The draft cross-strait agreement oversight bill has been waiting in the legislature for a while; it must be passed before any cross-strait agreements can be signed. With the Jan. 16 presidential and legislative elections approaching, it would be reasonable that negotiations for the cross-strait trade in goods agreement, which does not conform with the oversight bill, be stopped and left to the next administration to handle.
However, the Chinese government and President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration do not operate with reason. After Ma’s meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), the government has been aggressively addressing the trade in goods agreement. Between Saturday and Monday last week, the two sides conducted the 12th round of talks for the trade in goods agreement in Taipei and they agreed to finalize the agreement in a 13th round next month. The aggression of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) shows that they have certain objectives in mind and have devised a scheme to achieve them.
First, they want a signed agreement to create a new “status quo” before the next administration takes office.
Second, since the trade in goods agreement would lower taxes for the flat panel, petrochemical, automotive and machinery industries, these industries would use the pro-China media to promote the necessity of the agreement. By pushing down share prices, inciting shareholder protests and organizing seminars on the poor performance of the industries with the attendance of businesspeople, government officials and academics, they want to pressure the next government and legislature to circumvent the bill and pass the agreement.
If the trade in goods agreement could be passed this way, the service trade agreement and the special regulations for free economic pilot zones could be given similar treatment.
Third, for Beijing, it is easy to reduce taxes for these industries. In return, China wants Taiwan to deregulate the hundreds of agricultural and machinery products that were not opened up to China when it joined the WTO. Since Taiwan and China are on the same latitude and Taiwan is much smaller than China, this would have a tremendous impact on Taiwan’s economy and society, giving China an upper hand to enforce the policies it has devised to control farmers, middle and low-income families, small and medium-sized enterprises and young people in central and southern Taiwan.
The CCP is trying to find avenues to influence communities, cities and the entire nation, and plant vote riggers at the polls so that in 2020 it would be able to win back Taiwan with the KMT’s assistance. Would it be successful? Yes, very likely.
The only protests against the latest round of talks were organized by the Taiwan Solidarity Union Youth League, the Radical Flank and the Economic Democracy Union. Although they speak for farmers and workers — both disadvantaged groups — they were few in number, while the general public and other opposition parties showed almost no interest, leaving them to fight a lonely battle.
The lack of a powerful Taiwan-centered third party counterbalancing the two major parties in the legislature, coupled with Beijing’s threats and pressure from cross-strait consortiums mean that there is an increasing possibility for compromise and flexibility in the handling of the trade in goods and service trade agreements. If that happens, the 2001 Economic Development Advisory Conference farce is bound to be repeated next year. That would not do the nation any good.
Huang Tien-lin is former president and chairman of First Commercial Bank and a former Presidential Office adviser.
Translated by Ethan Zhan
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
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
RSS