In his article, Democratic Progressive Party Legislator Lin Cho-shui (林濁水) aimed severe criticism at me, thus jeopardizing my reputation within the WTO ("Taiwan is giving up its gains at the WTO," Oct. 5, page 8.) He also misrepresents and belittles the government's decision-making. It is not appropriate to distort the truth in this way and mix up the merits and mistakes of the officials in charge.
Lin said that the government reached a political understanding with the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) in 1992 that Taiwan's status was equal to the status of Hong Kong and Macau. Indeed, when the GATT General Council set up a working group to handle Taiwan's application, its chairman stated that part of the understanding was that Taipei would be admitted as an observer, and later when it gained membership, it should conform to the Hong Kong and Macau model, its representatives not using any titles that imply sovereignty. This statement is part of the official protocol and can be read on the GATT Web site.
Lin says that this was a humiliating agreement that renounced Taiwan's sovereignty. I totally agree. Lin is adept at working his way to the heart of an issue but to simply stop at such a superficial statement is inadequate. There are other questions which he should ask in order to get to the root of the issue.
Just as Lin says, the 1992 political understanding doesn't mention that there is no room to change the situation. He said the final report on WTO entry from 2001 was a victory. According to this view, the humiliating understanding from 1992 had disappeared in a puff of smoke by 2001. What an accomplishment.
When Lin calls this a beautiful victory, I can fully understand his delight that Taiwan's sovereignty had been protected. I must ask him, however, if the political understanding mentioned in the GATT chairman's statement had been abolished, surely that joyous event would have permeated every page of the 83-page report from the working group.
However, I believe that Lin has yet to review the contents of the report on the WTO's official Web site and locate the version revised prior to September 2001. Lin may even be confused about this, not knowing that the detailed content concerning sovereignty has been completely deleted or revised.
Specifically, 30 English terms such as "president," "the Executive Yuan," "the Legislative Yuan," "the Judicial Yuan," "national security" and so on were all deleted or changed into something that does not refer to sovereignty at all.
I believe that the government made a good decision in 2003 to prevent the nation from becoming something akin to Hong Kong or Macau. Such a decision revealed the truth that had previously been hidden, but also effectively shook off the restrictions of the GATT chairman's statement. As a result, Taiwan could represent itself as a permanent mission to the WTO, the same as China and other nations, rather than being relegated to status similar to that of the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office or the Macau Economic and Trade Office to the WTO. As for the official titles of Taiwanese delegates to the WTO, I cannot talk about that here, for it is still considered confidential.
History leaves tracks, and all we need to do is to follow them to reveal the truth. What was the story behind the chairman's statement? What was the truth behind changes made in the working group's report; what lay behind the changes in name and title in the WTO directory? There is a clear line between truth and falsehood and the truth will eventually be revealed. Officials pursuing their own interests at the expense of the nation will be found out and rejected by the people. I call upon Lin to make his position clear.
Yen Ching-chang was formerly the nation's representative to the WTO.
Translated by Perry Svensson and Daniel Cheng
China’s supreme objective in a war across the Taiwan Strait is to incorporate Taiwan as a province of the People’s Republic. It follows, therefore, that international recognition of Taiwan’s de jure independence is a consummation that China’s leaders devoutly wish to avoid. By the same token, an American strategy to deny China that objective would complicate Beijing’s calculus and deter large-scale hostilities. For decades, China has cautioned “independence means war.” The opposite is also true: “war means independence.” A comprehensive strategy of denial would guarantee an outcome of de jure independence for Taiwan in the event of Chinese invasion or
A recent Taipei Times editorial (“A targeted bilingual policy,” March 12, page 8) questioned how the Ministry of Education can justify spending NT$151 million (US$4.74 million) when the spotlighted achievements are English speech competitions and campus tours. It is a fair question, but it focuses on the wrong issue. The problem is not last year’s outcomes failing to meet the bilingual education vision; the issue is that the ministry has abandoned the program that originally justified such a large expenditure. In the early years of Bilingual 2030, the ministry’s K-12 Administration promoted the Bilingual Instruction in Select Domains Program (部分領域課程雙語教學實施計畫).
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) earlier this month said it is necessary for her to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and it would be a “huge boost” to the party’s local election results in November, but many KMT members have expressed different opinions, indicating a struggle between different groups in the party. Since Cheng was elected as party chairwoman in October last year, she has repeatedly expressed support for increased exchanges with China, saying that it would bring peace and prosperity to Taiwan, and that a meeting with Xi in Beijing takes priority over meeting
Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs spokesman for maritime affairs Rogelio Villanueva on Monday said that Manila’s claims in the South China Sea are backed by international law. Villanueva was responding to a social media post by the Chinese embassy alleging that a former Philippine ambassador in 1990 had written a letter to a German radio operator stating that the Scarborough Shoal (Huangyan Island, 黃岩島) did not fall within Manila’s territory. “Sovereignty is not merely claimed, it is exercised,” Villanueva said. The Philippines won a landmark case at the Permanent Court of Arbitration in 2016 that found China’s sweeping claim of sovereignty in
RSS