Next Tuesday marks the first anniversary of the passage of Beijing's "Anti-Secession" Law, and one cannot help consider the law's impact on China's Taiwan policy. Looking back over the past year, it is on the commercial front that China's Taiwan policy has seen the most changes.
With regard to the communication platform established between the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) -- in the wake of the visits to China of former KMT chairman Lien Chan (
After issuing a statement on cross-strait relations on May 17, 2004, Beijing became firmer in maintaining that the prerequisite for cross-strait economic exchanges should be adherence to the "one China" principle and that they be treated as a "domestic affair." Beijing even deliberately boycotted or delayed proposals to promote cross-strait negotiations on economic issues, including one relating to direct passenger charter flights during the Lunar New Year period.
Ultimately, the passage of the Anti-Secession Law made absolutely clear the nature of the shift that had taken place in China's cross-strait trade and economic policies.
At the same time that Beijing made public the details of the law, it became enthusiastic about promoting cross-strait affairs. It ceased to stress the "one China" principle as a condition for cross-strait economic exchanges and expressed a willingness to negotiate on direct passenger and cargo flights, and Chinese tourists traveling to Taiwan.
In addition, following the promulgation of the law Beijing unilaterally offered preferential treatment to Taiwan in several areas, including tariff-free entry of Taiwanese fruit into China and 30 billion yuan (US$3.7 billion) in low-interest loans to Taiwanese businessmen.
It also set up zones for cross-strait agricultural cooperation, allowed fishermen to work in Taiwan, announced forthcoming regulations governing travel to Taiwan by Chinese tourists and spoke of a wish to establish a mechanism for cross-strait cooperation on agricultural affairs.
But while implementing these preferential measures, Beijing realized that domestic politics in Taiwan would have a tremendous impact on cross-strait economic and trade negotiations.
As Beijing is hoping to use the KMT and the PFP to isolate or put pressure on the Democratic Progressive Party government to accept its conditions for cross-strait talks, it cannot ignore the two parties' contributions to cross-strait trade negotiations.
However, it is also likely that the KMT will pressure Beijing not to negotiate with Taiwan's government in order to secure its own political influence.
This situation became especially clear on the issue of Chinese imports of fruit from Taiwan. It may also explain why the Chinese government seemed to be taking a passive role in negotiating tourism-related issues and cross-strait direct charter flights prior to last year's local government elections.
In the future, it is likely that the KMT, to secure its chances in the 2008 presidential election, will continue to tell Beijing not to talk to Taipei.
Three factors in domestic politics may offset efforts to promote cross-strait negotiations on economic issues. But they are not likely to impede the overall trend of cross-strait talks.
First, between the end of 2003 and the beginning of this year, Taipei and Beijing reached a consensus on how to engage in trade talks, adopting "the Macau model," in which the private sector conducts negotiations under government supervision. They are using this model to negotiate charter flights and tourism-related issues, and successfully used it to complete talks on cross-strait direct charter flights during the Lunar New Year period this year.
Second, in 2004 Taiwan proposed 18 principles to guide cross-strait talks on economic issues. In June last year, Taiwan overcame the negative impact of the Anti-Secession Law by making a number of proposals on cross-strait trade talks.
Meanwhile, following the passage of the law, Beijing expected to expand the scale of cross-strait exchanges and cooperation on the economic front, in order to boost China's economic development and stabilize cross-strait relations.
If both Taipei and Beijing can reach an agreement on direct passenger and cargo charter flights and the entry of Chinese tourists into Taiwan this year, it is likely that both sides will make further progress in negotiations on other economic issues, thereby pushing cross-strait relations into a new phase.
Tung Chen-yuan is an assistant professor at the Sun Yat-sen Graduate Institute of Social Sciences and Humanities at National Chengchi University.
Translated by Daniel Cheng
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US