The first round of working level talks on a proposed economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA) between Taiwan and China was held in Beijing at the end of January. The second round is expected to take place in Taipei this month.
The Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) proposal for a referendum on the issue was rejected last year, as was the appeal, after which the baton was passed to the Taiwan Solidarity Union (TSU), which is working on a second drive for a referendum.
By all accounts, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Chinese Communist Party are piling on the pace, trying to get the agreement done and dusted as soon as possible.
The government’s reason for opposing a referendum on an ECFA was that it has nothing to do with politics or sovereignty. President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) is still singing the same tune as the second round of talks draws near.
A senior Mainland Affairs Council official recently claimed that cross-strait political talks would not happen within the next two years and that there was no pressure to discuss these issues. The official also said Ma would not engage in political discussions with China during his first term.
Rubbish.
It took an official over in China to talk straight. Taking questions about the proposed ECFA during a National People’s Congress (NPC) meeting in Beijing last week, NPC spokesman Li Zhaoxing (李肇星) said China has always viewed issues involving Taiwan on the basis of its “one China” principle.
Regardless of what Ma says, this means China expects to discuss the ECFA from its consistent standpoint — that Taiwan is part of China. As far as China is concerned, the ECFA it wants to sign with Taiwan — like the closer economic partnership arrangement (CEPA) it signed with Hong Kong — should be seen as an agreement between Beijing and a regional government. The proposed ECFA, like the CEPA, is built on the principle of “one country, two systems.”
‘1992 CONSENSUS’
China’s fundamental standpoint does not need to be pointed out to either Ma or his government. They are well aware of what it is. In fact, Ma still adheres to the so-called “1992 consensus” — that both China and Taiwan belong to the same country, which is an implicit acceptance of the “one China” principle. So the issue is not whether cross-strait politics will be discussed during Ma’s first term: It’s pretty much a moot point, since he already adheres to China’s fundamental standpoint.
During the first round of working level talks, the government claimed, out of the blue, that the ECFA talks would be conducted in terms of Taiwan’s relationship to China. This is consistent with what Li was saying, although the Ma administration added that “there was no pressure to conduct political discussions.” This is not a case of being unaware of the situation; rather it is a case of intentionally trying to hoodwink the Taiwanese public.
NOT ABOUT TRADE
It is quite clear that the ECFA that Ma is so insistent on signing and claims is absolutely imperative has absolutely nothing to do with the professed goal of strengthening trade and economic exchanges. It is nothing but a smokescreen for the eventual handover of Taiwan’s autonomy to China.
An ECFA will have a huge impact on investment, jobs and salaries — all of which will fall. On top of this, and this is something Chinese officials have been quite explicit about, once an ECFA is signed, Taiwan will have to secure China’s permission if it is to sign free-trade agreements with other countries.
Ma is single-mindedly pursuing the signing of this pact as part of his ultimate objective of eventual unification. Concerned, the public is calling for a referendum, but Ma is not listening. His pro-China leanings seem to have gone to his head, and Beijing’s dictatorial style has rubbed off on him. As far as he is concerned, important national policy decisions are his business, and democracy be damned.
This hasn’t gone unnoticed. His anti-democratic proclivities have stirred up noises of dissent not only amongst the public but also in the pan-blue camp and internally within the KMT.
The second ECFA referendum drive initiated by the TSU and the DPP’s proposed amendments to the operating principles of the Legislative Yuan’s Cross-Strait Commission, stipulating that important cross-strait policy should go through the legislature and be subject to a public vote, are necessary to secure Taiwan’s sovereignty and protect the rights of its people.
Dissatisfaction with Ma is evident in the recent string of legislative by-election defeats for the KMT, as well as the party’s poor showing in the three-in-one elections. Given this, the time is ripe for a referendum on the ECFA.
KEEPING FOCUS
It is imperative that anyone concerned about the future of Taiwan does not get distracted by the upcoming five special municipality elections and allow their guard to fall on the ECFA issue.
The consequences of signing an ECFA are serious and far-reaching, and would be difficult to reverse the damage it will inflict on Taiwan.
This month’s talks in Taipei should be met with protests against the collusion of the KMT and the Chinese communists, which will only end in Taiwan being swallowed up by China, and it should be taken as an opportunity to galvanize the public to decide its own destiny. It should also be used as a chance to push for a second wave of referendums, to give Taiwanese a voice in their children’s future.
TRANSLATED BY PAUL COOPER
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS