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
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers
RSS