So it's been made official. There will be charter flights serving Taiwanese businessmen during the upcoming Lunar New Year. This time around, carriers from both sides of the Taiwan Strait will participate in providing two-way and non-stop flights between multiple Chinese and Taiwanese international airports. Equally, if not even more noteworthy, is the model of negotiation adopted, adding a third option to the models for cross-strait talks.
Both the Chinese and Taiwanese governments sent government officials to Macau for yesterday's negotiation, although they went in "unofficial" capacities. From the Taiwan side, Civil Aeronautics Administration (CAA) director-general Billy Chang (
This model of negotiation is somewhat akin to the so-called "2002 Taiwan-Hong Kong model" of aviation negotiations, under which representatives from the private sectors were joined by aviation government officials from both sides who participated in non-official capacities. The difference is that in that round of negotiations officials from the Mainland Affairs Counsel (MAC) also joined the negotiations in an "unofficial" capacity.
As for the model that was used to initiate cross-strait negotiations in talks between Straits Exchange Foundation (SEF) chairman Koo Chen-fu (
Actually, the two sides gradually and tactfully reached consensus about the substantive model of the air links before yesterday's talks. The significance of the talks in Macau were not only to make the deal official, but also in the model of negotiation established. Many believe that this latest model of negotiations may very well be the model used for talks on more permanent cross-strait direct links.
Indeed, this model is the bottom line beyond which the Taiwan government must not go. Any further concessions risk reducing cross-strait talks to negotiations over "domestic affairs." While the government officials involved in negotiations went in "unofficial" capacities, they were government officials nonetheless. These aviation talks, practically speaking, cannot proceed without officials' involvement to begin with, since none of the issues being discussed can possibly be decided by members of the private sector. This demonstrates that cross-strait links are in reality international links and not domestic links. As for the flight routes agreed on yesterday, they are in fact international air routes from Chinese cities to Hong Kong and then from Hong Kong to Taiwan. In this regard, the Taiwan government has not compromised the public interest.
The charter flights for the upcoming Lunar New Year are significant for several other reasons. Unlike in the 2003 flights, Chinese air carriers will also participate, passengers can board from both ends (the Taiwan side as well as the Chinese side), and the flights will be uninterrupted, meaning there will be no transit stops in either Hong Kong or Macau, although planes will pass through airspace of one of the territories. And for the first time ever, there will be Chinese aircraft bearing the People's Republic of China flag embarking and landing in Taiwan's airports.
While both the Chinese and Taiwan government claim that the charter flights are isolated cases tailored to serve Taiwanese businessmen, the question on everyone's mind is nevertheless this: Will cross-strait direct links be made official soon? However, the question that the Taiwan government should really ask itself is this: Is it ready to face up and deal with the potential problems of such official direct links?
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS