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
In the event of a war with China, Taiwan has some surprisingly tough defenses that could make it as difficult to tackle as a porcupine: A shoreline dotted with swamps, rocks and concrete barriers; conscription for all adult men; highways and airports that are built to double as hardened combat facilities. This porcupine has a soft underbelly, though, and the war in Iran is exposing it: energy. About 39,000 ships dock at Taiwan’s ports each year, more than the 30,000 that transit the Strait of Hormuz. About one-fifth of their inbound tonnage is coal, oil, refined fuels and liquefied natural gas (LNG),
To counter the CCP’s escalating threats, Taiwan must build a national consensus and demonstrate the capability and the will to fight. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) often leans on a seductive mantra to soften its threats, such as “Chinese do not kill Chinese.” The slogan is designed to frame territorial conquest (annexation) as a domestic family matter. A look at the historical ledger reveals a different truth. For the CCP, being labeled “family” has never been a guarantee of safety; it has been the primary prerequisite for state-sanctioned slaughter. From the forced starvation of 150,000 civilians at the Siege of Changchun
The two major opposition parties, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), jointly announced on Tuesday last week that former TPP lawmaker Chang Chi-kai (張啟楷) would be their joint candidate for Chiayi mayor, following polling conducted earlier this month. It is the first case of blue-white (KMT-TPP) cooperation in selecting a joint candidate under an agreement signed by their chairpersons last month. KMT and TPP supporters have blamed their 2024 presidential election loss on failing to decide on a joint candidate, which ended in a dramatic breakdown with participants pointing fingers, calling polls unfair, sobbing and walking
In the opening remarks of her meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in the Great Hall of the People in Beijing on Friday, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) framed her visit as a historic occasion. In his own remarks, Xi had also emphasized the history of the relationship between the KMT and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Where they differed was that Cheng’s account, while flawed by its omissions, at least partially corresponded to reality. The meeting was certainly historic, albeit not in the way that Cheng and Xi were signaling, and not from the perspective
RSS