|
No need for Taiwan-China peace pact,
expert says
By Ko Shu-ling
Staff Reporter
Tuesday, May 18, 2010, Page 1
Taiwan and China need not sign a peace treaty because the Chinese civil war was
a matter between the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Chinese Communist
Party (CCP), a China expert said yesterday, adding that signing a pact could
spur Beiing to launch a war should Taiwan refuse to toe the line.
Ruan Ming (阮銘), a Chinese political analyst and a consultant at the Taiwan
Research Institute, told a forum that he was against Taiwan inking a peace
accord with China because the civil war involving two parties had nothing to do
with Taiwan.
“It is not an issue that the Taiwanese and Chinese should end the civil war and
cease the state of hostility,” he said. “If the two sides want to sign any peace
treaty, it should be between the KMT and the CCP.”
Once a peace accord is signed, China could wage an “anti-Taiwan independence”
war any time should Taiwanese refuse to be annexed by China, Ruan said.
Ruan made the remarks during a forum organized by Taiwan Advocates, founded by
former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝), to review the impact of President Ma Ying-jeou’s
(馬英九) “one China” policy on Taiwan’s national security in the run-up to the
second anniversary of Ma’s inauguration on Thursday.
Ruan said Taiwan and China could develop economic and cultural relationships on
the basis of equality and mutual benefits, but there would never be mutual trust
or a win-win situation for both sides because they have very different core
values and strategies.
Calling the economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA) the Ma
administration seeks to sign with Beijing an “erroneous economic strategy,” Ruan
said Ma had made a grave mistake in his political strategy.
“The ECFA is an economic framework for the ‘one-China market,’ while the ‘peace
agreement’ is a political framework for the advancement of unification and
opposition to Taiwan independence,” Ruan said. “In other words, the peace treaty
will be a critical step toward the realization of China's ‘Anti-secession’ Law.”
Ruan said what Taiwan needed right now was to have its own constitution, not to
seek Taiwan independence because it is already an independent sovereignty.
“Self-recognition outweighs international recognition,” he said. “It is a fact
that the international community calls Taiwan ‘Taiwan,’ but nobody knows where
the Republic of China is,” Ruan said.
Vincent Chen (陳文賢), a history professor at National Chengchi University, said
Ma's “one-China” policy had gradually eroded Taiwan's sovereignty.
“The Republic of China government and the People’s Republic of China government
both claim ownership over Taiwan, but a majority of the 23 million Taiwanese
agree that sovereignty resides in them and they have the final say on Taiwan's
future,” Chen said. “It is worrying to see Taiwan's sovereignty eaten away as
President Ma accepts [the] ‘one China’ [policy] even though he insists that both
sides have their own interpretation of what ‘one China’ means.”
Chen also criticized Ma’s pledge of “no unification, no independence and no use
of force” as empty and “lip service” aimed at courting moderate voters.
He said Ma made those pledges because he knew unification was not popular in
Taiwan.
However, unification remains the KMT's ultimate goal, he said.
Neither can Ma speak for pro-independence activists, he said.
As for Ma’s pledge not to use force, only Beijing could call the shots, he said.
Former representative to Japan Koh Se-kai (許世楷) urged the public to reject KMT
candidates at the ballot box if they want a better future.
|
