The third round of talks between the Straits Exchange Foundation (SEF) and the Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait (ARATS) concluded in Nanjing, China, yesterday. SEF Chairman Chiang Pin-kung (江丙坤) and ARATS Chairman Chen Yunlin (陳雲林) signed three agreements on judicial matters and fighting crime, financial cooperation and scheduled passenger flights across the Taiwan Strait. While the government celebrates the deals, however, it should be borne in mind that the agreements reached at the previous two rounds of talks have not produced the promised benefits.
During the first two rounds of cross-strait talks in Beijing and Taipei last year, the delegates signed six agreements on charter flights, opening Taiwan to Chinese tourists, air and sea freight, food safety and postal services. The government claims that these agreements have brought economic and other benefits, but in its rush to start cross-strait flights, it limited its negotiating power and may have damaged the nation’s sovereignty. Even then, Chinese visitors to Taiwan did not meet the government’s targets until Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao (溫家寶) personally called for more people to visit Taiwan.
The government said agreements signed at the second SEF-ARATS meeting in November to expand air and sea links would save time and cut costs in cross-strait trade and promote Taiwan’s position in the Asia-Pacific region. Yet Taiwan gained only what had already been agreed upon under the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) administration. In exchange, the government made concessions on national sovereignty by accepting the so-called “1992 consensus” and saying that China is divided into “Taiwan and mainland areas.”
The outline for the agreements reached at this third meeting was decided some time ago, but before departing for Nanjing, the government added new goals, including a target increase in the number of cross-strait flights. It forecast benefits of financial cooperation for Taiwan’s economy and promised that an agreement on fighting crime would make it easier to repatriate fugitives wanted for major economic crimes.
Opposition politicians do not share the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) optimism. They have criticized the SEF for not promoting and defending Taiwan’s interests. For example, there has been no progress on allowing Taiwanese airlines to extend cross-strait flights to new destinations. DPP Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) compared the role of Taiwanese carriers under such conditions to feeder bus routes serving the high-speed rail service. The Taiwan Solidarity Union (TSU), for its part, criticized the government for failing to appraise the impact of cross-strait market deregulation on workers and businesses. The TSU believes Taiwanese will suffer before they see any benefit.
The talks in Nanjing coincided with celebrations of the 60th anniversary of the “liberation of Nanjing,” referring to the Communist Party’s ouster of the KMT from its seat of government in 1949. This context put Taiwan’s negotiators at a disadvantage in terms of morale.
The agreements signed last November in Taipei took effect without discussion or approval by the legislature, in violation of the principle of democracy and without any checks and balances. The latest agreements have even greater implications for Taiwan’s future, yet the KMT government has failed to communicate with opposition parties and the public before the negotiations. If it does not give legislators a chance to review the latest agreements, it will fuel concerns of a return to one-party rule.
In the first year of his second term, US President Donald Trump continued to shake the foundations of the liberal international order to realize his “America first” policy. However, amid an atmosphere of uncertainty and unpredictability, the Trump administration brought some clarity to its policy toward Taiwan. As expected, bilateral trade emerged as a major priority for the new Trump administration. To secure a favorable trade deal with Taiwan, it adopted a two-pronged strategy: First, Trump accused Taiwan of “stealing” chip business from the US, indicating that if Taipei did not address Washington’s concerns in this strategic sector, it could revisit its Taiwan
Immediately after the Chinese People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) “Justice Mission” exercise at the end of last year, a question was posed to Indian Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal regarding recent developments involving the exercises around Taiwan, and how he viewed their impact on regional peace and stability. His answer was somewhat perplexing to me as a curious student of Taiwanese affairs. “India closely follows developments across the Indo-Pacific region,” he said, adding: “We have an abiding interest in peace and stability in the region, in view of our significant trade, economic, people-to-people, and maritime interests. We urge all concerned
International debate on Taiwan is obsessed with “invasion countdowns,” framing the cross-strait crisis as a matter of military timetables and political opportunity. However, the seismic political tremors surrounding Central Military Commission (CMC) vice chairman Zhang Youxia (張又俠) suggested that Washington and Taipei are watching the wrong clock. Beijing is constrained not by a lack of capability, but by an acute fear of regime-threatening military failure. The reported sidelining of Zhang — a combat veteran in a largely unbloodied force and long-time loyalist of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) — followed a year of purges within the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA)
In a stark reminder of China’s persistent territorial overreach, Pema Wangjom Thongdok, a woman from Arunachal Pradesh holding an Indian passport, was detained for 18 hours at Shanghai Pudong Airport on Nov. 24 last year. Chinese immigration officials allegedly informed her that her passport was “invalid” because she was “Chinese,” refusing to recognize her Indian citizenship and claiming Arunachal Pradesh as part of South Tibet. Officials had insisted that Thongdok, an Indian-origin UK resident traveling for a conference, was not Indian despite her valid documents. India lodged a strong diplomatic protest, summoning the Chinese charge d’affaires in Delhi and demanding
RSS