Embroiled in multiple scandals, Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) Chairman Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) on Thursday announced that he would apply for a three-month leave of absence from his role as party leader, creating uncertainty about the future of the TPP and the “new politics” that he had promised to bring. Shortly after his announcement, Ko’s home and office were searched and he was questioned by prosecutors over his suspected involvement in a corruption case related to a real-estate development project. He was arrested early Saturday morning after he refused to be questioned at night and attempted to leave the prosecutors’ office. In
RSS