|
In search of real
peace with China
By Chiang Huang-chih 姜皇池
Recently, some Taiwanese have said they oppose signing a peace accord with China
because they believe an “accord” is based on the premise that there is “one
China” and that to do so would therefore undermine Taiwan’s sovereign status.
President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) has said that the issue of cross-strait peace is
unavoidable and other government officials have followed his lead in pointing
out that when in office former presidents Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) and Chen Shui-bian
(陳水扁) proposed signing a “peace agreement” with China or establishing a
framework for cross-strait peace and stability.
Ma said he hoped people would not vilify the idea, which at its core seeks to
guarantee the future peace and prosperity of Taiwanese, by insisting it is
intended as a covert way of selling out Taiwan and seeking unification with
China. Ma was also critical of Democratic Progressive Party Chairperson Tsai
Ing-wen (蔡英文), asking why when she discusses agreements with China it fails to
ruffle feathers, but it is perceived as dangerous when he talks about the same
things.
I agree when the president says we must face up to this issue and that
cross-strait peace cannot be pursued on the basis of double standards.
Regardless of their party affiliation, any national leader should be evaluated
based on the same set of standards. National Security Bureau (NSB) Director Tsai
Der-sheng (蔡得勝) put it well when he said that the government has been discussing
a cross-strait peace accord since 2008. Clearly then it should be apparent to
these officials that calling a document a peace accord might not seem
particularly different, but it comes with international legal ramification that
most certainly are different.
The problem derives from the fact that in international legal practice, a “peace
accord” is generally used to end a “civil war” while a “peace agreement” is used
to end armed conflict between two nations. A peace “framework” on the other hand
is a more neutral term and essentially has no pre-conditions, and can be used to
end a civil war or regulate conflicts of an “international” nature. The nature
of such a framework depends on the status of the signatories and the content of
what is agreed. While they may only differ by one word, documents signed as
“accords” “agreements” or “frameworks” are very different things in practice.
While the government insists it will do everything in its power to protect the
“sovereignty of the Republic of China [ROC]”, it has still failed to quell the
doubts and fears of Taiwanese. That is because the ROC Chinese Nationalist Party
(KMT) leaders refer to is “the ROC that has existed ever since 1912,” and in an
international sense that still means “China.”
It thus seems that the sovereignty they want to protect is still “Chinese
sovereignty” and a peace accord of that nature would end up being explained as a
document used to stop a “Chinese civil war.” Such a setup would constitute an
attempt to diminish Taiwan’s status as it currently exists.
In others words, it would involve taking something that has an international
nature and transforming it into part of a Chinese “civil war.” This is in turn
part of a broader effort to “internalize” cross-strait problems.
Taiwanese national identity is a very unique phenomenon: some hold that only the
ROC can represent the nation, while others believe that Taiwan is a nation in
its own right. Of course, others say that the ROC is Taiwan and that the Taiwan
is the ROC and that in any case, these are all “nations.” Such ideas can seem
somewhat confused and strange.
However, they are able to coexist with and therefore need to be allowed room for
flexibility and explanation.
Unfortunately, Ma keeps on saying things like “the Republic of China is our
country and Taiwan is our home,” while pointedly avoiding ever saying “Taiwan is
our country.” The logical extension of this is for KMT leaders to say that the
ROC is “the ROC that has existed ever since 1912” and then to sign documents
containing words like “peace” or “accord” to create an illusion of peace, while
utilizing these “accords” to clarify and follow the “one China” principle.
To “admit” current problems with cross-strait relations are a mere extension of
a “civil war” and refuse international assistance all in exchange for a piece of
paper from China promising peace is really not really a very sensible thing to
do.
At this point in time, I hope something can be done before it is too late. I
would like to urge government leaders to propose the signing of a “peace
agreement” or search for a “framework” for peaceful interaction that would
maintain the “status quo” and do their utmost to leave enough room for each
party involved to explain its point of view.
Chiang Huang-chih is a professor of law at National Taiwan University.
TRANSLATED BY DREW CAMERON
|
