Since the signing of the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA) with China on June 29, cross-strait relations have entered a new phase of uncertainty, as Beijing has increased pressure on President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) for negotiations on political issues.
Despite suggestions that China will not rush into political talks with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government, Beijing has made a number of attempts to push forward political negotiations. In his meeting with the former KMT chairman Wu Po-hsiung (吳伯雄) earlier this month, Chinese Communist Party (CCP) General Secretary and Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) defined the signing of such an agreement as a “political basis for deterring Taiwan independence and embracing the ‘1992 consensus.’”
In addition, a spokesperson for the People’s Liberation Army revealed China intends to engage in negotiations with Taiwan on withdrawing some of the missiles deployed in Fujian Province. However, the Chinese have insisted such negotiations must be conducted on the basis of the “one China” principle.
Beijing’s goal is clearly to force the Ma administration to “yield political interests” to China following Beijing’s “yielding of economic interests” in the ECFA negotiations.
The second goal is to define cross-strait relations under the rubric of the “one China” principle, so that even the Democratic Progressive Party would find it difficult to backtrack if it regained the presidency in 2012.
The Ma administration’s reaction to Beijing’s new call for “political cooperation following economic cooperation” and “partial withdrawal of its missiles” has so far been cautious. Premier Wu Den-yih (吳敦義) and Presidential Office Spokesperson Lo Chih-chiang (羅智強) reiterated the KMT’s long-time policy of adhering to the “1992 consensus,” without directly challenging Beijing’s “one China” principle. Ma prefered to highlight the news that Taiwan and Singapore are to explore the possibility of signing an economic cooperation agreement under the WTO framework.
At the same time, in her speech to the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, Mainland Affairs Council Chairwoman Lai Shin-yuan (賴幸媛) identified China’s military threats against Taiwan and its unwillingness to renounce its “Anti-Secession” Law as two major obstacles to better cross-strait relations.
If Lai’s statements were made with Ma’s approval, they sent a clear message to Beijing that the KMT government, is keen to stick to the current policy of “putting economics first and politics later” and deal with “easier issues first and harder issues later.”
This strategy aims to downplay Chinese pressure and therefore avoid giving the pan-green camp additional ammunition for the special municipality elections.
That explains why Ma unveiled his government’s plan to “start” negotiations with the Singaporean government on an “economic cooperation agreement” under the WTO framework. Despite having no set date or concrete content, the agreement would have definite symbolic benefits. Ma’s strategy is to boost his popularity by forging a pact akin to a free-trade agreement (FTA) with non-diplomatic allies, making good on an earlier pledge he made that Taiwan’s chances of completing FTAs with other countries would improve after signing the ECFA.
Given such calculations, it is unlikely that Ma will start political talks with his Chinese counterparts in the near future.
The next step depends on the November elections. If the KMT wins, Ma will have greater leeway to use cross-strait relations as part of his bid for re-election, starting next spring. The KMT and the CCP could also work to generate public support for political talks on a peace agreement, military confidence-building mechanisms and even a potential Ma-Hu meeting at the APEC summit in Hawaii in November next year.
If the KMT were to lose badly in the special municipality elections, Ma would slow down his cross-strait policy and focus on consolidating the sovereignty of the Republic of China through next year’s centennial celebrations.
How would China react to Ma’s go-slow on political talks? Beijing would of course suspect that Ma could be a “peaceful separatist.” Whether China will obstruct the proposed negotiations between Taiwan and Singapore on an economic cooperation agreement remains uncertain, but it is clear that we need to watch carefully the title, content and process of the negotiations.
Liu Shih-chung is a senior research fellow at the Taipei-based Taiwan Brain Trust.
Editor’s note: The “1992 consensus” is a term former National Security Council secretary-general Su Chi admitted inventing in 2000 in a bid to describe the KMT claim that Taiwan and China had agreed on the existence of “one China,” but with different interpretations.
Two weeks ago, Malaysian actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) raised hackles in Taiwan by posting to her 2.6 million Instagram followers that she was visiting “Taipei, China.” Yeoh’s post continues a long-standing trend of Chinese propaganda that spreads disinformation about Taiwan’s political status and geography, aimed at deceiving the world into supporting its illegitimate claims to Taiwan, which is not and has never been part of China. Taiwan must respond to this blatant act of cognitive warfare. Failure to respond merely cedes ground to China to continue its efforts to conquer Taiwan in the global consciousness to justify an invasion. Taiwan’s government
This month’s news that Taiwan ranks as Asia’s happiest place according to this year’s World Happiness Report deserves both celebration and reflection. Moving up from 31st to 27th globally and surpassing Singapore as Asia’s happiness leader is gratifying, but the true significance lies deeper than these statistics. As a society at the crossroads of Eastern tradition and Western influence, Taiwan embodies a distinctive approach to happiness worth examining more closely. The report highlights Taiwan’s exceptional habit of sharing meals — 10.1 shared meals out of 14 weekly opportunities, ranking eighth globally. This practice is not merely about food, but represents something more
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
RSS