|
Taiwan's negotiators not on the ball
By Ko Shu-ling
STAFF REPORTER
Monday, Jul 26, 2010, Page 3
The recent dispute between Taipei and Beijing over additional
cross-strait flights highlights the administration’s need to improve its
negotiating skills, analysts said.
Taiwan suspended five cross-strait flights operated by Chinese airlines in
retaliation for decisions by Beijing that affect Taiwanese airlines. The dispute
centers around the distribution of 50 flights added to the schedule after
negotiations in May.
China said 20 of the 50 new flights had to be reserved for airports in Xiamen
and Fuzhou — part of its plan to develop the Strait West Special District —
while 14 were reserved for service between Taipei Songshan Airport and Shanghai
Hongqiao Airport.
Taiwanese airlines were also under the impression that they could make changes
to the arrangements for 135 flights agreed upon earlier, such as moving some
scheduled for Fujian Province elsewhere. Beijing, however, said no changes could
be made.
The Ministry of Transportation and Communications said although the two sides
agreed in principle during the negotiations, they did not put it in writing. The
ministry declined to admit any mistake.
A Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) lawmaker alleged on Saturday that the
foul-up resulted from the government giving in to China’s request that Taiwan’s
lead negotiator be replaced with a less experienced one.
However, this was not the first time negotiators have botched important deals.
From the US beef fiasco to the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, the
government’s poor negotiating skills have irked many.
Political commentator Paul Lin (林保華), a researcher who specializes in Chinese
Communist Party (CCP) history, said he did not have much confidence in the
Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) negotiating skills because the KMT has lost in
every negotiation with the CCP.
“They cannot even guarantee the interests of Straits Exchange Foundation
Chairman Chiang Pin-kung (江丙坤) or former KMT chairman Lien Chan (連戰). How can we
expect them to protect the interest of the Taiwanese?” Lin said.
The government’s negotiating team not only did not do their homework ahead of
time, but also proved unable to react to changing circumstances, Lin said.
“A good negotiating team must be able to see through pitfalls when they come
across one or they will fall right into it,” he said. “But what we see is
usually not what we expect.”
Chinese leaders liked to say they wanted to “yield benefits” to Taiwan, but Lin
questioned why Chinese airlines would give profitable routes to their Taiwanese
counterparts if they don’t receive any benefits first.
The biggest beneficiary of the additional flights was the airlines, not the
Taiwanese, he said.
Tung Li-wen (董立文), a professor at the Graduate School of Public Security at
Central Police University, said botching up the additional fights was the
quintessential example of unequal cross-strait negotiations.
The 14 flights reserved for the direct service between Songshan and Hongqiao
airports were not part of the dispute because they concerned KMT Taipei Mayor
Hau Lung-bin’s (郝龍斌) bid for re-election, Tung said.
However, Yang Kai-huang (楊開煌), a public affairs professor at Ming Chuan
University, said he did not think the problem was the negotiators were not
skilled enough.
“Negotiations reflect the might of a country,” he said. “When a country is weak,
it is hard to turn defeat into victory and the negotiation on US beef is a
perfect example.”
In the case of cross-strait flights, Yang said Taiwan’s bargaining chips were no
match to those of China. If the business interests of Chinese airlines risked
being compromised, they were unlikely to toe the CCP’s line, he said.
“One thing was certain. Future cross-strait negotiations will be increasingly
difficult,” he said.
Negotiations on political issues are inevitable and that has several analysts
concerned. They worry about what they see as the administration’s cavalier
attitude toward political negotiations.
A Chinese academic said last week that Beijing had already begun preparations
for a cross-strait peace accord.
Sun Zhe (孫哲), director of Tsinghua University’s Center for US-China Relations,
was quoted by the Chinese-language United Daily News on Wednesday as saying that
the preparations included establishing an official cross-strait committee to
replace the Straits Exchange Foundation (SEF) and Association for Relations
Across the Taiwan Strait (ARATS), as well as studying the possibility of
enacting a “Taiwan Act.”
Mainland Affairs Council officials dismissed Sun’s remarks as merely his own
opinion.
Lin said it was not necessary for Taipei and Beijing to sign any peace treaty
because in 1991 former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) abolished the Temporary
Provisions Effective during the Period of National Mobilization for the
Suppression of the Communist Rebellion (動員勘亂時期臨時條款).
“What this means is that Taiwan will not attack China as the government does not
see the Chinese Communist Party as a rebellious group,” he said. “However, it is
still possible for China to attack Taiwan and take it over by force if
necessary, unless China annuls its ‘Anti-Secession’ Law and renounces the use of
force against Taiwan.”
Sun’s proposal might be the opinion of a Chinese academic, but it should be
considered a test balloon and was likely authorized by Beijing, he said.
While Lee had also suggested replacing the SEF, Lin said the former president
had meant to highlight Taiwan’s sovereignty and show that cross-strait
negotiations should be conducted on a country-to-country and
government-to-government basis. Sun’s proposal meant the opposite direction, Lin
said.
The idea of Beijing enacting a “Taiwan Act” was aimed at making Taiwan just like
Hong Kong, Lin said. While Taiwan has a Constitution written in China, the
proposed “Taiwan Act” would no doubt make clear that Taiwan was part of China,
he said.
“Hong Kong was handed over to China seven years after the Basic Law [Hong Kong’s
mini-constitution] was adopted by the People’s National Congress,” Lin said.
“If Taiwan is not careful, there won’t be seven years before it is taken over by
the Chinese.”
President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) has repeatedly said he would not negotiate
unification with Beijing during his presidency, but what he has done was to
create an environment favorable to unification, Lin said. The result was to set
an irreversible course for Taiwan’s future even if the DPP returned to power, he
said.
“That is why Beijing was willing to yield petty economic benefits’ now, because
they will make Taiwan pay a high political price in the future,” he said.
Tung said Mainland Affairs Council officials have been too weak in responding to
Sun’s comments, which had probably been sanctioned by the Chinese authorities.
The council’s response would only encourage Beijing to dictate cross-strait
political agenda, he said.
“Since the two sides signed the ECFA, Beijing proceeds to the next item on the
agenda,” he said. “The government cannot pretend that nothing has happened. It
must respond properly.”
Yang, however, said Sun’s comments were just the “personal opinion of an
academic specializing in China-US relations.”
Sun was correct about one thing, Yang said, adding: “The SEF and ARATS cannot
handle political negotiations.”
As for a “Taiwan Act,” Yang said it could be in the form of a domestic Chinese
law or a cross-strait agreement. China needs a domestic law sanctioning its
further interaction with Taiwan, which Beijing has realized reluctantly is a
different political entity.
Nevertheless, if a “Taiwan Act” were to be signed as a cross-strait agreement,
Yang said, both Taipei and Beijing would be required to honor the accord no
matter who was in power or Taiwan would risk undercutting its credibility in the
international community.
|
