In an interview of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) with the Chinese-language newspaper the Liberty Times (the Taipei Times’ sister publication), Ma appears concerned over accusations that he is selling out Taiwan, and repeatedly denies that any of the pacts with China are harmful to Taiwan’s sovereignty.
The more harmful parts of the cross-strait agreements erode Taiwan’s national sovereignty, while the less harmful parts destroy the interests of the Taiwanese public at large. This is true of all these agreements.
For example, in violation of international practice, talks about direct cross-strait flights have not included fifth freedom rights — the right to operate connecting flights — thus designating such flights as domestic. According to international treaties such as the Convention on International Civil Aviation and the Convention on the High Seas, aircraft and ships have nationalities and should be treated as an extension of national territory. They must fly their national flag. But do aircraft and ships traveling across the Taiwan Strait currently fly their national flag? And worse, the Ma administration is cooperating with China in treating Taiwan as a local government by banning foreign aircraft and ships from operating cross-strait services. These measures are all aimed at defining cross-strait air and shipping lanes as domestic. I want to ask Ma if this harms our national sovereignty, and if this is evidence that all criticism of the government for selling out Taiwan is “empty.”
Furthermore, when it comes to the issue of submitting cross-strait agreements to the legislature for review, Ma goes even further in distorting facts when he says that “according to the Rules Governing the Processing of Treaties and Agreements (條約及協定處理準則), the Cabinet only has to submit [such agreements] that it has passed to the legislature for its reference.”
In reality, Article 7 of these rules states that, “The competent authorities shall consult with related committees of the Legislative Yuan on general guidelines and principles before reaching an agreement on the text of a treaty.”
Article 3 of these rules also clearly defines “treaties” as “international written agreements ... the contents of which directly involve issues of national interest and are legally binding; and the contents of which directly involve people’s rights and obligations, and are legally binding” while defining “agreements” as “international written agreements other than treaties ... whatever their particular designations or how they are formulated.”
To date, Taiwan and China have signed 12 agreements, none of which has been submitted for legislative review. Could it really be that these agreements are not issues of national interest, that they are not legally binding, and that they do not directly involve people’s rights and obligations? Not only have they not been submitted for legislative review, Ma also clearly violates rules by not consulting the relevant legislative committees. Despite talking so much nonsense, he still dares quote the rules. Has he not read them, or is he simply lying to our faces?
A final point: Ma says that, “signing an [economic cooperation framework agreement] ECFA with China … is a necessary condition [for signing free trade agreements with other countries].”
This is simply nonsense. Ma should provide evidence of which countries won’t sign a free trade agreement with Taiwan simply because we do not have an ECFA with China. What countries set such conditions? When the nation’s president makes such baseless and illogical statements, it is not so strange that the public would lose confidence in him.
Huang Kun-huei is chairman of the Taiwan Solidarity Union.
TRANSLATED BY PERRY SVENSSON
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