Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait (ARATS) Chairman Chen Yunlin (陳雲林) is scheduled to visit Taiwan at the end of this month. If Straits Exchange Foundation (SEF) Chairman Chiang Pin-kung (江丙坤) and Chen reach a consensus on such issues as direct sea links, chartered cargo flights and more direct passenger flight routes, they will sign an agreement during their meeting.
Since the agenda has been settled, Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng (王金平) has demanded that the Cabinet send the “draft guidelines for the signing of agreements between the Taiwan area and the mainland area” (台灣地區與大陸地區訂定協議處理條理條例草案) to the legislature for review as soon as possible. The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) caucus took the lead on Friday in proposing a bill to expedite the establishment of legislative supervision. These actions are legitimate and supported by the public, so President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration cannot disregard them without inciting unrest.
The Ma administration has pushed various measures to open up cross-strait links at the fastest pace in 60 years. In June, the SEF and the ARATS conducted the first round of formal cross-strait negotiations since 1999, which reached a consensus on issues such as cross-strait passenger flights and opening up Taiwan to Chinese tourists. Yet the under-the-table decision-making process, unorganized negotiation strategies and the lack of benefits to Taiwan from these talks led to widespread public criticism and a loss of confidence in Ma’s government.
The next round of cross-strait talks will discuss issues that involve national sovereignty, national security and the public’s rights and interests. Such issues are not something that can be unilaterally determined by the Cabinet or any single political party. The government must increase public participation in the matter.
In particular, any issues that touch on the Act Governing Relations Between Peoples of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area (兩岸人民關係條例) must be reviewed by the legislature and then enacted into law. If there are no laws to regulate the review of cross-strait agreements, how can Chiang negotiate with Chen?
Article 5 of the act stipulates that “where the content of the agreement requires any amendment to laws or any new legislation, the administration authorities of the agreement shall submit the agreement through the Executive Yuan to the Legislative Yuan for consideration.” Article 95 states that “the competent authorities shall request the consent of the Legislative Yuan before permitting direct business transactions or direct sea or air transportation between the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area, or permitting the people of the Mainland Area to enter into the Taiwan Area to work, and if the Legislative Yuan fails to adopt any resolution within one month after the request during its session, the consent is deemed granted.” These stipulations stress that legislative supervision should be established. There is no room for ambiguity.
But enacting a special law to regulate the legislative supervision of cross-strait agreements has been the subject of debate for a long time. In 1997, the KMT proposed that “the draft guidelines for the signing of agreements between the Taiwan area and the mainland area” should be submitted to the legislature for consideration. The Cabinet then sent the draft to the legislature for review before then-ARATS chairman Wang Daohan’s (汪道涵) visit to Taiwan.
It is thus clear that in order to prepare for the resumption of cross-strait talks, the former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government was aware of the complexity of cross-strait issues and the need to gain public support on the matter before and after the negotiations. It was also perceived that administrative powers were not enough to represent the entire nation and that without the necessary participation of the legislature, any agreements reached were incapable of representing the opinion of the 23 million people of Taiwan.
However, in its return to power, the KMT has not improved with time, and has instead regressed. With Chen scheduled to visit Taiwan soon, Wang called on the Cabinet to send the draft guidelines to the legislature for review, but Premier Liu Chao- shiuan (劉兆玄) has yet to respond. It seems that Liu is going to emulate the last meeting between Chiang and Chen and decide on the matter by himself.
Last week, the Cabinet said that if both sides signed a new agreement, the deal would be sent to the legislature for approval. This is tantamount to saying no to the idea of supervision of the decision-making process.
The pan-blue camp controls three-quarters of the seats in the legislature. Wang is also a KMT legislator. Although the DPP proposed to have the draft guidelines sent to the legislature, it does not have the seats to reject any agreement. It is bewildering that the Ma administration insists on closed-door cross-strait negotiations and appears to fear increased participation in the matter. What on earth is the government worried about?
Only those who regard negotiations with other countries as a private matter, which they can use in achieving their own personal goals, would try to keep the content, process and results of negotiations secret. Transparency is the key to negotiations. Therefore we really have to ask ourselves just what Ma is trying to achieve in negotiations with China.
The legislature has been discussing the establishment of a special task force for dealing with cross-strait affairs, which will be established soon. The legislature, political parties, civic groups, non-government organizations and opinion leaders should use all their power to take part in discussions about negotiations with China before Chen arrives to ensure that no oversights or errors that could harm our sovereignty, national security and social welfare occur.
TRANSLATED BY TED YANG AND DREW CAMERON
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
RSS