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
US President Donald Trump created some consternation in Taiwan last week when he told a news conference that a successful trade deal with China would help with “unification.” Although the People’s Republic of China has never ruled Taiwan, Trump’s language struck a raw nerve in Taiwan given his open siding with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression seeking to “reunify” Ukraine and Russia. On earlier occasions, Trump has criticized Taiwan for “stealing” the US’ chip industry and for relying too much on the US for defense, ominously presaging a weakening of US support for Taiwan. However, further examination of Trump’s remarks in
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
RSS