President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration keeps insisting that signing an economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA) with China is a purely economic affair. However, even if it really is just a matter of economics and trade, the agreement will still influence the rights and interests of most Taiwanese. The decision-making process should therefore be carried out in line with the principles of democracy.
Information should be transparent and the agreement should be reviewed and monitored by the legislature. Furthermore, the consequences of an ECFA will not be merely economic in nature. China is not a democracy, and it continues to claim sovereignty over Taiwan and threaten military invasion.
Full trade liberalization with such a country involves aspects such as national security, democracy, human rights, employment, social security, the environment and public health. Here, we will focus on four issues pertaining to the signing of an ECFA and its impact on democracy and human rights.
First, the government should immediately announce the early harvest list proposed by China and the legislature should hold hearings on the issue.
Trade negotiations confer both advantages and disadvantages. It is easy for the government to say that more industries will benefit than not should an ECFA be signed, but for everyone who suffers a negative impact, whether employers or workers, the losses will be very real.
In a democracy, those who are sacrificed for the public interest should be able to have a say and be protected by due process.
Government officials have kept their lips sealed about the early harvest list proposed by China, refusing to make this information public. It is understandable that the bottom line cannot be made public during trade talks, but the early harvest list is not the bottom line and there is no need to keep it confidential.
China is not a democracy, the decision making process is not transparent and there is no civic review or legislative oversight in that country. However, Taiwan must deal with these issues.
The government must immediately announce the content of China’s early harvest list and report it to the legislature. The legislature should hold separate public hearings with the various industry groups concerned as soon as possible in order to solicit opinions from the public, including businesses, workers and consumers and clarify how an ECFA would affect industries and society.
Second, the government should announce a timetable for tariff reductions, the opening of trade and services to Chinese investment and other related articles in the draft agreement. This must be done so Taiwanese can understand which domestic industries, apart from those on the early harvest list, will be affected by Ma’s proposed “gradual implementation” of the ECFA and how long it will be before they are affected. If the content of an ECFA is not made public, cross-strait trade will become even more unpredictable and Taiwan’s economic environment will worsen.
Third, the government should respect the legislature’s review rights and no time limit should be placed on when an ECFA should be signed. Since the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) regained power in 2008, Taiwan and China have signed 12 agreements, one consensus and three financial memorandums of understanding, none of which has been subjected to legislative review.
Each agreement had a clause stating that the agreements would take effect seven to 90 days after signing. This meant that the agreements took effect by default, before the legislature had time to review them, in breach of Article 5 of the Statute Governing the Relations Between the Peoples of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area (臺灣地區與大陸地區人民關係條例).
The government must abide by the law and respect the legislature’s right of review and the text of an ECFA must be free from any time limits for when it will take effect.
Fourth, before an ECFA is signed, assessments must be carried out on the impact of an ECFA on democracy, human rights, social security, the environment and public health. Cross-strait trade is not just about business interests; it also affects the rights and interests of workers, consumers and residents living near factories.
The melamine-tainted milk scandal and the labor dispute at Young Fast Optoelectronics Co make it clear that the Chinese government must end cross-strait product, service and capital movements that encroach on human rights. This should be the first step toward implementing corporate social responsibility and guaranteeing human rights.
In addition, the currently negotiated tax collaboration agreement should be based on tax collection data provided by both governments. It should also regulate the protection of human rights with channels for legal aid that meet international human rights standards for those who run into legal problems for tax reasons.
An ECFA should also include clauses on corporate social responsibility and human rights and it should authorize specific institutions to give incentives or adopt sanctions on trade-related activities based on principles of human rights and democracy.
The Taiwanese and Chinese governments should also demand businesses provide transparent information about eco-friendly production, labor, human rights and community relations.
Yen Chueh-an is a law professor at National Taiwan University and Liu Ching-yi is an associate professor of law in the Graduate Institute of National Development at National Taiwan University.
TRANSLATED BY DREW CAMERON
There is much evidence that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is sending soldiers from the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to support Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — and is learning lessons for a future war against Taiwan. Until now, the CCP has claimed that they have not sent PLA personnel to support Russian aggression. On 18 April, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelinskiy announced that the CCP is supplying war supplies such as gunpowder, artillery, and weapons subcomponents to Russia. When Zelinskiy announced on 9 April that the Ukrainian Army had captured two Chinese nationals fighting with Russians on the front line with details
On a quiet lane in Taipei’s central Daan District (大安), an otherwise unremarkable high-rise is marked by a police guard and a tawdry A4 printout from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs indicating an “embassy area.” Keen observers would see the emblem of the Holy See, one of Taiwan’s 12 so-called “diplomatic allies.” Unlike Taipei’s other embassies and quasi-consulates, no national flag flies there, nor is there a plaque indicating what country’s embassy this is. Visitors hoping to sign a condolence book for the late Pope Francis would instead have to visit the Italian Trade Office, adjacent to Taipei 101. The death of
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), joined by the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), held a protest on Saturday on Ketagalan Boulevard in Taipei. They were essentially standing for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), which is anxious about the mass recall campaign against KMT legislators. President William Lai (賴清德) said that if the opposition parties truly wanted to fight dictatorship, they should do so in Tiananmen Square — and at the very least, refrain from groveling to Chinese officials during their visits to China, alluding to meetings between KMT members and Chinese authorities. Now that China has been defined as a foreign hostile force,
On April 19, former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) gave a public speech, his first in about 17 years. During the address at the Ketagalan Institute in Taipei, Chen’s words were vague and his tone was sour. He said that democracy should not be used as an echo chamber for a single politician, that people must be tolerant of other views, that the president should not act as a dictator and that the judiciary should not get involved in politics. He then went on to say that others with different opinions should not be criticized as “XX fellow travelers,” in reference to
RSS