Speaking at an international press conference just after he took office, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) formally defined the series of talks between the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) as the “second track” in negotiations between Taiwan and China, while those between the Straits Exchange Foundation (SEF) and its Chinese counterpart, the Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait (ARATS), were the “first track.”
A “second track” is an unofficial avenue — not a policymaking process but merely a channel for communication. In the case of the KMT-CCP talks, however, Beijing does not accept Ma’s description of them as second-track.
Ma has stressed that it is the government, not any political party, that rules the country, so the party-to-party talks between KMT Chairman Wu Poh-hsiung (吳伯雄) and CCP General Secretary Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) are not official. While this is the normal state of affairs in democratic countries, however, it is anathema to Beijing.
In China, the CCP general secretary has the biggest sway on national policy.
Ma regards the talks between Wu and Hu as second-track, but Hu holds the idea in contempt.
When Wu and Hu met, Hu reportedly said to Wu with a laugh: “Chairman Wu, I hear that some people in Taiwan are saying that negotiations between the ARATS and the SEF are first-track and we are second-track.”
Hu then turned to ARATS Chairman Chen Yunlin (陳雲林) and said: “Yunlin, since when are you the first track and I the second?”
When the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) was in power, the KMT made it quite clear that its talks with the CPP were meant to “do what the DPP government cannot do.”
To put it another way, the party-to-party talks served to undermine the government. Now that the KMT is in power, then, the talks should be superfluous. Yet the KMT’s central leadership, who are far from happy with Ma’s policy of keeping party and state separate, are carrying on with the talks as a means of undermining Ma and his government.
While Ma says the KMT-CCP talks are second-track talks and should not be pursued too hastily, other KMT leaders have cited Hu’s words like a badge of authority, waving them in Ma’s face to show who is really in charge.
In reality, Wu and Hu are the first track of talks, while Ma and Chen are their executive officers. This is the way things really work.
Ahead of the Olympics opening ceremony, for example, the arrangements for where in the line of teams Taiwan’s athletes would enter the stadium were approved at the KMT-CCP talks and Ma had to accept it whether he liked it or not. In effect, while Wu holds the mandate bestowed by Hu, Ma has been reduced to the role of chief executive officer.
In the process of negotiations between Taiwan and China, Ma, with his soft and pliable character, does not have the guts to defend his position. Ma, the National Security Council and the Mainland Affairs Council still pretend that they are first-track players, but in reality they know the KMT-CCP talks take precedence.
Taken in the context of Ma’s definition of Taiwan and China as “two regions in a single China,” Ma becomes nothing more than the leader of a region, while Hu is the leader of a country. Wu, for his part, is like a governor sent by the national leader to keep an eye on the regional boss.
Whoever would have thought that Taiwan’s national sovereignty would be undermined to such an extent?
Lin Cho-shui is a former Democratic Progressive Party legislator.
TRANSLATED BY JULIAN CLEGG
Why is Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) not a “happy camper” these days regarding Taiwan? Taiwanese have not become more “CCP friendly” in response to the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) use of spies and graft by the United Front Work Department, intimidation conducted by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and the Armed Police/Coast Guard, and endless subversive political warfare measures, including cyber-attacks, economic coercion, and diplomatic isolation. The percentage of Taiwanese that prefer the status quo or prefer moving towards independence continues to rise — 76 percent as of December last year. According to National Chengchi University (NCCU) polling, the Taiwanese
It would be absurd to claim to see a silver lining behind every US President Donald Trump cloud. Those clouds are too many, too dark and too dangerous. All the same, viewed from a domestic political perspective, there is a clear emerging UK upside to Trump’s efforts at crashing the post-Cold War order. It might even get a boost from Thursday’s Washington visit by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. In July last year, when Starmer became prime minister, the Labour Party was rigidly on the defensive about Europe. Brexit was seen as an electorally unstable issue for a party whose priority
US President Donald Trump is systematically dismantling the network of multilateral institutions, organizations and agreements that have helped prevent a third world war for more than 70 years. Yet many governments are twisting themselves into knots trying to downplay his actions, insisting that things are not as they seem and that even if they are, confronting the menace in the White House simply is not an option. Disagreement must be carefully disguised to avoid provoking his wrath. For the British political establishment, the convenient excuse is the need to preserve the UK’s “special relationship” with the US. Following their White House
US President Donald Trump’s return to the White House has brought renewed scrutiny to the Taiwan-US semiconductor relationship with his claim that Taiwan “stole” the US chip business and threats of 100 percent tariffs on foreign-made processors. For Taiwanese and industry leaders, understanding those developments in their full context is crucial while maintaining a clear vision of Taiwan’s role in the global technology ecosystem. The assertion that Taiwan “stole” the US’ semiconductor industry fundamentally misunderstands the evolution of global technology manufacturing. Over the past four decades, Taiwan’s semiconductor industry, led by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), has grown through legitimate means