It was bizarre to hear government officials and Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators criticize draft bills aimed at monitoring cross-strait negotiations that would penalize officials whose conduct during cross-strait talks damaged national sovereignty or territorial integrity — after all, the ultimate purpose of cross-strait negotiations is to defend the national interest.
On Friday, three bills aimed at supervising cross-strait talks and agreements were submitted by Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislators Yu Mei-nu (尤美女) and Lee Chun-yi (李俊俋) and the New Power Party (NPP) to the Internal Administration Committee for further review.
However, Yu and the NPP’s proposals immediately drew fire from government officials and KMT lawmakers for provisions that would see punishment imposed on officials who violate the nation’s sovereignty.
Premier Simon Chang (張善政) said the proposal would treat officials involved in cross-strait negotiations as suspects in a criminal investigation, while Mainland Affairs Council Minister Andrew Hsiao (夏立言) said that negotiations should be based on give-and-take, and if negotiators can be penalized for conceding too much, no one would dare to sit at the table.
Why is it so wrong to insist that negotiators defend national sovereignty and territorial integrity during international — or cross-strait — talks?
All negotiations are about the art of give-and-take, but no one would consider it reasonable for a nation to give up its sovereignty or territory in exchange for what are mostly commercial and trade interests.
The fifth negotiation on fisheries between Taiwan and Japan ended on Friday, and one of the issues under discussion was whether Taiwanese fishing vessels would be allowed to operate in waters around the Diaoyutai Islands (釣魚台), as the islands are under the de facto control of Japan, but both countries claim sovereignty over them.
The two nations worked out a practical agreement to put the sovereignty issue aside and allow fishing vessels from both countries to enter the area.
If Japan had insisted on its sovereignty over the islands as a precondition for allowing Taiwanese fishing vessels into the area, would Taiwanese negotiators have considered it reasonable to concede?
It is unlikely.
In fact, holding negotiators responsible for damaging national sovereignty or territory is nothing new, as Article 104 of the Criminal Code states: “Any person colluding with a foreign state or its agent with intent to subject territory of the Republic of China to such state or other state shall be sentenced to death or life imprisonment.”
Do the premier or the Mainland Affairs Council minister also believe that the Criminal Code treats negotiators like suspects and worry that no one would dare to sit at the negotiating table because of it?
If it is not a problem for the Criminal Code to regulate people taking part in international negotiations, why would it be a problem to impose the same legal responsibility on negotiators in cross-strait talks, especially when China is so far the only nation that has repeatedly and openly expressed its territorial ambitions toward Taiwan — or the Republic of China if the government prefers this name?
Certainly, details, such as what constitutes damage to national sovereignty and territorial integrity, could be further discussed and better defined, but it is frightening to know that government officials think it is unnecessary to hold negotiators in cross-strait talks responsible for sovereignty and territorial integrity.
It is even scarier to hear officials say that their hands would be tied with such regulations, since negotiations are about give-and-take.
One might begin to wonder what they are prepared to give away when negotiating with China.
Jan. 1 marks a decade since China repealed its one-child policy. Just 10 days before, Peng Peiyun (彭珮雲), who long oversaw the often-brutal enforcement of China’s family-planning rules, died at the age of 96, having never been held accountable for her actions. Obituaries praised Peng for being “reform-minded,” even though, in practice, she only perpetuated an utterly inhumane policy, whose consequences have barely begun to materialize. It was Vice Premier Chen Muhua (陳慕華) who first proposed the one-child policy in 1979, with the endorsement of China’s then-top leaders, Chen Yun (陳雲) and Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平), as a means of avoiding the
The last foreign delegation Nicolas Maduro met before he went to bed Friday night (January 2) was led by China’s top Latin America diplomat. “I had a pleasant meeting with Qiu Xiaoqi (邱小琪), Special Envoy of President Xi Jinping (習近平),” Venezuela’s soon-to-be ex-president tweeted on Telegram, “and we reaffirmed our commitment to the strategic relationship that is progressing and strengthening in various areas for building a multipolar world of development and peace.” Judging by how minutely the Central Intelligence Agency was monitoring Maduro’s every move on Friday, President Trump himself was certainly aware of Maduro’s felicitations to his Chinese guest. Just
A recent piece of international news has drawn surprisingly little attention, yet it deserves far closer scrutiny. German industrial heavyweight Siemens Mobility has reportedly outmaneuvered long-entrenched Chinese competitors in Southeast Asian infrastructure to secure a strategic partnership with Vietnam’s largest private conglomerate, Vingroup. The agreement positions Siemens to participate in the construction of a high-speed rail link between Hanoi and Ha Long Bay. German media were blunt in their assessment: This was not merely a commercial win, but has symbolic significance in “reshaping geopolitical influence.” At first glance, this might look like a routine outcome of corporate bidding. However, placed in
China often describes itself as the natural leader of the global south: a power that respects sovereignty, rejects coercion and offers developing countries an alternative to Western pressure. For years, Venezuela was held up — implicitly and sometimes explicitly — as proof that this model worked. Today, Venezuela is exposing the limits of that claim. Beijing’s response to the latest crisis in Venezuela has been striking not only for its content, but for its tone. Chinese officials have abandoned their usual restrained diplomatic phrasing and adopted language that is unusually direct by Beijing’s standards. The Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs described the
RSS