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
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
RSS