Taiwanese are happy to keep the status quo indefinitely. If China’s leaders can accept that, they might find a solution that keeps everyone happy.
FRSU7KAQZ56G
Last month, Taiwanese President Ma Ying-Jeou raised the possibility of signing a peace agreement with mainland China sometime within the next decade. Beijing responded positively to the idea.
“Ending the state of hostility between the two sides and reaching a peace agreement accords with the overall interests of the Chinese nation and is the common wish of compatriots on both sides of the Strait,” Yang Yi, spokesman for China’s Taiwan Affairs Office, told reporters. “This is a position we have upheld for many years and is the natural outcome of the peaceful development of cross-Strait relations.”
However, as the opposition Democratic Progressive Party in Taiwan was quick to point out, the key issue remains that of sovereignty. Will Taiwan have to acknowledge that it is part of the People’s Republic of China, or can a peace agreement sidestep this question?
Beijing has long mooted the possibility of a peace agreement, but it’s unclear whether such an accord has to be part of a deal on reunification. China’s policy toward Taiwan has been evolving since 1979, when it made its first overture to the island in a ‘Message to Compatriots in Taiwan,’ issued on New Year’s Day – the day the United States formally broke off diplomatic relations with the government of the Republic of China in Taiwan and established ties with People’s Republic in Beijing. At the time, Taiwan had already been expelled from the United Nations and its future looked bleak.
The ‘Message’ didn’t mention a peace agreement. Indeed, its entire emphasis was on the need for reunification at an early date, and Taiwan’s then leader, President Chiang Ching-Kuo, rejected talks with the communists under his policy of ‘Three No’s’: no contact, no negotiation, and no compromise.
But China wouldn’t take no for an answer. In 1981, it elaborated on its policy with a statement issued in the name of Ye Jianying, Chairman of the National People’s Congress. For the first time, China mentioned the idea of turning Taiwan into a “special administrative region” similar to Macau or – since 1997* – Hong Kong, with a high degree of autonomy, retaining even its own armed forces. “The central government will not interfere with local affairs on Taiwan,” it promised.
In 1984, Deng Xiaoping used the term ‘one country, two systems’ for the first time, saying that after reunification the mainland would practice socialism, while Taiwan could maintain capitalism. Again, Taiwan was unresponsive.
On October 12, 1992, Communist Party General Secretary Jiang Zemin called for talks with the Kuomintang (KMT) government of Taiwan “on officially ending the state of hostility between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait and gradually realizing peaceful reunification.” This suggested two separate phases: ending the state of hostility followed at some point by peaceful reunification. Nonetheless, the two were clearly closely linked.
In January 1995, Jiang expanded on his ideas. He proposed that, first, “negotiations should be held and an agreement reached on officially ending the state of hostility between the two sides.” After that, he said, the two sides could “map out plans for the future development of their relations.” Reunification, it seems, while the eventual goal, wasn’t perceived as the automatic result of a peace accord.
In 2005, days before the enactment of the Anti-Secession Law, in which China openly contemplated using military force if the ‘Taiwanese independence movement’ was successful, President Hu Jintao softened the mainland’s position by announcing that acceptance of the “1992 consensus” rather than strict adherence to a policy of “one China” would be sufficient for resumption of cross-strait talks. The “consensus” he was alluding to was the outcome of informal cross-strait talks in Hong Kong, where both sides supported ‘”China” but differed over what this meant. Because of the one China term’s ambiguity, it’s acceptable to more people in Taiwan than on the mainland.
Hu also outlined issues to be discussed after ending hostilities, including the establishment of mutual military trust, Taiwan’s need for international space, the political status of the Taiwanese authorities and the framework for peaceful and stable development of cross-straits relations. He further appeared to confirm that a peace accord was but one step in a process that could be quite prolonged, during which Taiwan would continue to be separate from China.
Photo Credit: Ed Kwon
View as Single Page
Reddit
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Technorati
Yahoo
Google
Plurk
A K SAXENA (A retired civil servant)
A peace treaty between the belligerant China and Taiwan,would be meaningless,considering China’s age old history of total mistrust by its neighbour and an insatiable appetite for territorial aggrandizement.
A K SAXENA (A retired civil servant)
aksaxena@nic.in
will6cx
This is why Taiwan deserves f16…
Leonard r.
The US should have a generous permanent resident visa policy for Taiwanese who fear living under Chinese rule. And there are good reasons for some of them to fear that prospect.
It would be immoral for the US to pretend it had nothing to do with this problem.
John Chan learn the facts
The name says it all.
John Chan you suck
@john chan. You’re always on here with the party line rhetoric. It’s tiring. Really old. I think you’re a paid blogger. Making your 50 cents per post. Nobody wnats to hear your nationalistic (read racist) ideas anymore. Enough…
lungshashou
@a_canadian_observer
Its interesting how they always do that isn’t it?
Whereas I might no like what you say bu respect your right to say it, their cast of mind seems usually to be to become abusive and attack people.
Their ideas rarely survive scrutiny, reasons or even their own so called values.
The real beauty of it is that when called on it they simply exude this wounded righteousnessm with even more vitriolic comments.
My favourite is the “I pronounce it” (or the party pronounced it) so its the truth. Try this on A Chinese Admiral in the 15th Century dsicovered Canada -it Chinese sovereign territory and thats that.
Anyone who criticises China is racist (gosh ‘d better look in the mirror – I have almod eyes – am I racist – I must be I criticsed China)
Criticisng China makes you a “anti-China cliques” – Well I guess it would if you are always supporting a regime that brooks NO criticsm. I criticse the US and Australia a hell of a lot, even in these pages – does that make me an anti Western Clique – No thats only if you criticse China.
Criticising is China unfair – is it ever fair. Not to them. I can criticse my country and the US and Cnanada – Is that unfair NO! Its only unfair if you criticise China – THat can never be OK, China has bno faults, they are the Celestial Middle Kingdom and Centre of the World -Other nations must Kow Tow and bow down (don’t worry John Chan the Chinese are masterful operators and the Wet is asleep to the threat China poses)
Any criticsm of China is “smearing it” according to these nationalist mouthpiece who cannot even consider the welfare of their own people – it seems not to matter to them.
Note the arrogance in the comment about civilisation (the belief in the superiority of Chinese civilisation runs very very deep)
Unfortunately our goverments have no answer to China, I wish they were half has clever and a third as ruthless.
Wan’t to hear a joke . . .
Article 35. Citizens of the People’s Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession and of demonstration.
Know what happens if a labourer in China complains about conditions?
If someone prints Bibles for distribution?
Has a second child and is discovered at 7 months gestation?
On and because the US has a debauched democracy all this is OK.
yang zi
you and canadian-observer makes a perfect mumble jumble echo loop.
a_canadian_observer
@yangzi: I challenge you to counter his argument/statements.
Robin
As much as I would like to join the feverous substative discussion, I would like to point out a tiny mistake. The Sovreingty Handover for Macao was in 1999, and Hong Kong’s was in 1997, not in 1999 as the article states: “similar to Macau or – since 1999 – Hong Kong.”
Andao
I think it’s past the point where Taiwan could defend against a mainland invasion with any success. It’s not really worthwhile to look at who has better guns or fighter jets because if it’s not in the mainland’s favor, it will be very soon.
But why are the Taiwanese always missing from the equation? Would mainland soldiers be OK killing their alleged “brothers and sisters” across the strait? Once the killing begins, which Taiwanese civilians are going to want to cooperate with the new regime? Is Beijing (or at least pro-PRC writers) expecting a group of Wang Jingwei’s to sprout up in Taiwan to support the occupiers? An incredibly small portion of Taiwanese would have any good feelings towards the mainland if they invaded. China would essentially be taking on an enormous amount of economic and diplomatic liabilities in a region that would likely experience severe guerrilla resistance.
Not to mention the PRC would face total diplomatic isolation indefinitely after such an act. The status quo is working well for everyone, both China and Taiwan have gotten wealthier and have lifted many of their own people out of poverty. In the absence of Taiwanese military aggression, there is really no compelling reason (other than frothing-by-the-mouth nationalism) why PRC would need to or want to attack Taiwan.
John Chan
@Andao,
All nations, oh well almost, in the world said Taiwan is an integral part of China, and no nation has diplomatic relationship with Taiwan, why would an internal squabbling in China would cause total diplomatic isolation against China? Do you think you should think before pumping out toxic fabrication to put a wedge between people of Taiwan and China? And do you agree such behaviour is rather wicked? I guarantee you no nation would raise a finger when China rein in Taiwan.