Liu Jincai: The Peace Agreement on both sides of the strait is trapped in Taiwan passive

Liu Jincai

The annual cross -strait relations seminar on the annual cross -strait relations and "Three Society of Three Society Andrdquo;, in late July, it was just ended in Qingdao, Shandong, China.The main theme of the relationship is the main theme of the CCP's decision makers to adhere to the policy of the National Taiwan University.

Zhou Zhihuai, a heavyweight scholar -related scholar -related scholar, proposed that a shocking bomb was signed by the cross -strait signing on the cross -strait.

This statement was renewed with former Taiwan President Ma Ying -jeou in 2011.It was also proposed that the signing of peace agreements on both sides of the strait was quite similar in ten years. However, at that time, due to the constraints of the United States, Malaysia proposed that Andrdquo; and "Ten Principles Andrdquo; in addition to the consent of citizens' voting consent and died.

In the order of time and logic, as Zhou Zhiwu said and and "peace protocol timetable andrdquo; and Andrdquo; the former is an important part and specific steps for the latter.The process is to promote the integration of peaceful development.

In uniqueness, in early October 2017, mainland scholar Deng Yingwen once said that the mainland developed and developed by the DPP authorities in cross -strait relations. "The peace agreement Andrdquo; forcing the Taiwan authorities to make politics, which shows that the mainland has a sense of time urgency for the peace and reunification of cross -strait sides of the strait.

From 2017, mainland scholars throwing up the mainland will sign a cross -strait signing of peace agreements in 2019. In 2018, land scholars will refer to the peaceful agreement schedule within ten years.The signing of the peace agreement is a cup of Andrdquo; the warm model shouted on the two sides of the Taiwan Strait family, pursuing the spiritual fit and the establishment of a community of destiny to realize the unity of national rejuvenation and the country.

When the DPP authorities refuse to accept a peace agreement on the premise of unity, the most serious political consequences are probably to face cross -strait relations in non -peaceful methods mentioned in the "anti -division national law".

First of all, the political basis for signing a peace agreement on both sides of the strait is And "1992 Consensus Andrdquo;. If we compare the arguments of these two famous scholars, the current period of Tsai Ing -wen's ruling may not have a political basis for signing the peace agreement on both sides.During the ruling period, the cross -strait signing of peace agreements was proposed. Although public opinion support was greater than opposition, Ma Ying -jeou finally proposed three prerequisites such as national needs, public opinion support, and Congress supervision, and even proposed citizen voting decisions.

However, under the restrictions of the Bird Cage referendum, the signing of a peace agreement on both sides of the strait is actually difficult to pass.Under Tsai Ing -wen's governance, the cross -strait authorities no longer have Andrdquo; the political foundation of "1992 consensus andrdquo; the alien sea base, the two sessions of the Straits, and the heads of the MAC and the Taiwan Affairs Office of the State Council.Bing and Luke's Lu Sheng decreased, and the signing of peace agreements in political reality is almost impossible.

In particular, at the end of 2017, a referendum law with a three -low threshold of proposal, joint signing, and consent, and the referendum theory of disputes, the change of territorial resolution and the cross -strait political agreement, has not been included in the new "referendum law" review project.

Secondly, cross -strait peace agreements and "anti -division national laws" are on the inside.If the mainland proposes to sign a peace agreement, it will inevitably be based on the premise of unification; even if the DPP is willing to accept the peace agreement, it will never take the premise of unification.

The mainland can use this to test the bottom line of the Democratic Progressive Party authorities on the nature of cross -strait relations.The excuse of "anti -split national law" to solve the Taiwan issue will be more legitimacy.

If the DPP authorities do not accept the unified cross -strait peace agreement, the mainland can only sacrifice the "anti -split national law" in the mainland, and adopt the state of the mainland state for compulsory and legal violence to solve the state of peaceful separation and division of cross -strait.This is the shift from the peace agreement to resort to the "anti -split national law", and toasting will become a penalty.

Finally, the peace agreement has both soft and hard measures. The support after soft measures is the hard "anti -division national law".From the perspective of land, this represents the unification -oriented and unified prerequisite. In the future, the Taiwan authorities are under more and more pressure on promoting unity and unilateralist one -sided behavior.

After the 19th National Congress of the Communist Party of China, the Taiwan policy showed Andrdquo; in terms of hard strategies, from opposition to Taiwan independence, curbing and frustrating Taiwan independence in terms of hard strategies, and proposed anti -independence from Andrdquo from Andrdquo; To Andrdquo; from Andrdquo; to Andrdquo; and "the principles of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle of the middle," and the "92 consensus andrdquo; the" one middle principle Andrdquo;

In terms of soft strategies, it is to strengthen cross -strait economic and social and cultural exchanges and cooperation, and give the people in Taiwan who live, school, employment, and entrepreneurship to the people of Taiwan.

The most controversial and criticism of the "Anti -split State Law" is that under the premise of Article 8, the mainland may adopt the "non -peaceful method and other necessary measures to defend national sovereignty and territorial integrity Andrdquo;.The facts of the split from China from China, the major incident that caused Taiwan to split out, and the possibility of peace and unity are completely lost.

Because and because the possibility of "peace and reunification is completely losing Andrdquo; there is a vague legal concept and the difference between the cognition of leaders, which gives the mainland a very large flexible interpretation and administrative tailoring space.

The Taiwan authorities must think carefully. Once the mainland is thrown out to sign a peace agreement, how should the Taiwan authorities respond to the dual dilemma of acceptance and rejection.If the peace agreement that implies unified unity is accepted, the DPP will lose traditional supporters; if refusal, it may face obvious and immediately national security risks.The theory of the two famous academic circles in mainland China seems to be born, but it is a foresteps to increase the pressure on the Tsai Ing -wen authorities.

The land side took the initiative to propose a cross -strait peace agreement to terminate the hostile state and move towards the political integration through cross -strait integration. In fact, the initiative is in the mainland instead of in Taiwan.This kind of active offensive is trapped in Taiwan passive. The contradiction in Taiwan is that they want to refuse to return. They hope to obtain peace bones, but they are afraid of locking into a unified cage.By testing the Democratic Progressive Party authorities, whether it accepts Andrdquo;

Once unwilling to accept, this peace agreement may be a copy of Andrdquo; Andrdquo; AND "Sad Midun Book Andrdquo;

The author is an assistant professor at the Department of Public Affairs of Taiwan Foguang University

The Taiwan authorities must think carefully. Once the mainland is thrown out to sign a peace agreement, how should the Taiwan authorities respond to the dual dilemma of acceptance and rejection.If the peace agreement that implies unified unity is accepted, the DPP will lose traditional supporters; if refusal, it may face obvious and immediately national security risks.