Ever since the controversy-plagued Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA) was signed in China last week, the pan-blue media have highlighted the need for bipartisanship and speed in reviewing the trade pact at the legislature.
In a Sunday editorial, the Chinese-language China Times wrote that while the ECFA needs to be screened by the legislature, “we would hate to see the trade pact delayed endlessly and Taiwan’s crucial chance of a comeback nixed because of partisan struggle.”
There are several problems with this statement. For one, it says that the legislature should “screen” the ECFA, a term so vague as to be meaningless. It includes no call for “careful” or “thorough” screening. Also, Taiwan’s economic comeback in the wake of the global recession began in the final quarter of last year and has proceeded well — without the ECFA. As such, partisan struggle over the trade agreement will not undermine the recovery.
It is particlarly ironic for the pan-blue media to be warning us about the pitfalls of partisanship when it comes to the ECFA because they remained unusually quiet when the pan-blue-dominated legislature prevented the administration of then-president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) from purchasing weapons approved for sale by Washington in 2001, at a time when the Chinese military budget was growing at a double-digit pace.
While it may be fair to characterize the ECFA as an unprecedented development in relations across the Taiwan Strait (for better or worse), the procurement of weapons to ensure that the nation can defend itself was no less important. Not only did those years prove detrimental to the development of the Taiwanese military as a viable deterrent against Chinese aggression, they also tarnished the nation’s image with the US, its sole supplier of advanced weapons, sparking unfair accusations that the DPP administration was not serious about defending Taiwan.
Partisan politics in the pan-blue-controlled legislature also resulted in the inability of the executive under Chen to implement a series of necessary reforms, which in many cases brought national development to a standstill. Did pan-blue media bemoan partisan politics back then? No.
Those same media also seem to believe that the DPP is determined, out of sheer malice, to delay “review” of the ECFA.
“As long as the ECFA is deferred for a single day, the DPP will feel triumphant for a day and the interests of the public will be impaired for one more day,” the China Times wrote, adding that “destructive boycotting does not constitute effective supervision.”
One might add that a pan-blue-dominated legislature, rubber-stamping a deal shrouded in secrecy that risks undermining the sovereignty of the nation isn’t effective supervision either.
What the DPP seeks is an article-by-article review of the deal, which is the only way to ensure that the ECFA is, as the China Times alleges, a “well-designed” trade pact. Anything less, anything that continues to keep the majority of the population in the dark, is unacceptable and does not deserve public support.
We’ve reached a point that transcends partisan politics. The ECFA touches on questions of national survival and if it is mismanaged and not scrutinized as an agreement of this unprecedented scope should be, and if calls for a referendum on the matter continue to be shot down by the executive, then yes, a boycott at the legislature may be necessary.
Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) has created a dilemma that could soon cause him to be hoisted with his own petard, bringing his leadership of China to an end. His threatening rhetoric over the unification of Taiwan with China, in which he has said, “we are willing to draw blood if necessary,” has placed Xi in a corner. Xi is portrayed as a strong world leader, yet he has created a scenario for himself that most likely would have an unfavorable outcome. With the 20th National Congress of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) scheduled to convene this month, Xi cannot
The 77th session of the UN General Assembly opened on Sept. 13. More than 10 overseas Taiwanese organizations had submitted a petition to the UN secretary-general, protesting that 23.5 million Taiwanese are excluded from representation. As president of the Taiwan United Nations Alliance, I also submitted a letter to the UN, saying that Taiwanese should have the right to be represented under the name of Taiwan. The government has been asking its allies to support Taiwan’s entry into the UN, but under its official name, the Republic of China (ROC). Doing so would have involved the right to represent China, with
I was privileged to meet with many of Taiwan’s leaders and leading thinkers during a study tour visit in August. One theme I heard several times during that trip was that bad relations between the United States and China benefit Taiwan. At first thought, I empathize with the argument. After all, there is a troubling record of America’s leaders negotiating with Beijing over the heads of Taiwan’s leaders. For example, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt returned Taiwan to China after World War II. President Richard Nixon surprised Taiwan leaders with his 1972 trip to China. President Jimmy Carter unilaterally chose to normalize
Washington’s “one China” policy has not changed and the US does not take a position on Taiwan’s sovereignty issue, a US Department of State spokesperson has said. He said that this has been the principle of US policy toward Taiwan since 1979, and the policy has remained in effect. He also said that US Secretary of State Antony Blinken has privately made this clear to Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs Wang Yi (王毅). The US’ “one China” policy and China’s “one China” principle recognize China as the “representative of China.” The two diverge on the issue of Taiwan: Beijing asserts sovereignty