Two weeks ago, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) debated the proposed economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA) with China. Now that the dust has settled, two things seem clear. One is that the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) seems to hold most of the cards. Ma vowed to forge ahead with the deal regardless of the debate and, after his better than expected performance, he has no reason to reconsider.
The other is that the DPP wanted a public debate and got it. Tsai presented herself well and gained valuable exposure as a rising star on the political scene. However, she failed to deliver a decisive blow. With the deal due to be signed next month, Tsai is now reduced to calling for public protest, while supporters continue to push a referendum that is unlikely to be held.
The DPP seems to be running out of options — which does not mean the fight is over. ECFA negotiations continue and even after it is inked, changes are possible. DPP lawmakers have vowed to repeal the accord if they win a majority in 2012.
However, impassioned claims like this suggest it may be time to take stock — on both sides.
Ma, whose advisers seem to be giving him better guidance than before, should be pleased with his debate performance and the ECFA’s progress generally. Free-trade agreements are always hard to sell, especially when power relations are so unequal. Ma and the KMT have also been careful to avoid gloating and to continue reassuring voters that they will be protected, albeit by way of meaningless sound bites, as Tsai points out.
However, to advance his trade policy beyond his we-have-no-other-choice argument, Ma must do two things. First, he must add substance to his reassurances. This includes information about what is in the ECFA, balanced projections of gains and losses, assurances that backup plans and other trade pacts are in the works, programs for retraining and support in industries negatively affected and some indication that security concerns will be addressed.
Second, he must show a greater willingness to concede that Taiwanese have good reason to be worried. Dismissiveness and condescension have often been the KMT’s — and Ma’s — modus operandi. Ma would do well to recall that whatever an ECFA’s benefits, they will take time and results will be mixed. Even if the pact turns out well, it may not benefit a party that treats public fear as part of the cost of doing business.
As for the DPP, Tsai has had a lesson. Sensible questions and reasoned argument fared poorly against evasions and canned assurance. In her words, Ma won the debate with “political propaganda” and she lost it because she was not good at political talk.
Also, options still on the table must be carefully considered. The DPP must think about the consequences if voters approve the agreement. What then?
Public demonstrations raise awareness, but they are also dangerous. People get hurt and the DPP would be held responsible. Surely little is added to party esteem when legislative members resort to violence against bills they cannot block by legal means.
Those who promise repeal should remember that by 2012 the economy is likely to have improved. If ECFA is proven not to be the reason, the KMT will claim otherwise. It will also quote DPP politicians, including Tsai, who promise to cancel the pact, calling such promises a threat to newfound prosperity.
What the DPP needs most is a credible plan for engagement with China. Tsai’s offer of talks based on no political preconditions is nothing new. However, former vice president Annette Lu’s (呂秀蓮) warning last week against any such engagement suggests that Chinese demands are the least of Tsai’s worries. Whatever Tsai learned about politics in her recent encounter with Ma, it may serve her best in managing her party.
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