In a recent interview with the Associated Press (AP), President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) touched on the subject of potential political dialogue with China, a sensitive subject that stirred up controversy both in Taiwan and abroad. Although he was quick to clear up what he considered to be misrepresentations of what he said, the affair served to focus attention on the issue and raise several key points.
The first is whether it is possible to separate economics and politics. The government would have us believe the two are quite distinct. However, it seems that in modern international relations the situation is so utterly complex and all aspects — not just economics and politics, but culture and education, too — are so intimately connected, that the tiniest adjustment in one area is bound to have a knock-on effect elsewhere.
One cannot claim the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA) is a purely economic agreement, as it touches on Taiwan’s sovereignty and its status in international law. The idea that economic negotiations come first, with political talks following, is misleading to all concerned and in fact is steeped in political significance in and of itself. The director of China’s Taiwan Affairs Office himself admitted that there was a political element to the economic talks between China and Taiwan. In other words, the government has already embarked on the road of political discussions with China.
Second, can China be trusted? Of course each side has its differences, but diplomacy needs at the very least to be based on mutual trust. China’s political culture is cut from a different cloth than the internationalized culture of modern pluralistic societies. Some things just will not fit no matter how hard you force them, like sticking a square peg in a round hole.
This will become all the more apparent now that China is in the midst of its economic ascension and on the way to becoming a major economic power. For the reasons described above, it is sure to create tensions with other countries as it moves up, for it will seek to do things in ways considered unconventional by these countries. Even if Beijing does officially sign international treaties, that does not mean it will abide by them, and it may in fact openly flout them.
China might be rich, but in the eyes of many countries, it has not yet developed the refinement that attends wealth: It is still “New Money,” the “Vulgar Rich,” and not yet ready to take up its position as a responsible member of the international community. Whether or not it will fully implement or honor any agreement it signs with Taiwan is by no means assured. Such agreements are by and large meaningless, and certainly suspect.
One must bear in mind that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) are masters of the negotiation table, something that even former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) found out to his peril. It is said that Chiang and former president Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國), his son and successor, would become angry at the mere mention of them, and the latter actually declared the “three noes” policy: “No contact, no compromise and no negotiation.”
In other words, Chiang Ching-kuo preferred to keep them at arm’s length. So, it is into this lions den that Ma and his government venture. Political negotiations with the acknowledged champions: Lambs to the slaughter.
The third point involves who is to represent Taipe in the negotiations. Given China’s political culture, there is every possibility that the representative would turn into a traitor and sell out to Beijing. There is, after all, a precedent in the delegation led by Zhang Zhizhong (張治中) in the closing years of the Chinese Civil War. Zhang’s delegation traveled to Beijing to negotiate on behalf of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government with the CCP and the whole delegation ended up going over to the other side. The Nationalists became a laughing stock, at home and abroad.
Contrasting this is the example of former US president Richard Nixon. The reason he was able to do something no other US president had done, to talk to the CCP, was that the US public was confident Nixon himself was vehemently anti-communist and knew that he would in no way sell the US out. The US public knew he would make utterly sure US interests were protected and they were consequently willing to accept any agreement he signed with Beijing.
By the same token, when it becomes necessary to enter into talks with Beijing, it is important that the person or persons negotiating on Taiwan’s behalf are fully behind Taiwan. They must genuinely have its best interests at heart and be prepared to be firm in protecting the fundamental values and interests of all Taiwanese; ideals such as democracy, freedom, human rights and the right to self-determination.
If the other side proposes anything unreasonable, Taiwan’s representative must have the courage to walk away from the table. Only someone with these qualities can go to the table with the support and blessing of Taiwanese and without this it would be difficult for them to sell the results of the negotiations.
On the other hand, if the negotiator for the Taiwanese side has strong affiliations with, and empathy for, China, and supports the proposition of eventual unification, then the talks are doomed to fail. How could one honestly expect such a person to look out for the fundamental values of Taiwanese? It is almost certain such a representative would be coming back with a craftily-worded document amounting to little more than a complete sell-out. Taiwanese aren’t going to buy that. One shudders at the thought of the chaos and social unrest that would ensue.
Finally, how are these diplomatic talks to be perceived in Taiwan? There is a misconception within this country regarding the nature of international negotiations and this is particularly true of the media. This is reflected in the belief that if negotiators come away from talks empty-handed, without a signed agreement, then they have “failed.”
There is the perception that Taiwan’s negotiators have been incompetent or that they did not perform their duties adequately, and they will encounter criticism at home for their pains. This is the wrong approach. Negotiations involve bargaining with the other party, accepting anything within the national interest and refusing anything that isn’t. If the negotiators stick to their guns and preserve their nation’s interests, standing firm when needed, and come away without an agreement as a result, this should be considered a success, not a failure, and as such should be rewarded.
The pressure born of this kind of misconception — and again, the media is particularly implicated in this — can mean the negotiators compromise where they shouldn’t simply to make sure they walk away with an agreement, however shoddy. It makes no sense at all to expect the negotiator to close a deal within a certain time limit.
The CCP and the US eyed each other with suspicion from the time the former took power in China in 1949. After a succession of problems between the two countries, they finally got around to sitting down to ambassadorial-level talks in 1955, first in Geneva and later in Warsaw.
The on-and-off negotiations continued all the way until 1970, a 15-year period in which the two sides met a total of 136 times. Beijing also had complex, extended negotiations with other countries, leading to its taking over the UN China seat from the Republic of China on Taiwan in 1971. It wasn’t until 1979 that the US and China established official diplomatic relations, a full 30 years after the establishment of the People’s Republic of China in 1949.
Clearly, diplomatic negotiations with Beijing have been a lengthy, drawn-out process demanding patience, resolve and persistence. Taiwan’s relationship with China is no less complicated than the latter’s with the US. There are two kinds of people who would imagine that political talks with Beijing are to be easy: the naive and those who have been brow-beaten, sweet-talked or otherwise cajoled into buying Beijing’s line.
Peng Ming-min is a former presidential adviser.
TRANSLATED BY PAUL COOPER
The EU’s biggest banks have spent years quietly creating a new way to pay that could finally allow customers to ditch their Visa Inc and Mastercard Inc cards — the latest sign that the region is looking to dislodge two of the most valuable financial firms on the planet. Wero, as the project is known, is now rolling out across much of western Europe. Backed by 16 major banks and payment processors including BNP Paribas SA, Deutsche Bank AG and Worldline SA, the platform would eventually allow a German customer to instantly settle up with, say, a hotel in France
On August 6, Ukraine crossed its northeastern border and invaded the Russian region of Kursk. After spending more than two years seeking to oust Russian forces from its own territory, Kiev turned the tables on Moscow. Vladimir Putin seemed thrown off guard. In a televised meeting about the incursion, Putin came across as patently not in control of events. The reasons for the Ukrainian offensive remain unclear. It could be an attempt to wear away at the morale of both Russia’s military and its populace, and to boost morale in Ukraine; to undermine popular and elite confidence in Putin’s rule; to
A traffic accident in Taichung — a city bus on Sept. 22 hit two Tunghai University students on a pedestrian crossing, killing one and injuring the other — has once again brought up the issue of Taiwan being a “living hell for pedestrians” and large vehicle safety to public attention. A deadly traffic accident in Taichung on Dec. 27, 2022, when a city bus hit a foreign national, his Taiwanese wife and their one-year-old son in a stroller on a pedestrian crossing, killing the wife and son, had shocked the public, leading to discussions and traffic law amendments. However, just after the
The international community was shocked when Israel was accused of launching an attack on Lebanon by rigging pagers to explode. Most media reports in Taiwan focused on whether the pagers were produced locally, arousing public concern. However, Taiwanese should also look at the matter from a security and national defense perspective. Lebanon has eschewed technology, partly because of concerns that countries would penetrate its telecommunications networks to steal confidential information or launch cyberattacks. It has largely abandoned smartphones and modern telecommunications systems, replacing them with older and relatively basic communications equipment. However, the incident shows that using older technology alone cannot