TT: What future do you see for cross-strait relations once the two sides enter the WTO?
Shi Hwei-yow (許惠祐): The two sides will be entering a global organization covering a range of economic issues, such as trade, taxes, services, and intellectual property. The shipping industry is not a concern of the WTO, but the two sides will probably have no choice but to discuss the issue as it relates to exchanges involving other industries. The fundamental issues will be easier to discuss if the two sides resolve certain issues within the WTO framework. There might be possibilities for discussing direct transportation links.
It's too early to talk about what the WTO can do for the two sides. But if the public believes that economic issues are more important than political issues, especially in this sluggish economy, I believe that the political issues will fade away. Taiwan's public will tire of the so called "one China" principle or the "1992 consensus," if these have no positive impact on their lives.
TT: What's your understanding of the so-called "1992 consensus?"
Shi: The "1992 consensus" is not an appropriate term of reference for the discussion of cross-strait affairs. Su-Chi (蘇起) coined the phrase last year in an attempt to find common ground between China and Taiwan. He didn't, however, define it any further. Somebody else then defined it as "one China, with each side having its own interpretation." Then somebody else defined it as the "one China principle." There is a wide gap between the two.
China's "one China principle" means that there is only one China, Taiwan is part of China, and China's territory is indivisible; the PRC is the only China.
Su Chi wanted to establish as much room as possible to get the two sides back to the negotiating table, but he didn't define the "1992 consensus," which was unhelpful and simply caused further conflict.
TT: How do you view the disputes caused by the "1992 consensus" between the current government and the opposition parties?
Shi: The opposition must explain the issue clearly, such as what China has done to us with the "one China" principle.
China has kept changing its position on the so-called "consensus." What is there for the government to recognize?
When the DPP was in opposition, it attacked both Taiwan's government and China, but the current opposition parties simply demand that the government recognize the "1992 consensus."
Our political parties should work to produce a common foreign policy. Let's have sensible debate. The national interest should be above party interests.
TT: How will the SEF assist Taiwanese businessmen investing in China after WTO entry?
Shi: We have solved many problems for them, such as military service issues for their children.
We are currently working on further opening the "small three-links," including allowing Taiwanese businessmen to travel to China from Kinmen (
TT: Will the ban on Chinese citizens visiting Taiwan be lifted soon?
Shi: I am lukewarm on the policy. What are we really hoping to gain by allowing Chinese to visit Taiwan? "Generating revenue" is just a slogan used by certain politicians. How much money can we make from them? We currently allow Chinese businessmen to visit upon application. Would this be fair, if we allowed tourists to do so without application? Moreover, we need to see how much we will need to spend to upgrade security. I doubt whether Chinese visitors can stimulate Taiwan's economy.
RSS