In his report to the 17th Chinese Communist Party (CCP) National Congress, Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) showed a willingness to negotiate a formal end to the state of hostility and sign a peace agreement between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait based on the "one China" principle.
In an attempt to take the credit for this, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the People First Party (PFP) treated the proposal as the most valuable of treasures, saying it was exactly the consensus they had reached with the CCP. Some international media outlets also interpreted this as Hu holding out an olive branch to Taiwan.
However, the reason for cross-strait tension is not the lack of a peace agreement but that China is unwilling to give up the use of force as an option.
The proposal is also grounded in China's "Anti-Secession" Law. By accepting a faux peace agreement, Taiwan would endorse the "Anti-Secession" Law, which may affect its ability to maneuver in the international sphere.
The source of tension is not Taiwan and China's refusal to recognize each other.
Rather, it is China's insistence on maintaining a threat of force and its rapidly increasing military pressure.
Thus, the key to resolving cross-strait tension revolves around the question of China's willingness to give up the military option.
Since Taiwan has no intention to invade China, a cross-strait peace would be available if Beijing were to declare that it would not use force.
The question of whether the two sides can coexist peacefully is therefore not directly the function of a peace agreement.
Hu's proposal is based on the recognition that China is still in a state of civil war between the KMT and the CCP, mirrored in the definition of the cross-strait situation described in the "Anti-Secession" Law.
Accepting the need for a peace agreement also means accepting that China is still in a state of civil war. It also implies an endorsement of the cross-strait status quo as defined in the "Anti-Secession" Law.
The KMT and PFP's almost adulatory reaction to the proposal is either a display of ignorance of the proposal's legal standing or confirmation that they recognize the "Anti-Secession" Law.
Because any peace agreement would be based on this law, any acknowledgment that there is a need for such a peace agreement would have Taiwan fall into the law's trap.
What is a peace agreement that endorses this law, if not an agreement to surrender?
Nothing else is needed to resolve cross-strait tension. The key lies in the willingness to give up military threats. The so-called peace agreement is a non-issue.
Hu's proposal is therefore an extension of the "Anti-Secession" Law and makes the "one China" principle a precondition for any progress, hence this is a "non-peace agreement" that tries to rationalize China's agenda.
The KMT and the PFP's joy at this potential agreement raises strong suspicions that a pan-blue-camp victory in next year's elections would lead to a corresponding domestic law.
Lai I-chung is deputy director of the Democratic Progressive Party's Department of International Affairs. Translated by Eddy Chang
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