FIGHTING BACK:：A KMT caucus whip said the DPP was being malicious in casting aspersions on Ma’s idea of holding peace negotiations with China within a decade
By Chris Wang, Mo Yan-chih and Shih Hsiu-chuan / Staff reporters
Wed, Oct 19, 2011 - Page 1
Comments by President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) about negotiations for a possible peace accord with China within a 10-year timeframe could be a catalyst for unification that undermines Taiwan’s future by agreeing to a “one China” principle, the pan-green camp said yesterday.
Ma, who is seeking re-election, said on Monday that his administration would only engage in peace talks with Beijing if it had strong domestic support and if such a pact met the needs of the country.
Any pact would have to be supervised by the legislature, Ma said.
So far, neither Beijing nor Chinese media have reacted to Ma’s suggestions.
However, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and the Taiwan Solidarity Union (TSU), as well as several academics, have condemned his remarks.
It was “dangerous” for a president without credibility to advance such a highly sensitive initiative and risked causing grave social divisions, said DPP Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文), Ma’s main rival in the Jan. 14 presidential election.
His proposal raises serious concerns over the prerequisites for such an accord — the so-called “1992 consensus” and the “one China” principle, as well as the 10-year timetable, she said.
“Trying to deal with this highly controversial issue among Taiwanese in 10 years will make the issue even more controversial and people more anxious, which is bad for social harmony,” she said.
The consensus and legislative monitoring of cross-strait affairs that Ma mentioned in his speech have been non-existent in his administration, making the whole proposal questionable, she said.
Former DPP legislator Lin Cho-shui (林濁水) told a press conference that the timing and rationale for Ma’s proposal were intriguing.
“It has been more than half a century since the two sides went to war,” he said, adding that “almost all peace treaties signed between the late 19th century and World War I were breached.”
The best examples are China’s peace agreement with Tibet and the Paris Peace Accord, signed by North and South Vietnam in 1973, Lin said.
“Then you have Chinese troops invading Tibet and the fall of Saigon,” he said.
Signing a peace accord with an authoritarian regime like China was not meaningful, Lin said, adding that such a move was unnecessary because past peace agreements often included issues of compensation, territory and limitation of armaments, all of which would not apply in this case.
Beijing would probably like the initiative because it could describe negotiations as a “domestic issue” and would see the pact as a vehicle to advance the ‘one China’ principle,” Lin said.
TSU Chairman Huang Kun-huei (黃昆輝) said a cross-strait peace accord could end up being a “gradual unification agreement” and the confirmation of “one China” through an official pact.
A peace accord without the “one China” precondition would effectively be a declaration of Taiwanese independence, Huang said, adding: “Would China agree to that?”
Taiwan announced the cessation of hostilities with China in 1991, when then-president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) terminated the “Period of Mobilization for the Suppression of Communist Rebellion” (動員戡亂時期), Huang said.
Peace in the Taiwan Strait will be secured with a unilateral announcement by Beijing that it would not use force against Taiwan, he said.
Taiwanese have not authorized Ma to launch unification talks with China, DPP spokesperson Liang Wen-jie (梁文傑) said, adding that any attempt to change the “status quo” required the consensus of the whole nation and could not be advanced by one person or political party.
Elaborating on his comments, Ma yesterday said the proposed peace agreement was not equal to political negotiations on unification, adding that it was aimed at maintaining peace across the Strait.
Ma said cross-strait peace was an unavoidable issue. However, the government has no plan to engage in negotiations with China on unification or independence because his “three noes” — no unification, no independence and no use of force — remain the pillars for Taiwan to maintain the “status quo” across the Strait.
“‘No unification’ means we won’t talk about the issue with the mainland [China], but we cannot avoid the issue of peace. Instead, we must face it … We want to systematize the process of cross-strait reconciliation and cooperation, so that we can sustain cross-strait peace,” Ma told a foreign delegation attending a trilateral security dialogue between the US, Japan and Taiwan.
“It could be the time for us to take the first step when the conditions are ripe. We will be extremely cautious [about signing a peace pact], but in the meantime, we are determined to take the steps because peace is a result people across the Taiwan Strait want to see,” he said.
At a different setting, Mainland Affairs Council Minister Lai Shin-yuan (賴幸媛) dismissed the DPP’s interpretation of Ma’s proposal as a step toward unification, and said the government would safeguard the sovereignty of the nation.
“It is absolutely incorrect to describe a peace agreement as a confirmation of a unification timetable. We will safeguard the nation’s sovereignty if we sign a peace agreement with the mainland. How can this be a fawning gesture to the mainland [China]?” she asked.
At the legislature, Premier Wu Den-yih (吳敦義) told Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator Kuo Su-chun (郭素春) that Ma “had not set a timeframe” for a peace agreement with China.
“[Although] the prerequisites have not been met … we cannot rule out the possibility of signing a peace agreement when the time is right to ensure permanent peace across the strait,” Wu said.
The prerequisites Ma set on Monday “would be more likely to safeguard the interests of Taiwan” than what he proposed in 2008 when he said that China must remove missiles before any cross-strait talks on a peace treaty can move forward, Wu said.
“Military experts know that missile [launchers] are mobile. The mainland [China] can deploy [relocate] missiles easily. Dongfeng intercontinental missiles have a maximum range of 8,000km. Wouldn’t we be gullible if we signed a peace treaty just because [China] removes the missiles?” Wu said.
He also dismissed allegations from the DPP that the government had a timeframe for unification, calling them “groundless.”
“We did not say that DPP Chairperson Tsai pursued unification with [China] just because she said [in the US last month] that she would not rule out any possibility for cross-strait relations,” Wu said.
KMT caucus whip Chao Li-yun (趙麗雲) said the party caucus praised Ma’s proposal.
“Ma has responsibly mapped out a realistic and visionary framework for cross-strait interaction for the next decade,” Chao said.
Chao blasted the DPP for using “malicious means” to distort Ma’s statements by claiming he would start talks on unification.
“Now that Tsai has said she will not rule out any possibility, including unification, why can’t Ma? Tsai should explain the difference between her policy and Ma’s. If she doesn’t, then the DPP should stop employing such tactics,” Chao said.