The sixth round of talks between Straits Exchange Foundation (SEF) Chairman Chiang Pin-kung (江丙坤) and Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait (ARATS) Chairman Chen Yunlin (陳雲林) are no big deal. The agreement that was signed yesterday deals only with cooperation on cross-strait medical and health issues; Chiang and Chen have postponed the establishment of a cross-strait economic cooperation committee under the SEF and the ARATS. This committee would handle the implementation of the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA) and follow up on economic issues. It will have far-reaching effects that would very likely be disastrous for Taiwan’s economic future.
SEF Vice Chairman Kao Koong-lian (高孔廉) and ARATS Deputy Chairman Zheng Lizhong (鄭立中) will chair the committee, and Vice Minister of Economic Affairs Francis Liang (梁國新) and Chinese Vice Minister of Commerce Jiang Zengwei (姜增偉), who is in charge of the Chinese Ministry of Commerce’s Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macau affairs, will serve as conveners. The committee will have seven task forces convened by officials at different levels at the competent authorities. These will deal with goods, the service industry, the financial industry, intellectual property rights, economic cooperation, conflict resolution and investment.
On the surface, the committee is merely an administrative organization for dealing with cross-strait economic matters, but when dealing with follow-up issues resulting from the ECFA, its decisions will not have to pass legislative review. The committee will thus have the power to set cross-strait economic policy without being monitored by elected representatives. This might be normal in China’s autocratic environment, but in Taiwan, it would be illegal and unconstitutional for an organization that has not received legal authorization to have the power to decide what products can be traded across the Taiwan Strait and on related procedures and tax rates — all of which can affect the economic rights and duties of Taiwanese — without any supervision by elected officials.
Although the government defends the committee by saying that it will be established in accordance with the ECFA, it has been loudly opposed by academics and experts. Once the committee is up and running, cross-strait talks are over, because in the future there will no longer be discussions on anything resembling an equal footing and the public will be unable to supervise economic cooperation.
The decisions by the economic cooperation committee will have no input from any elected representatives. The lack of prior consultation with such officials means that no decision it makes will have been endorsed by elected institutions. If decisions later harm the rights and interests of the public, people will have nowhere to turn and this will be a constant source of conflict and social division.
Although the Ma administration likes to flaunt its control of the executive and legislative branches of the government, it has bypassed legislative oversight to expedite cross-strait economic cooperation. Although this greatly simplifies administrative matters, the government will have to pay the long-term political price. The Democratic Progressive Party is certain to ask for a constitutional interpretation of the economic cooperation committee, and the conflict over its establishment will add further legitimacy to the ECFA referendum proposal submitted by the Taiwan Solidarity Union. The establishment of an economic cooperation committee would be unwise and shortsighted.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers