|
When agreements are meaningless
Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait (ARATS) Chairman Chen Yunlin
(陳雲林) recently paid his third visit to Taiwan. During his first visit in
November 2008, President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) government sealed off the Grand
Hotel with several layers of barricades as if Taipei was still under martial
law, and police injured several protestors in the riots that ensued.
As Chen returned to the Grand Hotel on this occasion, the government mobilized
2,000 police officers for his security and to ensure the success of the sixth
round of cross-strait talks between him and Straits Exchange Foundation (SEF)
Chairman Chiang Pin-kung (江丙坤). The mobilization of such a contingent of police
makes one wonder what major issues were discussed.
The two sides signed an agreement on medical and health cooperation, something
most Taiwanese probably do not consider deserving of such a major police
mobilization.
Most people do not object to the fact that dialogue and cooperation are
replacing missiles and cross-strait hostility. However, the premise for such
talks is sincerity as reflected in the honest implementation of agreements. If
no agreements are signed, there would be no expectations, but the selective
implementation of signed agreements can easily lead to feelings of being duped,
which breeds unnecessary conflict rather than improved relations.
Despite the fact that the two sides have signed 14 agreements over the past two
years, implementation has been flawed as they mostly exist in name only. Even
the foundation admits that there is room for improvement. Why, then, did it not
spend more time fixing these flaws and subject agreements under discussion to
stricter reviews?
The agreement on medical and health cooperation for example, covers four areas:
infectious disease prevention, the safe management, research, and development of
drugs, the safe management, research, and development of Chinese herbal medicine
and emergency treatment. All of these are important, and should be discussed.
For example, about 90 percent of herbal medicine on the Taiwan market is
imported from China at a total value of more than NT$10 billion (US$333
million).
This indicates that we are all but certain to be prescribed herbal medicine from
China when we go to a traditional pharmacy. Since herbal medicine involves both
medical treatment and nourishment of the body, most people consume it. That
being so, it is important to ensure that the seller guarantees the ingredients
are in no way toxic as a result of heavy metal pollution, pesticide residue and
that its weight is not increased through the addition of lead or saline or any
other products where their essence has already been extracted.
Everybody knows that signing the agreements is not really the problem. Rather,
the problem is whether they will be effectively implemented.
This involves two things: Taiwan’s negotiating skills and Chinese
implementation. In terms of the former, Department of Health Minister Yaung
Chih-liang (楊志良) recently said the government plans to adopt source management
measures to control herbal medicine imported from China and send officials
directly to the place of origin to conduct inspections. However, that statement
was immediately challenged by the chairman of the department’s own Committee on
Chinese Medicine and Pharmacy, Huang Lin-huang (黃林煌), who said no country has
such great power that it can inspect factories in exporting countries and that
Taiwan can only demand that China supply “export inspection certificates” that
meet Taiwanese standards.
Given that the agreement has already been signed, how should herbal medicine be
safely managed? Why should China take it seriously when the department in charge
of the talks appear unsure of itself? How should they gain the public’s trust?
To get to the root of the safety and quality of Chinese herbal medicine, Taiwan
must obtain China’s permission to inspect places of origin. Otherwise, even if
China supplies “export inspection certificates,” we have to ask if such
certificates are meaningful given the flawed Chinese management mechanisms and
poorly educated Chinese farmers. Even then, how effective would greatly enhanced
domestic inspection be?
In other words, the signing of the agreement was useless because it will not
improve the current situation and it could even mislead the public into
believing that such products are reliable, as they become less alert. That is a
matter of great importance.
In terms of negotiation skills, apart from the ability to grasp the nature of
problems, it is also important to be able to avoid conflicts of interest, but
the government once again held closed-door negotiations with China on this
agreement. Some Chinese herbal medicine associations complained that the
government did not ask for the industry’s advice beforehand, so not even the
industry knew what was being discussed. This approach means that the text may
not be well thought through as decisions are made by a small coterie of people.
More seriously, Taiwanese businesspeople wonder whether the notorious term
“Chinese characteristics” will mean that vested interests with good connections
in Beijing will monopolize production and marketing channels, and in the end
sources and prices. There is reason for these doubts and the government must
face up to them honestly — yet another major issue that deserves attention.
The Ma administration treated Chen — who has been described as a “Q-list”
politician by Chinese dissident Wang Dan (王丹) — as its most honored guest and
sent 2,000 police to protect him. If the government invited him to Taiwan in
order to sign a meaningless agreement or an agreement that at best serves vested
interests, just like the previous 14 cross-strait agreements, then wasn’t it
treating the public as fools by signing the 15th agreement?
|
