The resumption of talks between the Straits Exchange Foundation (SEF) and China’s Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait (ARATS) has been flaunted by President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) as one of his major political achievements. With the fourth round of talks between SEF Chairman Chiang Pin-kung (江丙坤) and ARATS Chairman Chen Yunlin (陳雲林) scheduled for next month, how should we assess these high-level talks?
The agreements signed during the previous three rounds of SEF-ARATS talks were all limited to economic issues, ranging from cross-strait postal services and regular flights to Chinese tourists and investment coming to Taiwan. However, now there are reports that the regular flight services may be reduced. Not only is the inflow of Chinese tourists to Taiwan unsteady, but China’s political maneuvers include its tourist boycott of Kaohsiung following the screening of a documentary on World Uyghur Congress president Rebiya Kadeer at the Kaohsiung Film Festival earlier this year. The contaminated Chinese milk powder scandal also remains to be settled.
All this suggests that these economic agreements with China did not benefit the Taiwanese economy, but instead have begun edging out existing foreign economic and trade cooperation.
Furthermore, the SEF-ARATS talks have thrown light on problems facing Taiwanese democracy. Since the four agreements reached during the second round of talks circumvented legislative review through technical measures, future cross-strait agreements will probably be treated in the same way. Referendum proposals on legislative oversight initiated by civic groups are blocked by the administration.
This practice of dodging legislative supervision has not only led to a confidence crisis for the Ma government, but people have also started to question the democratic system’s ability to defend their right to self-determination — another root cause of the problems surrounding the government’s plan to relax restrictions on US beef imports.
The previous SEF-ARATS talks have systematically sabotaged Taiwan’s sovereignty. To pave the way for Chen’s visit to Taipei last year, Ma told the international media that Taiwan was not a country, and, worse yet, agreed that Chen would not have to address him as “president” in front of international media outlets.
Ma denied the nation’s status during the second round of SEF-ARATS talks, and now has apparently begun to accept Beijing’s “one China” principle in the run-up to the fourth round of talks. This is contradictory to the position he held during his term as Mainland Affairs Council vice chairman that the Republic of China is a sovereign, independent nation that is not subordinate to the People’s Republic of China (PRC).
Although only economic issues will be discussed at the coming round of talks, the political significance has been emphasized since Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) pledged to complete unification with Taiwan in his address on the 60th anniversary of the PRC.
The meeting between then-SEF chairman Koo Chen-fu (辜振甫) and then-ARATS chairman Wang Daohan (汪道涵) in the 1990s highlighted the equal status of China and Taiwan as well as Taiwanese democracy, whereas the recent SEF-ARATS talks have witnessed Taiwan denying its own sovereignty and being marginalized.
In the face of this great crisis, let us support the People’s Sovereignty Movement and their attempt to prevent the SEF-ARATS talks from harming Taiwan even further.
Lai I-chung is director of foreign policy studies at the Taiwan Thinktank.
TRANSLATED BY TED YANG
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
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
RSS