Politics can no longer be separated from economics and both sides of the Taiwan Strait should engage in dialogue on political issues to build up bilateral trust, a former National Security Council (NSC) official said on Saturday.
Former NSC secretary-general Su Chi (蘇起), who is currently a professor at Tamkang University, made the remarks at a forum on cross-strait challenges arising from China’s leadership transition in the wake of the Chinese Communist Party’s 18th National Congress last month.
At the forum sponsored by the university, Su identified what he said were the three most important elements in cross-strait relations: inseparable political and economic issues, political dialogue and cross-strait trust.
He said that the concept of focusing on “economics first and politics later” that dominates cross-strait exchanges was the result of a specific period in bilateral relations.
However, the signing of the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA) in 2010 was a milestone in low-end political exchange, Su said.
Past discussions on the ECFA were focused on tariff concessions, but he said this subject was too narrow and “has entirely underestimated and misconceived the political significance” of the agreement. He predicted that in the next four years, there will be more extensive discussions on economic issues, as well as on political matters.
Although there is no rush to stage formal cross-strait political talks, some form of political dialogue should occur, he said.
Su praised Mainland Affairs Commission Minister Wang Yu-chi (王郁琦) for allowing Sun Yafu (孫亞夫), the deputy director of China’s Taiwan Affairs Office under the State Council; and Huang Wentao (黃文濤), the director of the research bureau, to visit Taiwan recently to attend a forum, which he said “would contribute to the forging of cross-strait political dialogue.”
Su also said that although the “1992 consensus” is important in developing Taiwan-China relations, political trust is more important.
The “1992 consensus” refers to an alleged tacit agreement between Taiwan and China that there is only one China, with both sides free to interpret its meaning,.
On Feb. 21, 2006, Su admitted that he made up the term “1992 consensus” in 2000, before the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) handed over power to the Democratic Progressive Party. Su said he invented the term in order to break the cross-strait deadlock.
Meanwhile, Beijing Union University associate professor Hu Shuhui (胡淑慧) said that Taiwan should avoid contradicting Beijing’s “one China” principle while seeking to sign free-trade agreements (FTA) with other countries.
She said that in China’s eyes, Taiwan inking FTAs with other countries would highlight its sovereignty in the international community, which is a sensitive matter for cross-strait ties and that if Taipei signed such pacts with countries that maintain relations with China, it would contravene the “one China” principle between China and its allies.
However, Chen Te-sheng (陳德昇), a former adviser to the National Security Council and a researcher at National Chengchi University, said the obstacles to Taiwan signing FTAs with other countries have not come from China, but were mainly due to Taiwan being too conservative and not economically open enough.
SPEEDING ELETRIC VEHICLES: Available without license requirements, the low-cost vehicles, especially if illicitly modified, can often reach a dangerous speed The government should crack down on illegal electric bicycles and scooters, the non-profit Consumers’ Foundation said on Friday, citing research on the potentially dangerous speed of the vehicles. Electric bicycles and lightweight electric scooters have gained popularity as they do not require registration and riders do not need licenses, the foundation said, adding that as many as 40 percent of them can reach speeds exceeding the legal limit of 25kph for non-licensed two-wheelers. Some consumers also purchased legal electric vehicles and modified them to reach higher speeds, it said. “If the government does not step up efforts to confiscate these
‘RELIABLE PARTNER’: US Secretary of Health and Human Services Alex Azar praised the ‘Taiwan model,’ saying that the nation brought its spirit to its COVID-19 response The first memorandum of understanding (MOU) on health cooperation between the Ministry of Health and Welfare and the US Department of Health and Human Services was yesterday signed at the Centers for Disease Control in Taipei. The memorandum was signed between the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) and the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the US, by AIT Director Brent Christensen and Taiwan Council for US Affairs Chairperson Jen-ni Yang (楊珍妮). US Secretary of Health and Human Services Alex Azar and Minister of Health and Welfare Chen Shih-chung (陳時中) witnessed the signing of the memorandum, designed to enhance the nations’
Minister of Foreign Affairs Joseph Wu (吳釗燮) yesterday tweeted a welcome to Somaliland’s first representative to Taiwan, Mohamed Omar Hagi Mohamoud, who arrived on Friday. Mohamoud had “braved Chinese pressure” to take up his new post, Wu wrote. “The fact ‘sovereignty & friendship aren’t for sale’ deserves international recognition,” referring to a Somaliland media report earlier this month that Somaliland President Muse Bihi Abdi had rejected an offer by the Chinese government in exchange for ending its rapprochement with Taiwan. Wu also thanked the US National Security Council (NSC) for praising Taiwan-Somaliland ties. A council tweet on July 10 praised Taiwan
The US on Thursday removed a warning against all international travel, and placed Taiwan on a list of 13 destinations where the risk of COVID-19 transmission is “very low.” The list was compiled almost five months after the US Department of State issued a “global level 4 health advisory,” urging US citizens to avoid all international travel. On Thursday, the department announced that it was lifting the advisory, saying that “with health and safety conditions improving in some countries and potentially deteriorating in others, the Department is returning to our previous system of country-specific levels of travel advice.” The US