The promises to launch cross-strait weekend charter flights and allow more Chinese tourists to visit were two key points of President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) campaign platform.
Following his inauguration on May 20, he actively sought negotiations between the Straits Exchange Foundation (SEF) and China’s Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait (ARATS), which took place in China last month and led to a structural change in the “state-to-state” relationship between Taipei and Beijing.
On the surface, the SEF and ARATS may seem to have carried out only routine negotiations with the goal of realizing Ma’s two key campaign pledges, but the political significance of the talks should be carefully scrutinized.
Because the Ma administration is pinning all its hopes for the future of the nation’s economic development on China, it was in a hurry to announce a timetable for direct cross-strait charter flights even before Ma’s inauguration. That meant Beijing was in a position to set the agenda and guide the negotiations.
In his inaugural speech, Ma said that negotiations with China should be resumed based on the so-called “1992 consensus,” which means that the talks are based on a consensus that does not exist.
The government has failed to stress its view that there is “one China with different interpretations” and to make it clear that the nation, whether called Taiwan or the Republic of China (ROC), is an independent and sovereign state.
At the same time, the government tells the international community that it supports the “one China” principle.
This is giving a false impression to other governments that Taiwan is part of China.
The negotiations with China resulted in an uneven situation concerning the number of airports open to direct cross-strait charter flights. While Taiwan promised to open eight airports, China offered only five.
Furthermore, the launch of cross-strait chartered cargo flights — which would benefit the nation’s economy more than passenger flights — will only be discussed when ARATS representatives visit Taiwan in October. This risks damaging our national interests and making the negotiation process unnecessarily complex.
As a result of the talks, Taiwan will allow up to 3,000 Chinese tourists per day. But Beijing is responsible for checking the qualifications of the applicants, which means that Taipei can only accept the applicants passively, relinquishing its right to review their visa applications.
That is likely to open loopholes in national security.
National strength is everything in international politics, and the same is true when it comes to cross-strait talks. Faced with China’s rise, we should not base our policies on wishful thinking. If the nation’s expectations and demands for China are unrealistic, it will be like entrusting national security to one’s enemy. Beijing is all but certain to demand further compromises in return for increased economic links.
The public are the real masters of the nation. Faced with a government that is focusing too much on China, we should not sit idly by. We have the right to request that the government push for bilateral contacts, dialogue and negotiations between Taiwan and China based on a consensus between the Taiwanese government, the opposition and the public.
Any decisions that could change the “status quo” should be decided through a referendum. This is the only way we can ensure the public’s welfare and rights.
Chen Lung-chu is chairman of the Taiwan New Century Foundation.
Translated by Eddy Chang
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS