“Welcome to China” — the greeting I received at the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) National Policy Foundation in January is symptomatic of current cross-strait developments in Taiwan. The government’s cross-strait package of technical agreements and the forthcoming economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA) will drain Taiwan’s political energy and divert attention away from other key matters for years to come. This is unavoidable as the government’s policies are out of touch with reality. Indeed, they blindly inflate divisions instead of attempting to unify people in Taiwan’s divided society.
The cross-strait package also diverts attention from efforts to inform others about what Taiwan can bring to the world. Instead, an increasing amount of hard work is now being spent to correct misunderstandings about Taiwan in Europe. For example, an ECFA is believed to be an approach that fits with the EU’s “one China” policy.
All this is worrying. The package is planned as the start of a long journey that will result in the integration of Taiwan with China. The deal is also a key element in moving towards the KMT’s envisioned common market with China. However, it does not help Taiwan to start such a long journey by dividing instead of uniting Taiwanese society or by pretending it is Chinese.
It can only lead to increased divisions when the government wants to sign an agreement with China under the highly disputed “1992 consensus,” or when the issue of sovereignty is fudged by portraying the two countries as two “areas” under the outdated 1947 Constitution of the Republic of China and states that this is what makes ECFA possible. No unification agenda could possibly meet the realities of today. Most importantly, Taiwanese have not given their approval.
From a Taiwan-centered perspective, the government ought to make use of its seat at the WTO and initiate negotiations between official government institutions. China should accept such an approach as it chose not to discuss the political content of the “one China” policy in talks on pragmatic issues during negotiations in the early 1990s.
The current dialogue will not reduce tensions in the long run because neither side can really give the other what it wants — China can hardly give Taiwan real international space while Ma is constrained by Taiwan’s democracy and cannot give China what it really wants, sovereignty over Taiwan.
It is also questionable whether China is in any urgent economic need of an ECFA. China’s agenda is politically motivated and thus sets political goals above economics. In other words, the current economic deal is intended to give China political influence in Taiwan.
The European Parliament and its Taiwan Friendship Group seem to be blithely ignorant of what is happening or that they are supporting China when they praise the current dialogue without mentioning the Taiwanese people’s democratic right to self-determination. There is no valid excuse for being unaware of the current debate in Taiwan or that sovereignty lies at its core. Additionally, few voices have been raised about the worrying political developments taking place in Taiwan. Instead of uniting European opinion, Taipei has sent mixed signals emphasizing how equal Taiwan and China are rather than focusing on Taiwan’s uniqueness.
This journey is likely to end in disappointment for the EU, China and the KMT, and divide Taiwanese society. Self-determination is the only way forward and a referendum on an ECFA would be a respectful and democratic step towards uniting Taiwan. In the short term, Ma’s agenda will marginalize Taiwan in the international community and all but push the country into China’s very undemocratic sphere of influence — “Welcome to China.”
Michael Danielsen is chairman of Taiwan Corner.
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
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