|
Ma in ‘international
legal suicide’
STATE MATTERS: The president’s insistence on the
‘one China’ framework could signal to the international community that Taiwan no
longer needs its protection, analysts said
By Chris Wang / Staff reporter
President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) recent elaborations on the issue of Taiwan’s
statehood, given the complex nature of the legal status of the Republic of China
(ROC), was likely “international legal suicide” and a deception of the people of
Taiwan, academics said in a forum last week.
Ma appears to have been self-conflicting and inconsistent in his interpretation
of the cross-strait framework, Brad Roth, a professor of political science and
law at Wayne State University in Michigan, told a forum organized by Taiwan
Thinktank.
The president said that the relationship between Taiwan and China “is not one
between states, but a special relationship for which the model of recognition
under conventional international law is not applicable,” but sought to promote
his initiative of “mutual non-recognition of sovereignty and mutual non-denial
of authority to govern” under the “one China” framework.
“However, if cross-strait relations are not subject to international law, they
could only be internal affairs of the People’s Republic of China’s [PRC],” Roth
said.
He added that the Taipei government might be recognized either as representing
an undivided China or as representing Taiwan, but there is no third option.
According to Roth, the PRC’s interpretation of “one China” is that Taiwan lacks
any international legal protection, and that threats and use of force across the
Taiwan Strait represents matters “essentially within the domestic jurisdiction.”
While Ma’s policies has relaxed bilateral tensions, his insistence on the “one
China” framework could come at a price — a signal to the international community
that Taiwan is no longer in need of its protection against potential PRC
predation, he said.
“To return to the idea that Taipei is a contestant government of an undivided
China is to commit a kind of international legal suicide,” he said.
Bold moves, such as constitutional reforms that overtly assert Taiwan
independence, are not likely to affect the determinants of Taiwan’s legal
status, Roth said, adding that it would better suit Taiwan to build on
international legal consciousness of its non-subjugation to the PRC.
On Taiwan’s normalization as a state, academics debated on Australian academic
James Crawford’s opinion that Taiwan is not a state because it “still has not
unequivocally assert its separation from China and is not recognized as a state
distinct from China.”
Taiwan New Century Foundation chairman Chen Lung-chu (陳隆志) said he aligned
himself with the declaratory theory on the creation of states and added that
Taiwan could be an exception because it had evolved through the years.
It was what Chen called an evolution theory, which explained how Taiwan had
transformed itself from the Martial Law era to the present as a sovereign and
democratic, yet “abnormal” country.
The people of Taiwan’s collective effort as a nation has been a compelling case
and a strong testimony to the international community, he said, adding that the
bid for UN membership under the name Taiwan in 2007 was a formal declaration of
self-determination, a universal right protected by the UN Charter.
Former deputy foreign minister Michael Kau (高英茂) said there are legal and
political aspects to Taiwan’s status and statehood, but he felt that eventually
political intervention would be needed to settle the matter, citing the cases of
Bosnia, Kosovo and East Timor.
Taiwan’s independence or its normalization as a country is pure political
aspiration, which has presented a dilemma while Taiwan has been very careful
about not crossing China’s “red line,” Kau said.
The irony is that China is so powerful that the international community might be
hesitant to offer Taiwan any support, he said.
|
