In my view, because it assumes that both parties are starting from previously agreed starting point and that some future negotiations are just a resumption of those previous talks.
However, the Anti-Succession Law and the +900 missles implies that “mutual viewpoint” in which those previous negotiations took place has changed. In effect the game board has been reset and a new paradigm has to be defined in order to frame the scope of the negotiations.
e.g.
America to Japan: surrender now.
Japan to America: no.
< cue H-Bomb - initiate paradigm shift >
America to Japan: surrender now.
Japan to America: yes.
This…
does not even imply there was an agreement to disagree.
In my view, Ma’s angle should be something along the lines of, “when KMT returns to power, a lot will have change both in Taiwan and around the world. We will need to reflect on those changes and redefine who we are. Only then will we be able to resume a dialog with China to ensure a mutually beneficial outcome”.
But, luckily the KMT are idiots and cannot write a speach to save an elections, opps did I mention 2000?, opps did I mention 2004? haha.
Sorry, MYJ is only talking about the peace accord because it’s the only thing he can grab. What about he saying what will be the cost to Taiwan of accepting the Peace Treaty? Will the PRC still go on and let Taiwan be like it is? I doubt so much…
So? Do you think that Taiwan will suddenly rename from ROC for Taiwan SAR? If that is the price for the peace treaty, will you accept it?
Thats a funny thing for you to now say as just the other day in another thread you were saying that the Taiwanese were not Chinese… please make up your mind.
Do you know what’s really unique about what happened in 1992, regardless of what we call it? Wang and Koo, both duly constituted and appointed by the respective governments in Beijing and Taipei, met to discuss the future of cross-strait affairs. There has been no subsequent meeting since.
So, whatever you want to call that, the willingness for both governments to meet under terms to the 1992 meeting is what Ma is seeing to resurrect.
[quote]
However, the Anti-Succession Law and the +900 missles implies that “mutual viewpoint” in which those previous negotiations took place has changed.[/quote]
Why? Before 1992, the last time Beijing and Taipei had interacted was by the firing of artillery. How is 2007, and the professed willingness to wage war, different from the active state of war that existed in 1992?
Thats a funny thing for you to now say as just the other day in another thread you were saying that the Taiwanese were not Chinese… please make up your mind.[/quote]
I believe funny is the operating word. I wil make up my mind once TI leaders make up their mind. Till then I will just follow their lead, like a leaf in the wind…at their expense of course.
" The question was what concession would be required from Taiwan?
I don’t think it’ll be anything quite as drastic as what ac_dropout predicted, in all honesty. I think the policies that Ma has already articulated will be enough for Beijing:
open up the three-links,
allow Taiwanese/mainland students + labor to move freely,
open up the tourism markets.
I don’t think there’s any scenario where Beijing insists on limitations on Taiwanese domestic politics. This is something Taiwan can figure out on its own. "
WELL I FEEL SAFE NOW! THANK GAWD!