Sun, Jun 13, 2010 page8

• China’s hardline stance hurting Ma

  • By Emerson Chang 張子揚
  • • 
    • 
    • 

  China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs recently stated that it opposes any of its diplomatic allies developing any form of official relations with Taiwan. With some commentators interpreting this as meaning that China is against Taiwan signing free-trade agreements (FTA) with other countries, the government of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) finds itself under attack from both front and back. Since Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) took office, Beijing has taken the view that having the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) in government in Taiwan provides a valuable historical opportunity for building peaceful relations between the two sides. Setting this view against the current signs of tension, one may ask why China’s attitude appears to have shifted.

  In reality, signs of rising tension appeared quite some time ago. During his televised debate with Democratic Progressive Party Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) in April, Ma made some statements that made China unhappy and provoked calls from within the Chinese Communist Party establishment for continued crisis management even during the current window of opportunity. Therein lies the cause of the current difficulties.

  The first point is that Ma, in his debate with Tsai, said two things that made the Chinese authorities unhappy. One was that the 10-year period envisaged for deregulating bilateral trade in more than 8,000 agricultural and industrial products not included in the “early harvest” list is not set in stone. The second was Ma’s open call for the Chinese authorities not to hamper Taiwan’s efforts to sign free-trade agreements with its trade partners. China’s displeasure with Ma’s remarks has manifested itself in two areas. One is sticking points that have come up in the course of trade negotiations with Beijing, notably China’s demand that a timetable for deregulating trade in the 8,000 products should be included among the articles of the proposed cross-strait economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA).

  The second point is that China’s foreign ministry stated during a routine press briefing that it is opposed “in principle” to Taiwan signing agreements of an official nature with other countries. The ministry later changed the wording in its written record of the briefing to saying that China is firmly opposed to its diplomatic allies developing any form of official relations with Taiwan. This revision implies that the statement was directed at China’s diplomatic allies, rather than at Taiwan, thus avoiding the appearance that the foreign ministry was interfering in the domain of the Taiwan Affairs Office, which is the bureau normally responsible for making statements about Taiwan. The change of wording also took the heat off the KMT to some extent, but without altering China’s basic stance.

  One may also ask what is meant by “agreements of an official nature.” In China’s view, those include FTAs, as expressed by the Chinese Ministry of Commerce in mid-April when it said that for Taiwan to sign FTAs with other countries is a sovereign act, and therefore can only be done with Beijing’s consent. As to whether agreements under different names would be considered of an official nature, China reserved the right to decide. This leaves China and Taiwan room for negotiation on the issue.

  In addition, between these two events, the Chinese side said something else that gave the Ma administration a headache. Chao Chun-shan (趙春山), spokesman for one of the Ma government’s key think tanks, proposed “five principles for peaceful coexistence across the Taiwan Strait in a post-ECFA framework.” The foundation suggested that the two sides, while setting aside disputes over sovereignty, could respect one another’s existing form of government and undertake not to resort to military force to resolve disputes. Two days later, Hu, in his opening address at the second round of the Strategic and Economic Dialogue between China and the US, made two points that could be interpreted as a response to Chao’s proposal.

  Hu said: “To the Chinese people, nothing is more important than safeguarding national sovereignty and territorial integrity. I trust it is not difficult for the American people, who went through the American Civil War in their history, to understand how important and valuable unity is to a nation.”

  He went on to say: “China will remain committed to the path of peaceful development and pursue friendly cooperation with all countries on the basis of the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence. We will not interfere in other countries’ internal affairs or impose our own will on others.”

  Hu’s words make clear China’s determination to break with the cross-strait “status quo” and work toward unification.

  It is clear that China’s attitude to the opportunity offered by the Ma administration is not one of unlimited compromise and concessions. This trend, which has become all the more obvious following the Ma-Tsai debate, shows that China, while grasping at the available opportunity, has started paying attention to the possibility that the pan-blue camp may seek to use opposition voices from the pan-green camp as a pretext for making statements that run counter to Beijing’s wishes.

  China’s responses, outlined above, are intended to send the Ma administration a message that, even under pressure from the pan-green camp, it should not overstep the mark with regard to China’s basic position.

  Following the Chinese foreign ministry’s statement opposing agreements of an official nature with Taiwan, the Ma administration has repeatedly restated what Ma said when concluding his debate with Tsai, calling on Beijing not to hamper Taipei’s efforts to sign FTAs with its trade partners. In doing so, the government is expressing its determination to press ahead with FTA negotiations. Although this does nothing to improve cross-strait relations, it can strengthen the tough-guy image Ma has been seeking to build for himself and prevent the pan-green camp from making any further political gains at his expense.

  Emerson Chang is director of the Department of International Studies at Nanhua University.

  TRANSLATED BY JULIAN CLEGG
• Most Popular

  • 1

    Dell picks AMD for business PCs

  • 2

    Ministry lifts overseas limits on TSMC

  • 3

    New missiles to be deployed in north

  • 4

    Retired officers indicted over collusion

  • 5

    Buffet defies suspension order after illness reports