Cross-strait routes not ‘domestic’: Lai
NEW LINKS: The Mainland
Affairs Council chief said the definition of air and sea routes would be
announced next week, but hedged on what they would be called
By Shih Hsiu-Chuan
STAFF REPORTER
Friday, Oct 31, 2008, Page 3
Any new routes for direct air and sea transportation between Taiwan and China
finalized during next week’s cross-strait negotiations in Taipei would not be
defined as “domestic routes,” Mainland Affairs Council Chairwoman Lai Shin-yuan
(賴幸媛) said yesterday.
Lai, however, refused to expound on what both sides would call the new routes.
“They are never domestic routes,” Lai said when pressed by reporters, adding
“You will find out then [next week].”
She made the remarks at a press conference at the Executive Yuan following the
weekly Cabinet meeting. She was unable to present her briefing on the talks to
lawmakers after the legislature’s Internal Administration Committee was
adjourned because of a scuffle.
Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait (ARATS) Chairman Chen Yunlin
(陳雲林) and Straits Exchange Foundation (SEF) Chairman Chiang Pin-kung (江丙坤) will
hold a second round of cross-strait talks on Monday and Tuesday.
New flight and maritime shipping routes are expected to be created to eliminate
the need for travel via a third location as is current practice.
China’s definition of the cross-strait routes as “domestic” created difficulty
in negotiations with the former Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) government on
cross-strait direct links. The Statute Governing the Relations Between the
Peoples of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area (兩岸人民關係條例) provides for another
definition of cross-strait routes apart from “domestic” and “international”
routes as stipulated in the Civil Aviation Law (民用航空法) and other regulations.
“There is no way that the cross-strait routes will be called domestic routes. At
least we won’t define them in this way,” Lai said each time she was asked the
question.
Asked whether the government would register the new air routes with the
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) as “domestic routes” or
“international routes,” Lai said only: “[Taiwan] is not a member of the ICAO.”
She dismissed worries raised by the DPP and pro-independence groups that Chen’s
visit and the planned agreements would sacrifice the country’s sovereign
interests, saying such concerns were “unnecessary” and “incorrect.”
Of the four issues on the next week’s agenda, pacts on direct air and sea links
would require legislative confirmation, while pacts on cross-strait postal
exchanges and a food safety mechanism would be sent to the legislature for
reference, Lai said.
Youth to
join Referendum Law protest
DEMOCRATIC DRIVE: Student
organizations heeded the call of a professor staging a hunger strike outside the
legislature to demand the Referendum Law be changed
By Shih Hsiu-Chuan
STAFF REPORTER
Friday, Oct 31, 2008, Page 3
A group of young people plan to stage a vigil tonight in support of Tsai Ting-kuei
(蔡丁貴), chairman of the Taiwan Association of University Professors, and other
localization activists who are staging a seven-day hunger strike to back demands
for amending the Referendum Law (公投法).
Fifty students representing 10 groups will join the hunger strike outside the
legislature starting tonight, said Chen Ya-lin (陳亞麟), a rally organizer.
Tsai said he wished to see more young people join him in response to an appeal
by some students that he should stop his strike to retain his strength for
further protests.
In a message he left on the association’s Web site on Monday, Tsai expressed
regret that no young people had joined the hunger strike.
Tsai says the law is undemocratic because it sets unreasonably high thresholds
for a referendum to be initiated and to be passed.
“Professor Tsai has said that he wished young people would join him, and we also
think that we are obliged to play a role in the fight for a better democracy,”
Chen said.
Chen said the student groups launched a drive on the Internet, asking for 1,000
young people to participate in the hunger strike.
“We hope young people planning to join the vigil will bring flashlights so that
they can shine them on the legislature to dispel its darkness,” Chen said.
The Taiwan Association of University Professors said in a statement on its Web
site that Tsai would end his hunger strike if young people would take over the
protest, because that would mean young people are also concerned about issues
related to the public interest and that he was not alone in his concern.
Whether he receives support or not, Tsai would continue to push for amending the
law, the statement said.
Mr. Lien
goes to Lima via Beijing
Friday, Oct 31, 2008, Page 8
The Presidential Office announced with much fanfare on Wednesday that former
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) chairman Lien Chan (連戰) would represent
President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) at the APEC leaders summit in Peru next month.
The trumpets were out because, as a former vice president, Lien will be the
highest-ranking former official to represent Taiwan at the annual forum.
Ma told the Central News Agency in an interview last week that he would do
“whatever he could” to raise the level of Taiwan’s representation at APEC.
Lien’s acceptance by China will no doubt be touted by the Presidential Office as
another success in its policy of engaging Beijing.
Back in October 2001, when former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) chose former
vice president Li Yuan-zu (李元簇), Li was flatly rejected by China on the grounds
that his appointment bucked APEC protocol: Taiwan’s representative had to be a
finance or economic official.
China seems to have moved the goalposts on this occasion, as Lien hardly
qualifies as an economic expert, but the government and pro-unification press
will no doubt sweep this inconvenience under the carpet.
In selecting Lien, the Presidential Office clearly resorted to the safest
option, as there was little chance that China would reject him given his
Machiavellian past.
Lien is China’s man. He has shown on many occasions in the past that he is all
too willing to toe the line of Beijing’s united-front policy and denigrate
Taiwan’s sovereignty. It was Lien who put Taiwan’s sovereignty on its current
slippery slope when in 2005 he undermined the authority of the Chen government
by traveling to China and meeting Chinese officials.
Another inconvenient fact for the Presidential Office is that Lien is not a
government official and will attend the summit in his capacity of chairman of
the National Policy Foundation, a KMT-affiliated think tank.
What this means is that China has ensured that the cross-strait relationship
remains on a strictly party-to-party basis in line with Beijing’s “one China”
policy and nullifies Ma’s claim that he is raising the level of Taiwan’s
representation.
One could even suggest that Lien was perhaps Beijing’s — and not Taipei’s —
choice. Given the shady communication channels that exist between the KMT and
the Chinese Communist Party, it would not be surprising if the two parties
reached a secret deal on Taipei’s representation.
In the few months since the Ma government began its policy of rapprochement with
China, it has become increasingly adept at grasping straws when it comes to
identifying Beijing’s acts of “goodwill.”
Lien’s attendance in Lima will no doubt be spun as the latest indicator of
China’s benevolence, but in reality most people couldn’t care less who
represents Ma at this inconsequential annual gabfest.
They care more about Taiwan’s entry to the WHO or the UN, goals that look like a
lost cause following China’s outright dismissal of Ma’s “pragmatic” UN bid last
month.
The Ma administration may have perfected the art of taking China’s snubs and
spinning them in a positive fashion, but as last Saturday’s 600,000-strong
anti-government protest showed, people’s reserves of goodwill for Ma and his
cross-strait strategy are at a critical low.
Ma must
reassess cross-strait tack
By Tung Chen-Yuan
童振源
Friday, Oct 31, 2008, Page 8
President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) election victory on March 22 gave the people of
Taiwan hope that cross-strait relations would improve after he took office.
However, over the past seven months, Ma has relied too much on China showing
Taiwan goodwill. After only five months in office, it may still be too early to
judge the effectiveness of Ma’s cross-strait policies. However, some early signs
are very worrying and I hope that Ma can reassess his approach.
In terms of cross-strait interaction, while a consensus was reached on tourist
and cargo charter flights during cross-strait negotiations on June 13, the Ma
administration showed China its bottom line for negotiations way too early when
it said that it hoped to come to a final agreement with China on tourist and
cargo charter flights before July 4.
This gave Beijing the power to name the agenda for the negotiations. China
subsequently insisted that the issues Taiwan wished to finalize, including cargo
chartered flights, increasing the frequency of flights and establishing new
routes, be discussed at the next round of negotiations.
On July 18, Taiwan opened up to an increased number of tourists from China. Now,
a little more than three months later, only about 200 Chinese tourists visit
Taiwan a day. This is lower than the average of 300 Chinese tourists who visited
during the last year the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) was in power and is
far from the 3,000 tourists the Ma administration had promised.
On Sept. 6, Ma said the Chinese government’s refusal to cooperate was the main
reason behind the lower-than-expected numbers. Another problem was that Taiwan
opened eight airports to the charter flights, but now the only two being used
are the Taiwan Taoyuan International Airport and the Songshan Airport. This not
only suggests sloppy policymaking by the Ma administration, but also political
threats from China.
In terms of Ma’s “diplomatic truce,” Beijing reiterated its “one China” policy
the day Ma was elected president. China also took action to stop Taiwan becoming
an observer at the WHA. At the end of July, Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi
(楊潔篪) said during a visit to Washington: “No matter what changes occur in
cross-strait relations, the ‘one China’ principle will never change.” In terms
of the diplomatic truce, the Chinese government is applying the “one China”
principle, not the so-called “1992 consensus” and definitely not the “one China,
with each side having its own interpretation” proposed by the Ma government.
Although the Ma administration proposed that Taiwan become a member of the
specialized agencies of the UN at the end of August, China once again made
critical comments, saying that Taiwan was a mere “region” that was “not
qualified” to participate in these specialized agencies and that these moves
were “an attempt to create “one China and one Taiwan.”
Didn’t Ma tell us that the “1992 consensus” would be able to solve all
cross-strait issues? Now the Ma administration’s “survival diplomacy” has been
criticized as “an attempt to make one China and one Taiwan.”
A few days after this, Ma gave into Chinese pressure by saying: “The
relationship that exists between China and Taiwan is a special one, but that
relationship is not one between two countries. It is a non-state-to-state type
of relationship.”
This remark legitimized China’s claims that Taiwan is a mere region and not
qualified to take part in international organizations. Ma also emphasized that
he and Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait Chairman Chen Yulin
(陳雲林) would be able to refer to each other as “Mr” during Chen’s visit to
Taiwan. Could these actions, which were aimed at denationalization, be what Ma
referred to as the “1992 consensus”? I believe that these moves are the result
of pressure from Beijing and show that Ma is toeing the line more than ever.
Taiwanese expected cross-strait relations to dramatically improve after Ma was
elected. However, right now the public is anxious about Ma’s cross-strait
policies. An opinion poll conducted by the Mainland Affairs Council showed there
were more respondents who thought that cross-strait relations were changing too
quickly compared with those who thought that things were moving too slowly. This
is the first time so many people have thought this way in many, many years.
The China Times also conducted an opinion poll that showed more people believed
that the Ma administration’s cross-strait policies have damaged Taiwan’s
sovereignty compared with those who did not believe this. Amid widespread worry
and doubt, the Ma government should reassess its cross-strait strategies instead
of stubbornly implementing what it thinks is best for Taiwan, because the
results will be devastating.
Tung Chen-yuan is an associate
professor at the Graduate Institute of Development Studies at National Chengchi
University.
Taiwanese
need to bone up on their Thoreau
By Chen Yi-Chung 陳怡仲
Friday, Oct 31, 2008, Page 8
‘During Chen’s five-day visit to Taiwan, residents of the greater Taipei area
could also hang our national flag outside their homes.’
When 600,000 people gathered along Ketagalan Boulevard in Taipei to vent their
anger at the administration of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and flashed a laser
image onto the Presidential Office building that read “incompetent,” I recalled
US author Henry David Thoreau, who said in his essay “Civil Disobedience,”
published in 1849, that “all men recognize the right of revolution; that is, the
right to refuse allegiance to, and to resist, the government, when its tyranny
or its inefficiency are great and unendurable.”
After the public expressed its anger at the Ma administration’s China-leaning
policies by way of concrete action, Ma shamelessly remarked that his policies
were on the right track and persisted with inviting Association for Relations
Across the Taiwan Strait Chairman Chen Yulin (陳雲林) to Taiwan without showing any
regard for the potential safety threats posed by Chinese missiles, epidemic
diseases and tainted food products. Thoreau’s words thus provide food for
thought.
To provoke Chen and express dissatisfaction with the Ma administration’s
cross-strait policies, the Democratic Progressive Party has proposed to mobilize
the public to stage a protest over several nights at Yuanshan Park along with
other large rallies. As citizens of Taiwan, there is actually a lot more we can
do.
According to the theory of civil disobedience championed by Thoreau and Mahatma
Gandhi, as long as the anti-Chen rallies conform to principles of public
expression of opinion, non-violence and willingness to accept punishment — as
there may be violations of traffic rules or the Parade and Assembly Law (集會遊行法)
— such protests can be viewed as a concrete manifestation of civil disobedience
by the Taiwanese public.
For instance, we could mobilize millions of vehicles such as private cars,
taxis, trucks, buses and even scooters or bicycles with national flags and
protest banners to paralyze the traffic surrounding the Taiwan Taoyuan
International Airport when Chen arrives in Taiwan. Or we could block the traffic
around the Grand Hotel or other hotels in Taipei to make Chen’s life difficult
during his visit.
These actions would give Chen a sense of the fury the Taiwanese public feels
against the Chinese government. If this happened, the provocation campaign could
be considered successful.
In addition, during Chen’s five-day visit to Taiwan, residents of the greater
Taipei area could also hang our national flag outside their homes and put up
posters and banners that say “Taiwan and China: One Country on Each Side of the
Taiwan Strait” to express opposition to the “one China” formula. While there may
be instances where the Ma government cowardly puts away our national flags
during Chen’s visit, the public can put up our flags to show patriotism and
speak out against Ma’s phony patriotism. This is another way we can practice
“civil disobedience.”
Chen Yi-chung is a graduate student in
the Department of Political Science at Tunghai University.