印度媒體：馬英九尋求簽兩岸和平條約構想錯誤　■中央社

雲程說明：

這篇文章是朋友轉傳過來的，立場保守的印度媒體評論。

其實，文章講的只是台灣人被長期欺騙之後所不承認的法理事實：「台灣」並非主權國家而已。

接受事實是殘酷的，但事實並不會因為人們不願意接受而有所改變。

322的公投，國際不會認為是「門檻過高」，他們已經解讀是「台灣人不要」。

加上馬英九當選「中華民國總統」，於是，國際就認為「台灣」應該加強與中國統一。

暴虎馮河，才是台灣人不該要的特質。

另一個問題是：全篇都講「台灣」，那，「中華民國」在哪裡？「中華民國」是什麼？

印度媒體：馬英九尋求簽兩岸和平條約構想錯誤／中央社 2008.04.05

http://www.hindu.com/2008/04/05/stories/2008040555741100.htm

印度大報之一的「印度人報」意見版今天說，國際週知的「一個中國」原則，指的是非主權體的台灣屬於中華人民共和國所有，台灣是一個非國家行為者，因此總統當選人馬英九提議與北京尋求簽訂「和平條約」，是錯誤的想法，只有與北京的經濟正常化和建立「共同市場」才符合現實。

由印度人報駐新加坡亞洲事務資深記蘇亞納拉亞納撰寫的這篇文章說，據亞太地區若干外交官與分析人士的看法，台灣試圖重返聯合國的努力，一直遭到聯合國斷然回絕，因此馬英九必須體認並順應時勢，而不是鼓吹「和平條約」。

顯然遵循「印度人報」向來保守的立場，蘇亞納拉亞納又說，台灣 三月二十二日 的兩項公投議題，包括台灣未來的政治地位與重返聯合國，都未獲得通過，透露出台灣選民希望放棄與北京對立的政策，並開始傾向與中國和解和統一。 他解讀說，台灣公投人數未達法定最低要求，顯示台灣選民否決了任何尋求重返聯合國的舉措，無論是以台灣或中華民國的名義尋求重返聯合國。

蘇亞納拉亞納又說，馬英九的和平條約構想，與眾所週知的一個中國原則牴觸，是有意掩飾一項簡單但深刻的事實，那就是在國際舞台上，台灣至多也僅是一個無主權地位（no attributes of sovereignty）的非國家行為者（non-state actor）而已。他說，北京和國際社會雖同意台灣成為亞太經濟合作會議論壇的一個功能性經濟體成員，依據國際法，非國家行為者的台灣，所擁有的最高政治地位極其有限，也受到嚴格的限制。蘇亞納拉亞納說，因此對馬英九而言，今後政治課題必須著重一個新的現實，即愈來愈多的台灣人期望與中華人民共和國和解與統一。他說，根據地區外交官和分析人士的看法，北京也將會高興在陳水扁總統時代的兩岸對立局面，不會在馬英九執政期間出現。不過，蘇亞納拉亞納在結論中指出，根據一個中國的原則，台灣是一個非國家行為者，因此馬英九試圖與北京尋求簽訂和平條約，是一個錯誤的想法；但馬英九提出與北京「經濟正常化」（economic normalization）及建立兩岸共同市場的想法，卻符合台灣被承認的國際地位，即台灣是一個功能性的經濟體，而非一個國家行為者。

Taiwan and the One-China principle －P. S. Suryanarayana

The emphatic veto of the propositions that Taiwan seek re-entry into the United Nations is a future-setting pointer towards rapprochement and reunification with China .

The internationally recognized One-China principle, under which non-sovereign Taiwan belongs to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), does negate the legality of the March 22 referendum on the territory’s political future. Significantly, however, the outcome of the referendum — an emphatic veto of two overlapping propositions that Taiwan seek re-entry into the United Nations — is a future-setting pointer. 

In reality, the message of the veto is that the residents of Taiwan want to retreat from confrontational politics with Beijing and begin moving towards rapprochement and reunification with China .

No less important is the fact that Taiwan ’s efforts to re-enter the U.N. have been invariably rebuffed by the world body, since 1971 in general and in more recent years in particular. So Taiwan’s president-elect Ma Ying-jeou must recognise these crucial aspects and act in accordance with them, instead of harping on his agenda of seeking a wrongly-conceived “peace treaty” with Beijing, according to some diplomats and analysts in the Asia-Pacific region. 

Mr. Ma’s notion of a “peace treaty” flies against the widely recognized One-China principle. The idea of such a treaty is, after all, designed to conceal the simple but profound fact that Taiwan is at best only a non-state actor with no attributes of sovereignty on the international stage. 

Both the PRC and the larger international community have allowed Taiwan the farthest political latitude of being a functional economy as a member of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum, in the name and style of “ Taipei , China .” Two factors are relevant to this particular situation. First, the leverage exercised by Taiwan among the APEC economies is strictly determined by its restricted position as a non-state actor under international law. Secondly, mainland China and Taiwan have, over some years, woven a network of booming economic links between themselves.

It is within such dos and don’ts for Taiwan that Mr. Ma of the Kuomintang (KMT), who triumphed over Frank Hsieh of the pro-‘independence’ Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) in the March 22 presidential poll that was held along with the referendum, should now act. Mr. Ma is set to succeed on May 20 the incumbent president, Chen Shui-bian of the DPP. Mr. Chen has often resorted to political brinkmanship in Taiwan ’s engagement with the PRC, or more accurately in the absence of engagement with Beijing , during his eight years in power.

Since the founding of the PRC in 1949 and more so since 1971 when Taiwan was expelled from all U.N. forums, the leaders of the territory have not come to terms with its actual status as only a non-state actor. Until its expulsion from the world body in October 1971, Taiwan incongruously functioned as a veto-empowered permanent member of the U.N. Security Council, albeit under the protective wings of the United States .

The rapprochement between Washington and Beijing in the early 1970s, and the rapid rise of China as a global player, have ensured a permanent negation of what the larger international community, including the PRC, always saw as a travesty. John Garver, studying the Taiwan-U.S. nexus of the early period of the Cold War in Asia, has brought out how Taipei clung to its political “dogma” even as it faced imminent expulsion from the U.N.

New window of opportunity 

But now, the Taiwanese leaders, cutting across party lines, have a new window of opportunity to come to terms with the reality that their territory rightfully belongs to the PRC under the One-China principle. A crucial new factor is that the Taiwanese electorate has vetoed any move to seek re-entry into the U.N., either under the ‘independence’-suggestive name of Taiwan, or under the name of so-called “Republic of China” that was in vogue in the world body until 1971. 

The veto, based on the fact that the mandatory minimum number of voters did not participate in the referendum to validate it, is still a decisive veto as certified by the electoral authorities in Taipei . It is relevant that the voter participation in the parallel presidential poll was more than twice that in the referendum. So the vote-abstinence in the referendum was a matter of free choice designed to ensure the rejection of the propositions at stake.

For Mr. Ma, therefore, the political agenda should centre on this new reality of an emerging Taiwanese desire for rapprochement and reunification with the People’s Republic of China . In any case, he is familiar with the dynamics of Hong Kong, where the central government in Beijing is implementing the principle of “one country, two systems” under specific terms and a timeline. This principle has been envisioned in the Taiwan context as well.

Beijing, according to regional diplomats and analysts, can now be pleased that the worst-case scenario of a confrontationist Taiwan , as under Mr. Chen, may not define Mr. Ma’s term at the helm in Taipei . Mr. Ma’s stated policy of seeking a “peace treaty” with the PRC is, of course, wrongly conceived, given that Taiwan is a non-state actor under the One-China principle.

However, his priorities of seeking “economic normalization” with Beijing and also a “common market,” covering Taiwan and the PRC, are in line with the territory’s acknowledged international status as a functional economy as different from a state player.