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
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
RSS