|
‘One China’
undermines the nation’s legitimacy
By Wu Ching-chin 吳景欽
Two years ago, 14 Taiwanese were arrested in the Philippines in connection with
a fraud investigation and were sent to China to stand trial.
This move by the Philippine government caused widespread anger in Taiwan and the
government vigorously protested against the actions of its Philippine
counterpart, demanding that China return the suspects to Taiwan.
There were a number of flaws in the government’s reasoning when it lodged its
protest with the Philippine government.
The alleged crimes were committed on Philippine soil and, although Taiwan could
request that the perpetrators be sent back to Taiwan, such a move would have
required a transfer of jurisdiction and this would have involved sovereignty
issues.
An extradition treaty would have been needed to return the suspects and as the
Philippines adheres to the “one China” principle, it only has an extradition
treaty with China, and cannot have another one with Taiwan.
President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration has consistently maintained the
notion of “one China, with each side having its own interpretation” in its
dealings with Beijing.
In 2009 Taiwan signed a cross-strait crime-fighting and judicial mutual
assistance agreement that was regarded as an inter-regional, as opposed to an
international, agreement.
In light of this agreement, Taiwan’s status was effectively downgraded to parity
with that of Hong Kong and Macau, which was tantamount to relinquishing
sovereignty.
Therefore, it was reasonable for the Philippines to send the suspects to China.
In addition, after signing the mutual assistance agreement, the request for the
prisoners to be sent to Taiwan further showed that we had fallen foul of
Beijing’s machinations to turn us into one of its regions.
Since then, the government of Taiwan has pursued negotiations with the
Philippines on a law enforcement and judicial mutual assistance agreement. A
deal was inked on April 19, which apparently addresses the problems caused by
the extradition spat two years ago.
Nevertheless, this agreement was signed on the understanding that it did not in
any way broach sovereignty.
As such, questions can be raised about just how effective such an agreement can
be, especially considering that legal jurisdiction is, in itself, a mark of
sovereignty. It is difficult to see how secondary issues, such as judicial
mutual assistance, can be discussed when one has dropped the ball on
sovereignty.
Taiwanese are sure to get hot under the collar the next time Taiwanese
investigators go to the Philippines as part of this law enforcement and judicial
mutual assistance agreement and find themselves snubbed by Philippine
authorities.
It is not surprising that the Philippine government might take this attitude. As
the Philippines does not recognize Taiwan as a national entity, the agreement is
not worth the paper it is written on.
This sorry state of affairs brings into cruel focus the tragedy of our leaders’
implicit acceptance of the “one China” principle over the past few years.
Wu Ching-chin is an associate professor of law at Aletheia University.
Translated by Paul Cooper
|
