Responding to media reports that the first formal round of negotiations on Taiwan-Hong Kong air links had broken down because of Taiwan's demand that the Civil Aeronautics Administra-tion (CAA) sign the agreement, the Mainland Affairs Commission (MAC) denied that the talks had collapsed, saying that the two sides had exchanged views on issues such as flight frequency and contract framework and that there would be a second meeting.
The development undoubtedly shows that neither side can afford to let the talks collapse as they concern the transportation needs of three million passengers per year and the substantial commercial interests involved in servicing those needs. It also, however, highlights the importance of the government's pragmatism in delegating non-governmental groups to conduct negotiations over cross-strait issues involving the exercise of government authority.
The existing agreement, signed in June 1996, was negotiated between Hong Kong airlines and a delegation formed by Taiwan's carriers under directions from government agencies such as the CAA and the MAC.
After Hong Kong's handover to Beijing in 1997, however, the MAC took charge of negotiations for the renewal of the links, in accordance with the Provisions Governing Relations with Hong Kong and Macau (港澳關係條例). Naturally, Taiwan's demand for a "government-to-government" negotiation model depends on whether Beijing will play ball.
Such political considerations have forced two six-month extensions of the 1996 agreement by way of "document exchange" instead of a new agreement.
As far as the possibility of a new agreement is concerned, I believe that the Taiwan-Hong Kong route is a major element of cross-strait interaction at a time when political obstacles stand in the way of direct transport links between Taiwan and China.
A new agreement is expected to involve additional flights for the carriers and, because both sides are under enormous pressure, a compromise can still be reached at the 11th hour. While I cannot predict how the political compromise will be struck, we can be sure that continued communication between Taiwanese and Hong Kong carriers will bring about a win-win proposal.
Because the two sides agreed not to disclose details of the negotiations, it is not possible to confirm whether the talks collapsed because of Taiwan's demand. In fact, President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) recently said that Taipei could consider authorizing non-governmental groups to negotiate direct links, although the MAC later said that he actually meant that Taipei could seek assistance with direct-links negotiations from non-governmental groups.
There are precedents for the use of non-governmental groups on either side of the Strait to interact in a flexible and pragmatic manner and facilitate mutually acceptable agreements. Examples include the Kinmen agreement signed between the Red Cross societies, the signing of the existing Taiwan-Hong Kong aviation agreement and the "offshore shipping" model promoted by shipping associations from the two sides.
As long as it supervises the negotiations effectively, the government will ensure that the delegated organizations negotiate in strict adherence to its principles. This will also help to reduce concerns about belittlement, localization and marginalization.
All told, facing the rising demand for direct links, the government should continue to promote participation in negotiations by non-governmental groups. Such groups can help to lubricate the works of positive interaction across the Strait.
Tsai Horng-ming is deputy secretary-general of the Chinese National Federation of Industries.
Translated by Francis Huang
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS