Two Chinese vice ministers of commerce, Gao Hucheng (高虎城) and Jiang Zengwei (姜增偉), have commented on the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA) that was signed by Taiwan and China at the end of June.
The agreement was an arrangement made “under the precondition of ‘one China’ and the ‘1992 consensus,’” Gao said.
Regarding the question of Taiwan signing free-trade agreements (FTAs) with other countries, Jiang said: “As long as it doesn’t contravene the ‘1992 consensus,’ we can make reasonable arrangements through cross-strait negotiations.”
These comments signal that, having signed the ECFA, Taiwan has lost the right to make its own decisions about signing FTAs.
There is nothing surprising about the two ministers’ remarks, since they represent China’s longstanding attitude. The problem is, China’s viewpoint has now been put into practice by the ECFA because the current version of the pact contains no provision stating that it will not affect the two signatories’ right to sign FTAs. It is not hard to imagine the difficulties Taiwan will face as a result of the pact, with both Taipei and Beijing quoting the agreement as proof when lobbying various countries as to whether they can sign separate FTAs with Taiwan.
For this reason, I suggest that an article confirming the right to sign FTAs should be added to the ECFA. The article should be clearly worded to say that the agreement does not in any way affect the rights of the two signatories to hold talks or negotiate and sign FTAs with other WTO members.
An article worded in this way would not call on China to state that it agrees to or recognizes Taiwan’s right to sign FTAs because Taiwan had this inherent right that no one can interfere with. It would not even demand that China promise not to interfere or lay down obstacles when Taiwan exercises this right.
That is, China can carry on as it did before — there is no demand that it should change its ways. Taiwan only needs to insist that the text of the agreement should say the two signatories’ existing rights in this respect will not be affected. There is no need to add to or subtract from this right or for China to make any concessions. One would have thought government-appointed negotiators could at least have done this much.
The ECFA, as it stands, clearly fails to uphold Taiwan’s right to make its own decisions with regard to signing FTAs. Under the current version, when Taiwan wants to sign such agreements in future, it will probably have to just accept arrangements based on the precondition of “one China,” when other countries demand it.
It is obvious that the ECFA, as it stands, and FTAs based on it, touch on the issue of Taiwan’s independent decision-making and sovereignty. The ECFA is not just a matter of people’s livelihood and economics, as the government claims. That being the case, I ask: Can the ECFA, as it stands, be allowed to pass without being subject to public approval through a referendum?
Li Ching-lieh is a professor of electrical engineering at Tamkang University.
TRANSLATED BY JULIAN CLEGG
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