|
PEACE PACT POLEMIC:
Premier avoids ‘state-to-state’ question
POLITICAL FALLOUT: Premier Wu Den-yih said that
a peace pact with China would be between Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu, and
the territory ‘outside the free area’
By Shih Hsiu-chuan / Staff Reporter
Members of various
pro-localization groups hold up signs and protest outside the Presidential
Office yesterday against a peace agreement with China suggested by President Ma
Ying-jeou.
Photo: Chu Pei-hsiung, Taipei Times
Premier Wu Den-yih (吳敦義) yesterday
declined to confirm whether the government’s proposed peace agreement with China
would be a “state-to-state” accord.
Instead, Wu said “the concepts employed in such a pact would be derived from the
Guidelines for National Unification [GNU, 國統綱領]” that define “Taiwan, Penghu,
Kinmen and Matsu as the free area” and the territory “outside the free area —
the mainland area.”
Wu made the remarks in response to Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator
Lee Chun-yee (李俊毅) during a question-and-answer session in the legislature.
The guidelines were drafted by the National Unification Council, an agency set
up by then-president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) in 1990, before the two sides of the
Taiwan Strait began landmark talks in the early 1990s. The guidelines were
suspended by then-president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) in 2006.
Based on the “one China” principle, the guidelines stipulate that both Taiwan
and China are territories of “China” and outline a three-phase approach for
unification.
The idea put forward by President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) on Monday that he would
“cautiously consider” signing a peace agreement with China within the next
decade if he is re-elected took center stage in the legislature yesterday.
Lee Chun-yee asked Wu, Ma’s running mate, whether any cross-strait peace pact
would be defined as an accord between two states.
“You have been saying that a peace agreement aims to safeguard the sovereignty
of the Republic of China, but how can you achieve that goal if the relationship
under the pact is not defined as a state-to-state relationship?” Lee Chun-yee
asked.
Wu offered no comment on a “state-to-state relationship,” saying the Ma
administration would “continue to employ the concepts used in the GNU.”
Earlier, when fielding questions from DPP Legislator Yeh Yi-jin (葉宜津), Wu
dismissed concerns over arrangements for talks that could lead to a peace
agreement.
“Issues like a peace agreement should be dealt with by the president. If a peace
agreement is to be signed, would it still be signed by the Straits Exchange
Foundation?” asked Yeh, referring to the private organization set up to handle
unofficial exchanges with its Chinese counterpart, the Association for Relations
Across the Taiwan Straits.
Yeh also asked what the name of the country under which an accord is signed
would be.
“We don’t need to worry about that now because we are not going to sign a peace
agreement with China at this moment,” Wu responded.
The proposal has been labeled as a “pro-unification” plank by the DPP, forcing
Ma to vow on Thursday that a pact would not be signed if it failed to pass a
referendum.
Wu yesterday attempted to reduce the political fallout from the proposal by
saying that Lee Teng-hui and Chen had also made similar suggestions when they
were in office.
Lee Teng-hui had proposed that Taiwan sign a cross-strait peace agreement in
1996 and Chen had presented an idea to sign an agreement with China to build a
stable interaction framework in 2003, Wu told DPP lawmakers.
“President Ma did not propose the peace agreement idea all of a sudden. The idea
was included in his white paper for the 2008 presidential election, passed down
from former president Lee,” Wu said.
Lee Chun-yee said Wu had distorted Chen’s proposal.
“Chen set several prerequisites for the proposal. First, China had to give up
its ‘one China’ stance. Second, China had to renounce the use of force against
Taiwan and repeal its ‘Anti-Secession’ Law. Third, China had to immediately
dismantle its missiles targeting Taiwan,” Lee Chun-yee said.
|
