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
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS