The planned economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA) may be scheduled to be signed this month, but a clear domestic consensus on the issue remains elusive.
In various public opinion polls, approval of an ECFA remains below 50 percent, while opposition to it hovers at about 35 percent. The number of respondents in favor of putting the agreement to a referendum remains between 60 percent and 80 percent. It is thus clear that the planned ECFA is a highly controversial policy.
The Ministry of Economic Affairs, however, opposes a referendum, saying that, “of 276 FTAs [free-trade agreements] that have taken effect, not one has been put to a referendum.” This is a serious distortion of the facts and it will only serve to further intensify social division.
FTAs registered at the WTO are formally called regional trade agreements (RTA) and they include agreements liberalizing trade in products and services. Nominally speaking, RTAs include FTAs, customs unions, economic communities, economic alliances, preferential trade agreements and so on. In addition, RTAs cover an increasingly wider scope by far exceeding the scope of traditional FTAs.
The purpose and effect of RTAs not only involve economic efficiency or growth, they also affect the distribution of economic benefits and strategic concerns. The Doha Round of WTO talks ran aground because of the protective industrial interests of different countries.
The effects of such an agreement could be of a very political nature. Last year, Taiwan’s national security bureaucrats said an ECFA was the first of three main elements in cross-strait political talks. That raises the question of whether or not political talks will be the next step in cross-strait relations.
Looking at the history of European integration, 19 of the 27 member states have made referendums part of the domestic approval process for participation in European economic integration FTAs.
Here are a few examples: Norway has held two referendums — in 1972 and in 1994 — rejecting first the European Economic Community (EEC) and then the EU. The UK held a referendum in 1975 that resulted in the UK joining the EEC. Ireland has held four referendums on whether or not to participate in European economic integration, in 1972, 1987, 1992 and 2008 and the list goes on.
Outside of Europe, Costa Rica held a referendum in October 2007, to decide whether or not to join the Central America FTA proposed by the US.
In mid-April, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), Premier Wu Den-yih (吳敦義) and Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Secretary-General King Pu-tsung (金溥聰) said they were not opposed to holding a referendum on an ECFA, but they have now instructed the Mainland Affairs Council and the ministry to oppose such a referendum at the Referendum Review Committee.
The government’s contradictory behavior is likely to further aggravate tensions between the government and those who oppose the pact. As we’re facing a situation where the planned ECFA is about to be signed and the risk that this may set off violent clashes and social instability, the committee should not only look to the text of the proposed referendum, it should also stress that a referendum is the only way to resolve the dispute between the government and the opposition and build a consensus. Furthermore, this it is the solution that represents the lowest cost to society.
Tung Chen-yuan is a professor in the Graduate Institute of Development Studies at National Chengchi University. Wu Chih-chung is secretary-general of the European Union Study Association.
TRANSLATED BY PERRY SVENSSON
A failure by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to respond to Israel’s brilliant 12-day (June 12-23) bombing and special operations war against Iran, topped by US President Donald Trump’s ordering the June 21 bombing of Iranian deep underground nuclear weapons fuel processing sites, has been noted by some as demonstrating a profound lack of resolve, even “impotence,” by China. However, this would be a dangerous underestimation of CCP ambitions and its broader and more profound military response to the Trump Administration — a challenge that includes an acceleration of its strategies to assist nuclear proxy states, and developing a wide array
Jaw Shaw-kong (趙少康), former chairman of Broadcasting Corp of China and leader of the “blue fighters,” recently announced that he had canned his trip to east Africa, and he would stay in Taiwan for the recall vote on Saturday. He added that he hoped “his friends in the blue camp would follow his lead.” His statement is quite interesting for a few reasons. Jaw had been criticized following media reports that he would be traveling in east Africa during the recall vote. While he decided to stay in Taiwan after drawing a lot of flak, his hesitation says it all: If
Twenty-four Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers are facing recall votes on Saturday, prompting nearly all KMT officials and lawmakers to rally their supporters over the past weekend, urging them to vote “no” in a bid to retain their seats and preserve the KMT’s majority in the Legislative Yuan. The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), which had largely kept its distance from the civic recall campaigns, earlier this month instructed its officials and staff to support the recall groups in a final push to protect the nation. The justification for the recalls has increasingly been framed as a “resistance” movement against China and
When Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) caucus whip Ker Chien-ming (柯建銘) first suggested a mass recall of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators, the Taipei Times called the idea “not only absurd, but also deeply undemocratic” (“Lai’s speech and legislative chaos,” Jan. 6, page 8). In a subsequent editorial (“Recall chaos plays into KMT hands,” Jan. 9, page 8), the paper wrote that his suggestion was not a solution, and that if it failed, it would exacerbate the enmity between the parties and lead to a cascade of revenge recalls. The danger came from having the DPP orchestrate a mass recall. As it transpired,
RSS