To ease public concerns over what many see as the government’s lack of transparency and communication regarding cross-strait trade talks, the nation’s negotiating team last week undertook a daily 10-minute media progress report during the ninth round of talks on a goods trade pact with China.
Unsurprisingly, Bureau of Foreign Trade Director-General Jenni Yang (楊珍妮) used the 10 minutes to project “safe” or “neutral” information about the day’s trade negotiations alongside her Chinese counterpart, head of the Chinese Ministry of Commerce’s Department of Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macau Affairs, Chen Xing (陳星).
Even though the top Taiwanese negotiator went no further than that and would not discuss the nation’s bottom line regarding domestic industry concessions, Yang established a precedent for future talks when it comes to informing the public.
Both sides of the Taiwan Strait in the meeting last week reviewed progress made during previous rounds of talks and exchanged views on issues related to tariff cuts, structure of goods, rules on product origin, quarantine measures and trade remedies.
However, the discussions were not limited to those technical issues, as Taiwan expressed its concerns about the ongoing talks on a free-trade agreement between China and South Korea, and China voiced worries over the progress of an oversight bill on all future cross-strait pacts pending in the legislature.
Most importantly, China also expressed its interest in tapping into Taiwan’s agricultural market and other industrial segments including textiles, garments and shoemaking, Yang said.
Whether Yang wished to communicate with the press or was doing so under the pressure of public opinion, her actions should be recognized.
During the past eight rounds of talks for a trade in goods agreement with Beijing, and throughout the negotiations for the controversial cross-strait service trade agreement signed with China in June last year, or in the similar free-trade pact talks with Singapore and New Zealand, the public and even lawmakers were mostly kept in the dark about the government’s plans for trade discussions.
It is not clear whether the government’s negotiating team will continue such briefings at the next round of talks, which are set to be held in China, but the student-led Sunflower movement protests in March should be a reminder to the government that it must work hard and with sincerity to remedy the issue of transparency.
A more effective means of informing the nation about the challenges presented by the global environment would be to involve people from all walks of life in frank dialogue, which would make it easier for businesses, policymakers and the public to stay ahead of any emerging crises.
Nevertheless, there is still a long way to go before Taiwan can ink a merchandise trade deal with China, since any trade agreement involves give and take.
Is the nation prepared for the impact that weaker traditional businesses will face after the cross-strait goods trade pact is signed? How should Taiwan respond to China’s demand to open the nation’s markets in weak industrial segments in exchange for tariff cuts on automobile, petrochemical, flat panel and machine tool products?
Yang and her negotiating team face some difficult issues, but one certainty is that support can be gained by communicating with the public in a much more engaging way.
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