Ma, Siew's cross-strait market talk is just talk

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 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