After losing the presidential election in 2000, Vincent Siew (蕭萬長) founded the Cross-Strait Common Market Foundation (兩岸共同經濟基金會) and asked for feedback. As a veteran of economics and media, I informed "Smiling Siew" that the problems confronting cross-strait peace and prosperity lie with China rather than Taiwan: He needed to convince Beijing, not Taipei.
Several months ago, I publicly questioned Siew on any positive response from China that the foundation has received since its inception nearly seven years ago. This "chief architect of economic strategies" -- as Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) calls him -- replied that the common market was mentioned in the report of the 2005 meeting between former KMT chairman Lien Chan (連戰) and Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤). Searching the report, I found that under the premise of "one China," the words "cross-strait common market" did indeed appear in a brief section on cross-strait exchange and cooperation.
Siew, a former premier and now a vice-presidential candidate, must realize how ridiculous China's perfunctory response was to the fruits of his seven years of labor. Sadly, Siew and Ma are touting this supposed "vision" in anticipation of public acceptance.
The "cross-strait common market" derived its inspiration from the EU. Areas of cooperation in the EU span trade, currency, foreign policy, national defense and public welfare to citizenship. The EU is equipped with a parliament, courts and a central bank. The Schengen Agreement further eliminated border controls between certain states.
The economic and then political amalgamation in Europe relied on important foundations. The states possessed common values, such as peace, democracy, rule of law and respect for human rights. The coming together of these states was voluntary, with approval by each country's parliament or by referendum.
As for the euro, common defense interests or citizenship policies, member states have the right to non-participation. And while EU states vary in size and wealth, they are entirely equal: All EU laws and important documents are available in the languages of the member nations and there are no instances of large states bullying small states in the legislative process.
To apply the EU model to the cross-strait situation is entirely inappropriate. Principles of peace, human rights, free will and equality are entirely missing in the cross-strait situation. Yet the Siew-style "common market" exists under the illusory premise of "each representing its own China." Also, its goals of direct travel, economic agreement and customs and currency union are only wishful thinking. How can the EU model be applied when China refuses to negotiate even a memorandum of understanding for financial cooperation?
Even worse is the fact that since Siew began making frequent trips to China, he has grown silent on issues of equality and security that were frequently mentioned when he originally began to promote cross-strait relations.
In the heat of the campaign, the Siew-style common market has been strongly criticized. Ma and Siew have resorted to revisionism by claiming the scheme does not apply to labor or agricultural produce. Later, they disavowed the "one China market" that they themselves promoted. The pair has even gone so far as to claim the "cross-strait common market" was never a part of their platform.
These inconsistencies have become a characteristic of Siew and Ma's tactics under pressure. The frequent revisions to their political platform emphasize the degree of their duplicity. Can the Taiwanese public be so easily fooled?
Lu Shih-hsiang is an adviser to the Taipei Times.
Translated by Angela Hong
There is much evidence that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is sending soldiers from the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to support Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — and is learning lessons for a future war against Taiwan. Until now, the CCP has claimed that they have not sent PLA personnel to support Russian aggression. On 18 April, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelinskiy announced that the CCP is supplying war supplies such as gunpowder, artillery, and weapons subcomponents to Russia. When Zelinskiy announced on 9 April that the Ukrainian Army had captured two Chinese nationals fighting with Russians on the front line with details
On a quiet lane in Taipei’s central Daan District (大安), an otherwise unremarkable high-rise is marked by a police guard and a tawdry A4 printout from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs indicating an “embassy area.” Keen observers would see the emblem of the Holy See, one of Taiwan’s 12 so-called “diplomatic allies.” Unlike Taipei’s other embassies and quasi-consulates, no national flag flies there, nor is there a plaque indicating what country’s embassy this is. Visitors hoping to sign a condolence book for the late Pope Francis would instead have to visit the Italian Trade Office, adjacent to Taipei 101. The death of
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), joined by the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), held a protest on Saturday on Ketagalan Boulevard in Taipei. They were essentially standing for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), which is anxious about the mass recall campaign against KMT legislators. President William Lai (賴清德) said that if the opposition parties truly wanted to fight dictatorship, they should do so in Tiananmen Square — and at the very least, refrain from groveling to Chinese officials during their visits to China, alluding to meetings between KMT members and Chinese authorities. Now that China has been defined as a foreign hostile force,
On April 19, former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) gave a public speech, his first in about 17 years. During the address at the Ketagalan Institute in Taipei, Chen’s words were vague and his tone was sour. He said that democracy should not be used as an echo chamber for a single politician, that people must be tolerant of other views, that the president should not act as a dictator and that the judiciary should not get involved in politics. He then went on to say that others with different opinions should not be criticized as “XX fellow travelers,” in reference to
RSS