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
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS