From The Hoover Institution and The Heritage Foundation:
Cross-Strait Relations: Setting the Stage for 2012
Alan D. Romberg
Various developments throughout the latter half of 2010 and the early
weeks of 2011 began to set the stage for changes in both Taiwan and the
Mainland leading up to the Taiwan presidential elections and the PRC
leadership change in 2012. Even at this early date, and despite the
remarkable improvement in cross-Strait relations over the past 33 months,
we can see potentially clashing policy trends that will test the durability of
what has been achieved. This essay focuses mainly on what has happened
in recent months in terms of the political situation in Taiwan, including
jockeying for position in terms of Mainland policy, as well as the PRC’s
continuing campaign to win hearts and minds on the island. But it also
touches on emerging issues that will likely grow in importance for cross-
Strait relations over the next year, including Beijing’s efforts to nudge
Taipei toward more explicit acceptance of “one China.”
In Taiwan, the formal signing and subsequent Legislative Yuan
ratification of ECFA dominated the early part of the summer. However, as
time wore on, Taiwan’s November 27 special municipal elections took
center stage, especially the tight races in Taipei City and Xinbei—and,
unexpectedly at the end, in Taichung. ECFA was not absent from the
campaign rhetoric, but it dramatically receded in importance as local
issues took on far greater salience. Moreover, DPP Chair Tsai Ing-wen
gradually backed away from the suggestion that her party, should it take
power in 2012, would seek to repeal ECFA or even hold a plebiscite on
the subject. After the election, with everyone assuming that cross-Strait
relations would count heavily in the 2012 presidential contest, Tsai
announced that the DPP would found a think tank concerned primarily
with cross-Strait and international relations, and develop a new policy
toward the Mainland over the next several months.
Cross-Strait relations seemed to move ahead reasonably well over the
past few months, with both sides looking to shape the agenda for the
future. The sixth SEF-ARATS meeting was held in late December, but
while a medical cooperation agreement was signed, the hoped-for
agreement on investment protection proved elusive and was put off until
the seventh meeting, likely to be held in the first half of 2011. ECFA took
effect on September 12, and the “early harvest” tariff cuts began to kick in
as of January 1, 2011. Nonetheless, in addition to the investment
protection agreement, some other important supplemental economic
agreements remained to be negotiated, and that process was expected to be
difficult. In the meantime, cultural exchange will also assume an important
place on the agenda. Whether striving for a cultural accord will prove to
be more of a bonding experience or one that raises additional suspicions
remains to be seen.
In the meantime, Beijing continues to withhold support for Taiwan’s
further “meaningful participation” in the international community,
including Taipei’s quest for a place at the table in the International Civil
Aviation Organization (ICAO) and the UN Framework Convention on
Climate Change (UNFCCC) At the same time, Beijing holds out the
possibility of progress through cross-Strait discussions to work out terms
that would not give rise to “two Chinas” or “one China, one Taiwan.”
Particularly disturbing in this regard has been Beijing’s call for cross-
Strait consultations not just on Taiwan’s participation in official
international organizations, but also in unofficial NGOs. The PRC also
continues to take a reserved position on economic cooperation
agreements/free trade agreements (FTAs) between Taiwan and nations in
the region, apparently waiting to see how the first one (with Singapore)
goes before taking a position on others.
Fundamental issues in cross-Strait relations also began to surface in
the late fall and winter. First, there were indications that Beijing was
looking for something “more” from Taipei on the issue of “one China,”
though exactly what was unclear, as was whether failure to achieve
“more”—however defined—would really stall or even set back relations,
as some PRC officials seemed to suggest. Second, the DPP renewed its
rejection of the “1992 Consensus,” leading the PRC to openly suggest that
any Taiwan government that rejected that that “Consensus” or that did not
oppose “Taiwan independence” would be stymied in efforts to improve
cross-Strait relations.
U.S.-PRC tensions peaked during the summer and early fall over
issues relating to North Korea, and these questions received far greater
attention—and priority—in Sino-American relations than did Taiwan.
Nonetheless, PRC officials made clear that U.S.-Taiwan relations
remained a central element in the elevated level of bilateral tensions
throughout 2010 and could again obstruct better relations in the future,
especially in connection with American arms sales to Taiwan.
For now, President Hu Jintao’s state visit to the United States in late
January generally contributed to the stabilization of relations. U.S.-PRC
military-to-military dialogues were restored in the context of that visit, and
included a visit by Defense Secretary Robert Gates to China in January
2011.
Signing ECFA
The signing of the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA) between
Taiwan and the Mainland, which was in immediate prospect as the last issue of China
Leadership Monitor went to the editors,1 went ahead on schedule in Chongqing on June
29, along with an agreement on protection of intellectual property rights.2 The DPP
continued to attack ECFA as inadequately protective of Taiwan’s sovereignty and
independence and inadequately attentive to the needs of most people in Taiwan,
including small and medium-size business (as opposed to the economic interests of large
corporations).3 At the same time, the party made clear that it would support the
continuing efforts of its smaller opposition partner, the Taiwan Solidarity Union (TSU),
to put a referendum on ECFA before the people of Taiwan.4 In fact, however, as
discussed in the previous essay in this series, and to the reported confusion of some
demonstrators organized by the DPP on the eve of the signing, the substantive focus of
the party’s efforts shifted from attacking the specific terms of ECFA—which, in the end,
appeared to most people to be highly favorable to Taiwan—to the vaguer charge that the
agreement would create a political debt on which Beijing would one day collect and the
call for a referendum.5
The governments in Taipei and Beijing took a far more positive stance regarding the
agreement, of course. A PRC spokesman hailed ECFA as signifying that cross-Strait
economic relations had entered into a stage of “institutionalized cooperation,” creating a
“new pattern of great communication, cooperation and development” between the two
sides; providing strong support for them to “jointly participate in the new round of
international competition”; and fostering “institutional assurances for the gradual
normalization of the cross-Strait economic ties and for further liberalization of relations
in the future.”6
International observers also greeted ECFA enthusiastically, with one major business
journal calling it a “game changer”7 and the United States government welcoming the
increased cross-Strait dialogue and interaction that the agreement represented.8
Moreover, in large part because of the successful negotiation of ECFA, projections for
Taiwan’s economic growth were revised upward by virtually all analysts, and in the end,
the government reported that GDP grew by almost 11 percent during the year.9
In the traditional battle of conflicting electoral polls before the municipal balloting,10
the DPP released survey results on the eve of the agreement showing significant public
concern about the effect of ECFA on personal incomes and unemployment as well as on
the income gap in Taiwan.11 For its part, the government released the results of a poll
conducted shortly after the agreements were concluded reporting 60–70 percent approval
of virtually all aspects of the accords.12 The Mainland Affairs Council attributed the
growth in support after ECFA was signed both to the confirmation that Taiwan
agriculture would not be impacted and Mainland laborers would not be allowed into
Taiwan and to the favorable view people had of the “early harvest” list once its contents
were known.13
Meanwhile, after the signing, attention immediately shifted to the ratification process
within Taiwan (discussed below) and to the formation of a Cross-Strait Economic
Cooperation Committee. Following numerous delays, the committee was finally set up in
early January, with its first meeting scheduled for late February. It is to function via the
existing umbrella institutions, Taiwan’s Straits Exchange Foundation (SEF) and the
PRC’s Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait (ARATS), but will be staffed
from related bureaus and ministries, led by economic officials at the vice minister level. It
is to be responsible for guiding talks over the first six months of ECFA’s functioning,
including negotiating agreements in four critical areas: merchandise trade, services,
investment protection, and a trade dispute–settlement mechanism. In the meantime,
before these agreements are concluded, the committee will be charged with facilitating
talks on the implementation,14 interpretation, and coordination of the “early harvest” list
and other ECFA-related matters, including settlement of disputes.15
It was recognized early on that none of the “supplemental” agreements would be
easy to conclude—SEF chairman P.K. Chiang even suggested they might not be finished
before the end of 201116—but, because they would govern the great bulk of economic
interaction in the future, they were seen as being of even greater importance than
ECFA.17 Of the four, the investment protection agreement had seemed most likely to be
on the agenda for the sixth SEF-ARATS meeting to be held in Taipei in December, along
with medical cooperation.18 In the event, however, the issues involved proved too
challenging, and conclusion of the agreement was postponed until the seventh SEFARATS
meeting, likely to be held in the first half of 2011,19 leading P.K. Chiang to
reiterate his sober assessment about the prospects for concluding all of the follow-on
agreements.20 For his part, TAO Director Wang Yi said that ECFA marked a new chapter
in cross-Strait economic relations, but he noted it was just the beginning.21 Wang
indicated that even if an investment protection agreement could be signed by the end of
the year, implementing ECFA effectively to the maximum benefit of the people on both
sides of the Strait would take much effort and a positive attitude on both sides, and that
there was a very long road ahead.22 Meanwhile, it was reported that the PRC Commerce
Ministry proposed establishing in the first half of 2011 semi-official offices representing
the two sides’ economic and trade organizations.23
Legislative Yuan Action
As noted in earlier essays, the question of the Taiwan Legislative Yuan’s role had been
contentious for months, with the DPP seeking to enhance the legislature’s oversight
function while the administration tried to ensure that the LY would not pick the
agreement apart. LY Speaker Wang Jin-pyng, though a member of the KMT, also clearly
wanted a larger role for the legislature, though his goal seemed to be more a matter of
asserting institutional prerogatives and inserting himself more centrally into the process24
than an effort to defeat ECFA, as the DPP wanted to do. In the end, Wang proposed a
“compromise” approach, which was adopted. Still, before he offered that proposal, he
seemed to many observers to be as uncooperative with the administration as were the
opposition parties.25
Much has been written about the controversy that ensued in the LY—which included
violent confrontations resulting in physical injury to members—as well as between the
legislature and the administration. We will not rehearse that process here in all its gory
detail. As we have reported before, essentially the administration argued that, although
not a “treaty”—because it is technically not an agreement between two countries—ECFA
has the characteristics of a treaty and should therefore be treated as one.26 Thus it should
be given an up-or-down vote in plenary session rather than being examined—and
potentially amended—on a provision-by-provision basis in committee. The
administration argued that any amendments would vitiate the agreement and, moreover,
that other nations would be unwilling to negotiate trade agreements with Taiwan if the
LY could pick them apart.27 President Ma suggested that any differing views about ECFA
could be expressed in a supplementary resolution and then discussed with the Mainland
in the next round of negotiations.28
The DPP argued that ECFA was deeply flawed and that, given the KMT dominance
of the LY, such up-or-down treatment without the possibility of revision would render the
legislative “review” meaningless.29 Reflecting the high degree of interparty suspicion,
DPP Chair Tsai Ing-wen even suggested that blocking an article-by-article examination
could imply there had been some under-the-table arrangements with Beijing.30
In the end, the LY took up the agreement July 8 in extraordinary (and, as indicated,
unruly) session. It was agreed to skip the committee process and move directly to a
second reading at the next plenary session. The second session was then delayed until
August by a DPP withdrawal from the LY deliberations.31 ECFA was eventually passed
on August 18 and took effect September 12 (although the tariff concessions and market
opening measures did not go into effect until January 1, 201132).
In the process, a statement by PRC Taiwan Affairs Office Director Wang Yi to
Taiwan media on the issue of future FTAs factored into the internal Taiwan debate. As
we have pointed out in earlier essays, the Ma administration has long argued that ECFA
would facilitate (though not guarantee) Taiwan’s ability to negotiate FTAs, or FTA-like
agreements, with others. Moreover, Taipei had made clear to Beijing in the ECFA
negotiations its intention to proceed with such negotiations once ECFA was concluded.
Following the signing on June 29, and in response to Taiwan press questions about
the PRC’s attitude toward this issue, Wang Yi observed that should Taipei sign an FTA
with another country, that action would involve the question of Taiwan’s international
space and would “of course involve a certain degree of complexity and sensitivity”
(). Beijing expected, he said, that those countries having
diplomatic relations with the PRC would adhere to the “one China” policy and would
conduct business with Taiwan on that basis. Wang went on to note, however, that the
Mainland understood Taiwan’s desire to sign economic agreements with other economies
in order to satisfy its own economic development needs. Thus, he said, in the context of
developing peaceful cross-Strait relations, maintaining positive interactions, and
continuously promoting mutual trust, Beijing believed that practical solutions could be
found. He said one could sum this up in two six-character phrases: “the matter should be
handled fairly and reasonably and it should be managed pragmatically and appropriately”
().33
This generated a series of reactions from the DPP and the Ma administration. The
former rejected the notion of signing FTAs under the “‘1992 Consensus’ so-called ‘one
China principle’” () because this would be tantamount to
taking sovereignty away from Taiwan ().34 The administration, for its part, said
ECFA had no effect on sovereignty, but generally did not address the “one China” issue
directly, stressing rather that Taiwan would proceed according to its qualifications as a
member of the WTO, just as it did with ECFA.35 At the same time, the government
acknowledged that “sensitive political issues” were involved, and to circumvent them, it
would seek to sign trade pacts called “economic cooperation agreements” rather than
“FTAs.”36 Readers will recall that the Ma administration had already said that, to avoid
provoking an unproductive controversy with Beijing over questions of sovereignty, it
would sign any such agreements under Taiwan’s WTO name, the “separate customs
territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu.”37
In any event, DPP lawmakers had already laid down a marker, stating that should
Taiwan fail to sign any FTAs with other nations within one year, the party would launch
an effort to cancel ECFA.38 It may not come to that, however: Following numerous signs
that the two were moving toward formal negotiations,39 in mid-December Singapore and
Taiwan announced that they would be sitting down for talks early in 2011.40 Although the
August announcement of exploratory talks between Taipei and Singapore produced only
a standard response from Beijing,41 it was clear that the PRC was reserving its position on
future agreements. As sometimes explained by PRC officials, when Beijing considers its
posture on any future such efforts, it will want to see whether the negotiating process
with Singapore interferes with cross-Strait relations and whether it damages the “one
China” framework in the international community.
ECFA Fades as a Political Issue in the Mayoral Elections
As early as late June, before ECFA was signed but after the then-latest TSU referendum
proposal had been turned down, reports emerged from DPP sources that the party would
not highlight ECFA as a campaign theme, at least in the Taipei and Xinbei elections,
where the issue was not seen as so “salient” as in the south.42 Although it sought to keep
ECFA alive by blaming the administration for the “flawed” process, and while it asserted
its continuing opposition “in principle” to the specific agreement reached, in most
meaningful ways the DPP moved away from attacking the agreement as a central
campaign theme. Indeed, although the KMT suggested that ECFA would be a top issue in
the election—because the economic progress it generated would be felt from the central
to the local level43—the DPP believed that the KMT had totally misread public opinion.
One senior DPP leader asserted that ECFA would not strengthen the KMT hand and that,
in fact, cross-Strait issues as a whole would not have any effect on the outcome of the
November elections.44 Rather, as former premier and DPP candidate for mayor of Taipei
Su Tseng-chang put it, in local elections voters are most concerned about local issues.45
In the end, this seemed largely to be the case.
It was not unnatural that local DPP leaders—like others—would seek to take full
advantage of ECFA for their constituents (or would-be constituents) despite the claims of
its unfairness and other shortcomings. Within days of the signing, for example,
Kaohsiung City mayor and DPP candidate for mayor of “Greater Kaohsiung,” Chen Chu,
said she would support those parts of the agreement that were favorable to farmers and
fishermen. Seeking to maintain faith with the party position, her office director argued
that “critics should not mix this [the desirability of shipping farm and fishery products all
over the world, including to the Mainland] with the ECFA issue.” 46 In early 2011, Mayor
Chen openly welcomed ARATS head Chen Yunlin to Kaohsiung with a large trade
delegation.47 The victorious DPP candidate in Tainan likewise said he would be willing
to go to the Mainland to drum up tourism business for his city.48
Still, the handling of ECFA proved tricky during the campaign. For example, Su
Tseng-chang had to walk a fine line between the more strident views of the DPP stalwarts
whose support he would need in a presidential bid in 2012, on the one hand, and the more
moderate, business-oriented constituency in Taipei whose support he needed during the
November municipality election, on the other. He appealed to the former by opposing the
specific content and procedures of ECFA and by arguing that the agreement needed to be
supplemented with a package of comprehensive supporting measures and stipulations—
and that it must go through a referendum. With the Taipei constituency in mind, however,
he also stressed that he supported the idea of signing agreements with the Mainland.49
Trying to pull off a balancing act of this sort was not unique to Su. Indeed, within
about two weeks after ECFA was signed, perhaps after reviewing the results of public
opinion polls, the DPP made known that it did not want to become stuck in an anti-ECFA
fight in the LY. Thus, the party caucus whip revealed that, following the anticipated
month-long period between the two extraordinary sessions and the inevitable passage of
ECFA in mid-August, the dispute over ECFA would be over.50 As Party Chair Tsai Ingwen
put it, if the DPP tried to block ECFA in the LY, a bloody revolution would occur
because the ruling party had a supermajority in the legislature and tremendous
administrative resources to manipulate the process. She also seemed to acknowledge that
it would be a hard fight to win on the merits in the eyes of the public in the short term,
since some benefits would come relatively quickly while, she said, the problems would
only emerge over time. Thus, instead of “barking” at the ruling party every day, she said
she could put her time to better use campaigning to help the DPP candidates win the
municipality elections in November.51
But Tsai went beyond this. In addition to pulling back from an LY fight and from
highlighting ECFA in the municipal election campaign, she initiated a series of
statements that greatly softened her stance on what might happen to the agreement should
the DPP return to power in 2012.
Readers may recall that Tsai had earlier indicated that if ECFA went into effect
without having been approved ahead of time by a referendum, and if the DPP returned to
power, the new administration would take some action on the issue. She spoke of putting
it to the people for a vote, noting that if ECFA were disapproved in a referendum Taiwan
could unilaterally repeal the agreement or reopen negotiations with the Mainland
“according to international custom.”52
Now she said that her earlier remarks had been blown out of proportion and that
what she meant was simply that people should have a say on major issues through
plebiscites. If the DPP returned to power, it would ask the people: “Would you like to
make another choice?”53 But in amplifying what this meant, Tsai said: “There are many
ways to deal with ECFA, one of which is to launch a plebiscite. Only after understanding
to what extent ECFA will affect Taiwan can we decide on the best way to handle it.”54 In
a far cry from the expressed determination months earlier to hold a referendum, she now
said the DPP would not rule out the possibility of holding a referendum to decide whether
to abolish ECFA if the party returns to power.55
In an interview in late September, Tsai was even more insistent that she would not
act rashly. She said that the DPP would “not go so far as to” put forward a referendum to
abrogate ECFA if the DPP regained power. Consistent with her earlier statements, this
did not appear to rule out a plebiscite to ask whether people were satisfied with ECFA.
But she put emphasis on changing policies of a previous administration only through “the
necessary democratic procedures and consensus.” As she put it, “political orientation is
one thing and stability is another. Stability is the most important thing for cross-Strait
relations. The DPP must build up trust among the public.”56
Whether this was a tactical shift to enhance the DPP’s electoral chances—including
her own—in the November municipality elections seemed to be an open question. But
senior DPP member and former SEF chairman Hong Chi-chang foreshadowed greater
flexibility on ECFA as well as on the party’s overall approach to the Mainland in an
interview as early as late May. On ECFA he said:
ECFA is a complicated issue. Given the objective situation between the
two sides, this is not a pure economic and trade issue; there is politics
involved. The DPP was not against the signing of an ECFA. It only
required a longer period before the signing, until everything becomes open
in the air. The DPP must also face the issue of a dialogue with China.57
Continuing to focus on relations with the Mainland, Hong pointed out that Tsai had
twice called for dialogue with the Mainland, albeit without “preconditions” such as the
Mainland’s insistence that all cross-Strait dealings, including party-to-party dialogue, had
to be under the rubric of “one China.” Hong observed that Tsai had made this point
during the April 25 TV debate with Ma Ying-jeou over ECFA and had done so once
again in the May 13 debate for the DPP chair election. He noted she had said she would
pursue a more practical cross-Strait policy, again without accepting preconditions. He
foreshadowed the line Tsai took three months later, in late September, about acting in a
responsible manner:
Responsible, democratic political parties will not challenge the current
international system. In the current international structure, it would be
infeasible and irresponsible for the DPP to act as it did in the past eight
years to challenge and to change the political status quo for a newly
established, legally independent “Republic of Taiwan.” As a responsible
political party of Taiwan, the party should guarantee the entity of Taiwan
and ensure reasonable international space for Taiwan in line with
Taiwan’s economic and trade status without sacrificing Taiwan’s current
political system.
Be that as it may, the Mainland reacted with skepticism to Tsai’s statements about
maintaining continuity of policy if the DPP regains power. For example, when she was
asked about Tsai’s interview with Apple Daily, TAO spokesperson Fan Liqing questioned
the DPP chair’s credibility.58 And in later speeches, Wang Yi stressed the need for people
on both sides to cherish, maintain, and develop cross-Strait exchanges in various fields.
When asked by the Taiwan press if he was suggesting there was a problem in the
relationship, Wang acknowledged that there were “elements of uncertainty.” Without
elaborating further he said: “You know what I am talking about.”59
After the election, Tsai indicated yet again (having tried to do so several times
before) that she would lead a DPP effort to fashion a new approach to dealing with the
Mainland as part of the party’s new 10-year program.60 But she added that the internal
party discussion would likely require several months to complete. The strong implication
was that, while it sought to distinguish its position from that of the “overly solicitous” Ma
administration, the DPP’s approach would become more pragmatic.
As discussed below, however, in framing how the DPP’s policy might be
approached, the crucial issue of the “1992 Consensus” became a point of contention once
again both between the Ma administration and the DPP61 but also between the DPP and
Beijing.62 Indeed, this is likely to be a prominent issue leading up to the 2012 Taiwan
presidential election.
The Special Municipality Elections
The outcome of three of the five mayoral contests to be held on November 27 seemed to
be a foregone conclusion well before the event, and in the end, although there were some
close calls, there were no huge surprises. In Kaohsiung, despite the damage to her
reputation from her handling of preparations for—and cleanup after—Typhoon Fanapi in
mid-September, the very popular DPP mayor Chen Chu won easily. Against two
candidates, including the former DPP magistrate of Kaohsiung County as well as the
KMT candidate, she won over 50 percent of the vote.
In the Greater Taichung race, Taichung City KMT mayor Jason C. Hu was initially
seen to be the strong favorite, and indeed he did win. But in the end he only squeaked by
with a 2.24 percentage point win over a DPP “heavyweight,” but one who was a relative
newcomer to the Taichung area, Su Jia-chyuan. After the close vote, Su’s star within the
DPP quickly rose, and he became secretary general of the party in early December
In Tainan, especially with the Tainan City DPP mayor Hsu Tain-tsair having decided
against an independent candidacy despite bitterness over having lost the party’s
nomination,63 the DPP candidate, legislator William Lai Ching-te, swamped his KMT
rival, university professor Kuo Tien-tsai, as expected.
It was in Taipei City and Xinbei that control of the special municipalities seemed to
hang in the balance. As indicated earlier, the campaigns focused on local issues, not on
broader questions of cross-Strait relations or even the state of Taiwan’s overall economy.
In Taipei, normally a majority pan-Blue city, incumbent Mayor Hau Lung-bin was
not only viewed by many people as a lackluster candidate, but he also faced a number of
attacks for mistakes in handling local issues, some involving alleged corruption. With
respect to the hardy perennial complaint of urban residents everywhere, transportation
issues, Hau’s approval rating slid to a new low of 40 percent in mid-July.64 As the
campaign wore on, DPP candidate Su Tseng-chang sought to capitalize on this by
proposing a new transportation plan designed to appeal to motorized commuters,
pedestrians, and bicyclists alike.65 Su also charged that, under Hau, and implicitly under
Ma Ying-jeou before him, Taipei lacked an urban development plan worthy of a capital
city.66
Hau was also caught up in a string of procurement scandals related to the Taipei
International Flora Exposition, and in other issues,67 regarding which he was subjected to
a sharp grilling even by KMT city council members, who were up for election in
November as well.68 Having accepted the resignations of three key aides who were not
charged with having any role in the scandals but who were felt to have mismanaged the
response to them,69 Hau promised that he would resign immediately if any evidence was
found by the prosecutors that he was guilty in a prominent construction case—or, indeed,
in any other scandal.70 (None was.) Shortly afterward, he created a team of
“spokespeople” to respond to any accusations hurled at him and to launch and “all-out
counterattack” against the “trail” that Su Tseng-chang “must have left . . . in every public
office he held over the years.”71 One such case had to do with alleged bribes paid to Su
from the Chinese medicine sector. Su, like Hau, vigorously maintained his innocence,72
and the charges eventually faded from the press.
All that said, Hau won by almost 12 percentage points, seen even by the pro-Green
Taipei Times as a “decisive victory.”73
In the other hotly contested race in the north, Xinbei, DPP Chair Tsai Ing-wen
mounted a strong challenge to the going-in favorite, former Taoyuan County magistrate
Eric Chu Li-luan. In the end, Tsai lost by five percentage points, a considerably narrower
margin than Su’s in Taipei. Although she lost, because she did as well as she did, her
position as DPP chair was consolidated, and calls by some within the party for her to step
down to “take responsibility” for losing three of the five contests were easily set aside. 74
An important “subterranean” issue in the mayoral contests was the potential impact
on the DPP’s choice of candidate to oppose Ma Ying-jeou in 2012. Although skeptics
believed he would find a way to back out of his promise, Su Tseng-chang pledged
numerous times that if he won the Taipei election he would serve out his term, thus
formally ruling out a run in 2012.75
Until the very last moment, Tsai Ing-wen was far less categorical. On agreeing to run
in Xinbei in May, the furthest she would go was to pledge, “If we’re fortunate enough to
receive the support of Xinbei residents and be elected, we will definitely fulfill our
responsibility.”76 In an October interview she explained her reticence this way: “People
who know how I think and weigh my actions [would know] that the time is not ripe and
that I will not make any decision prematurely . . . My current choice is to be elected
Sinbei [sic] City mayor.” Only on the very eve of the vote, under severe pressure from
her KMT opponent to be definitive, did Tsai finally (seemingly) pledge to serve out her
term.77 (In the event, after losing the Xinbei election, Tsai made known she was
considering a run for president.78)
A point of some importance to both parties is that although the KMT won three out
of the five contests, taken together the DPP candidates won 400,000 more votes. There
were some special circumstances. For example, while it is true that Chen Chu won over
500,000 more votes than her KMT opponent in Kaohsiung, an important factor was the
fact that the former DPP Kaohsiung County magistrate—running as an independent—
pulled many more votes from the KMT ticket than from Chen. So her margin of victory
over the KMT candidate in a two-way race would likely have been significantly smaller.
Moreover, the KMT won more Kaohsiung city council seats than the DPP, suggesting
that the distribution of support between the parties is more even than Chen’s victory
margin would imply.
That said, not only would Chen likely have won handily even in a two-way race, but
the DPP swept Tainan by almost 214,000 votes. Thus, especially in light of the very close
race in Taichung, the results of these five elections, in areas that hold over 60 percent of
Taiwan’s population, laid out the opportunities for the DPP and the challenge for the
KMT as they approach the 2011 LY elections and the presidential contest in 2012. The
issues will likely be quite different from those in the municipal contests, but both parties
took note of the November outcome and are already shaping their future efforts
accordingly.
Another point that has to concern the KMT is the fact that President Ma Ying-jeou’s
polling numbers continued to lag the improvement in the economy throughout much of
the period. Even as economic statistics were moving in a strikingly favorable direction
over some period of time,79 Ma’s support did not reflect these developments.80 On the
other hand, at the end of the period, Ma’s fortunes turned sharply up as, in January, he
garnered the second highest approval rating since taking office in May 2008 and the
highest public trust rating since June 2009.81 Given rising economic trends, one would
have to say that as of this moment, still over a year before the first ballot is cast, the odds
of reelection are in Ma’s favor.82
The Course of Cross-Strait Relations in the Period Ahead
Despite occasional reminders from Mainland officials about the importance of political
dialogue, as we have discussed before, Beijing seems to have come to terms with the fact
that political dialogue is simply out of the question for the foreseeable future.83 And as
frequently discussed before, in the context of preventing “Taiwan independence,” the
main thrust of the PRC’s policy is to weave a thick fabric of economic, social, and
cultural relationships with both short- and long-term goals in mind.
On the other hand, Beijing is by no means giving up on political dialogue. As a
senior PRC official explained it, “to say we will move from economic to political means
there is the political there. And to say we will move from easy to hard means there is the
hard there. So it cannot be that every time we talk about politics people think they cannot
bear this burden.”84
In the short term, Beijing seeks to use these new relationships to win hearts and
minds on the island, gain support for even closer cross-Strait relations, and weaken any
potential support for Taiwan independence. While it actively seeks to court favor with
individual DPP members and officials, it is obvious that Beijing still wants to bolster Ma
Ying-jeou’s chances of reelection in 2012.
Over the long term, the PRC seeks to smooth a path to ultimate peaceful
reunification. Some people see indicators that the patience required to pursue this path,
however, may be wearing thin.
In part, these indicators may reflect concern that the DPP could win in 2012, so
Beijing wants to lock in as much as possible before that happens, limiting the possibilities
that a new government could reverse course. In part, they may reflect a genuine
impatience on the part of some Mainland constituencies (usually described as “public
opinion” but presumably encompassing a wider and more important set of elite actors as
well), who believe that the PRC is always giving more to Taiwan than it receives in
return without any real assurance that they will reach the ultimate goal. The current PRC
leadership may also want to advance cross-Strait ties as much as possible now, so that the
post-2012 leadership doesn’t have to confront difficult questions with Taiwan in the first
part of its tenure. Finally, as indicated in earlier essays, this attitude of seeming
impatience may reflect concern that even the KMT is not as supportive of “one China” as
once believed, and that Taiwan will become complacent with what it can gain from its
informal separate status without feeling any pressure to move ahead to unification,
leading to what some Mainland observers have labeled “peaceful separation”—an
unacceptable outcome for Beijing.
Thus, Beijing is at least testing the waters to see if it can obtain “more” in the realm
of “one China” even in the run-up to 2012. No one realistically expects Ma could openly
endorse either unification or the PRC’s “one China” principle. But with increasing
frequency one hears musings from PRC officials about getting Ma to focus more on
“China” and less on the “ROC.” As TAO Deputy Director Sun Yafu put it in an early
December speech: “The crucial point is that we should reach a more explicit and definite
common understanding that the Mainland and Taiwan are parts of the same China.”
(.)85
PRC officials insist that Beijing will not press Ma or “ask him to do what he cannot
do.” What they say is that Beijing wants an orderly, two-way relationship that
demonstrates mutual sincerity and works toward a “big common goal.”86 One senses that
the argument is not only that certain areas of activity such as international space or
reduction of military deployments may be closed off unless there is some progress along
these lines, but that there are even limits on how far economic cooperation can go. But
the question is whether this line of thinking takes sufficient account of the realities on the
island today.
That being said, common sense would suggest that, especially after the November 27
elections, policy-makers in Beijing will grasp that Ma has not got the flexibility to do
what they would prefer, and that they will stick, instead, with the line put forth by Hu
Jintao in his meeting with Lien Chan on November 13, 2010, to maintain “sustained and
stable development” () in cross-Strait relations.87 This position, reiterated on
several occasions since then, is grounded in the theory that unless one keeps moving
ahead one is likely to stumble. So, as Wang Yi has explained, it is not advocacy of a
static status quo or stagnation, much less retrogression.88
But that does not dictate any particular speed or change in direction. Nor, logically at
least, would it seem to require abandonment of the position that the “1992 Consensus” is
good enough, with its “one China” premise, along with Ma’s commitment to the ROC
“one China” constitution. As already suggested, however, the PRC may not share this
logic, and thus there exists the risk that it will levy demands that not only create
roadblocks to further progress, but could set back some of the achievements to date.
One recent development that could spur further PRC demands is the renewed
argument within Taiwan over the existence and validity of the “1992 Consensus.” Ma
Ying-jeou, of course, has reaffirmed the centrality of that concept to all that has been
achieved in cross-Strait relations since he took office in spring 2008. DPP Chair Tsai Ingwen
has, by way of contrast, reaffirmed her and the DPP’s belief that there is no “1992
Consensus” and that it is not an acceptable basis for proceeding to deal with Beijing, even
though she intends to maintain the basic approach that Ma has adopted if the DPP returns
to office in 2012. This contretemps led ARATS chair Chen Yunlin to raise the prospect
that Beijing might “reconsider everything” in its current cross-Strait policies if one day a
government came to office in Taipei that abandoned the “1992 Consensus” and
opposition to “Taiwan independence.”89
The DPP’s renewed rejection of the “1992 Consensus” will, of course, reinforce the
PRC’s belief that the KMT must remain in office. So, while Beijing will issue warnings
about the consequences of the DPP’s position becoming government policy, and while
one should not be surprised by probes regarding building political trust, especially
proposals to develop somewhat closer positions on “one China” as discussed earlier, the
PRC’s likely emphasis will be on positions that will strengthen the perception in Taiwan
that dynamic cross-Strait relations are in the interest of the people of Taiwan. The
Mainland will therefore likely stress further progress on economic relations as well as on
cultural, educational, and tourism exchanges.90
Beijing is sticking to its position that issues of Taiwan’s international participation
can be addressed if done so “without creating ‘two Chinas’ or ‘one China, one Taiwan’
under the premise of pragmatic negotiation by both parties to make proper
arrangements.”91 However, it is apparently maintaining that position with respect not just
to international governmental organizations but also nongovernmental organizations. The
inclusion of NGOs has generated a particularly strong rebuff from Taipei.92
As has been argued in this essay series before, one would hope Beijing would go
beyond its current position to actively endorse non-sovereignty approaches to Taiwan’s
international space (including not only in UN specialized agencies but in its quest for
trade cooperation agreements) and cease the pressure on Taiwan NGOs. To have any
hope of encouraging this, all responsible actors in Taiwan would also need to temper
statements that directly challenge Beijing to “accept” the ROC.
Among such statements were those by Premier Wu Den-yih that discussion of
missile issues can only come with PRC “acceptance of ROC sovereignty”93 and by MAC
Minister Lai Shin-yuan that Beijing “must respect and face up to the fact of the existence
of the Republic of China.”94 Although Mainland officials say that at some future time,
among all of the difficult issues, one can address the “even more complicated” issue of
how to regard the title “ROC,” they strongly counter any suggestion that Beijing accepts
ROC sovereignty or even “official relations.” Beijing takes this to the extent of rejecting
the characterization of contacts between bureaucrats of the two sides as “official” or
“government-to-government.” “Official-to-official contacts are impossible,” said one
official. 95 Rather, the PRC sees them as contacts between the “professional departments”
concerned.
Hence, in light of the PPRC’s current rather rigid position, as well as of the political
need by both the KMT and the DPP to demonstrate stout defense of Taiwan (or ROC)
sovereignty, action from either side of the Strait that could lead to compromise on this
question seems unlikely in the foreseeable future.
The U.S.-PRC Factor
Although the U.S.-PRC military-to-military dialogue, which had been cut off in early
2010 after announcement of a large Taiwan arms package, was restored by early 2011—
most importantly symbolized by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates’ trip to Beijing in
early January—senior Chinese civilian and military officials continued to warn of drastic
consequences should further sales of advanced weapons to Taiwan take place.96
Moreover, on the eve of Hu Jintao’s state visit to Washington in mid-January, Vice
Foreign Minister Cui Tiankai warned again that the Taiwan issue remained the most
sensitive question in U.S.-PRC ties.97
Still, unless a large package of sophisticated arms is approved, the action in cross-
Strait relations will remain decisively in the hands of Taipei and Beijing. The PRC will
doubtless continue to try to obtain American commitments forswearing future sale of
advanced weapons systems and endorsing Beijing’s terms for engaging with Taipei. But
any such efforts will not succeed. Just as the Obama administration turned aside any idea
of negotiating a “Fourth Communiqué” during the January 2011 Hu Jintao state visit,98
there is no possibility the United States will agree to negotiate such a document at any
time in the future. Hence, while the PRC will continue to identify Taiwan as the most
important and most sensitive issue in the relationship, and while that issue indeed will
continue to have the potential to disrupt U.S.-PRC ties, unless something unanticipated
goes terribly wrong, it will not be a prominent item on the bilateral agenda in the
foreseeable future.
Notes
1 Alan D. Romberg, “Ma at Mid-Term: Challenges for Cross-Strait Relations,” China Leadership Monitor,
no. 33, Summer 2010.
2 The full text of the ECFA agreement is available from both PRC (http://news.xinhuanet.com/tw/2010-
06/29/c_12277378.htm) and Taiwan (http://www.moea.gov.tw/Mns/populace/news/News.aspx?kind=
1&menu_id=40&news_id=19723) websites. An English-language translation of the basic agreement
(without annexes) is available at http://www.bilaterals.org/IMG/pdf_ECFA.pdf.
The IPR text is also available from Xinhua (http://news.xinhuanet.com/tw/2010-06/29/c_12277392
.htm), and from Taiwan’s Mainland Affairs Council (http://www.mac.gov.tw/public/Data/062915395071
.pdf). A very thorough presentation and analysis of it in English by Daisy Wang, “Taiwan and China sign
IP agreement,” contributed by Lee and Li Attorneys at Law, October 4, 2010, is available at
http://www.internationallawoffice.com/Newsletters/detail.aspx?g=4a61da7a-f092-4d0a-aa4e-319d34d447
1e#Terms (may require registration).
According to senior IPR officials in Taiwan, the cross-Strait agreement is more substantive than similar
agreements the Mainland has signed with other trade partners, because it will give Taiwan patent applicants
priority and plant variety rights. (Sofia Wu, “Investment pact high on post-ECFA agenda,” Central News
Agency [CNA] Talk of the Day, citing the Commercial Times, June 28, 2010,
http://focustaiwan.tw/ShowNews/WebNews_Detail.aspx?ID=201006280006&Type=aTOD.)
3 Vincent Y. Chao, “ECFA panders to large corporations at expense of small companies, DPP says,” Taipei
Times, June 25, 2010. The administration countered that as many as 22,700 small and medium-sized
companies employing 4.26 million employees would benefit. (“ECFA to benefit over 22,000 SMEs:
[Minister without portfolio] Yiin [Chii-ming],” China Post, June 27, 2010.)
Although the administration argued it had taken many steps to protect those who might be hurt by
ECFA, in what could be interpreted as a display of some sensitivity to the charge, the Cabinet adopted a set
of five measures in mid-July designed to assist local traditional industries and small and medium-size
industries in the wake of the conclusion of ECFA. As described by one media outlet:
The five measures include enhancement of cooperation and technical transfer between
industry and academics sectors for upgrading technologies through innovation,
strengthening market development domestically and overseas, integration of cross-strait
industrial supply chains to help Taiwanese merchants deploy globally, the exploration of
new business opportunities for services sector, and make a healthy and sound industrial
development environment by carrying out the Industry Innovation Act. The Taiwan
government will also help banking, securities, insurance, MICE [Meetings, Incentives,
Conventions, and Exhibitions], IT, professional design and cinema to explore the China
market. [Ben Shen, “Taiwan takes 5 steps to assist traditional industries in post-ECFA
era,” Taiwan Economic News, July 14, 2010,
http://cens.com/cens/html/en/news/news_inner_32907.html.]
4 Several efforts by the TSU to place such a referendum on the ballot
Cross-Strait Relations: Setting the Stage for 2012
Alan D. Romberg
Various developments throughout the latter half of 2010 and the early
weeks of 2011 began to set the stage for changes in both Taiwan and the
Mainland leading up to the Taiwan presidential elections and the PRC
leadership change in 2012. Even at this early date, and despite the
remarkable improvement in cross-Strait relations over the past 33 months,
we can see potentially clashing policy trends that will test the durability of
what has been achieved. This essay focuses mainly on what has happened
in recent months in terms of the political situation in Taiwan, including
jockeying for position in terms of Mainland policy, as well as the PRC’s
continuing campaign to win hearts and minds on the island. But it also
touches on emerging issues that will likely grow in importance for cross-
Strait relations over the next year, including Beijing’s efforts to nudge
Taipei toward more explicit acceptance of “one China.”
In Taiwan, the formal signing and subsequent Legislative Yuan
ratification of ECFA dominated the early part of the summer. However, as
time wore on, Taiwan’s November 27 special municipal elections took
center stage, especially the tight races in Taipei City and Xinbei—and,
unexpectedly at the end, in Taichung. ECFA was not absent from the
campaign rhetoric, but it dramatically receded in importance as local
issues took on far greater salience. Moreover, DPP Chair Tsai Ing-wen
gradually backed away from the suggestion that her party, should it take
power in 2012, would seek to repeal ECFA or even hold a plebiscite on
the subject. After the election, with everyone assuming that cross-Strait
relations would count heavily in the 2012 presidential contest, Tsai
announced that the DPP would found a think tank concerned primarily
with cross-Strait and international relations, and develop a new policy
toward the Mainland over the next several months.
Cross-Strait relations seemed to move ahead reasonably well over the
past few months, with both sides looking to shape the agenda for the
future. The sixth SEF-ARATS meeting was held in late December, but
while a medical cooperation agreement was signed, the hoped-for
agreement on investment protection proved elusive and was put off until
the seventh meeting, likely to be held in the first half of 2011. ECFA took
effect on September 12, and the “early harvest” tariff cuts began to kick in
as of January 1, 2011. Nonetheless, in addition to the investment
protection agreement, some other important supplemental economic
agreements remained to be negotiated, and that process was expected to be
difficult. In the meantime, cultural exchange will also assume an important
place on the agenda. Whether striving for a cultural accord will prove to
be more of a bonding experience or one that raises additional suspicions
remains to be seen.
In the meantime, Beijing continues to withhold support for Taiwan’s
further “meaningful participation” in the international community,
including Taipei’s quest for a place at the table in the International Civil
Aviation Organization (ICAO) and the UN Framework Convention on
Climate Change (UNFCCC) At the same time, Beijing holds out the
possibility of progress through cross-Strait discussions to work out terms
that would not give rise to “two Chinas” or “one China, one Taiwan.”
Particularly disturbing in this regard has been Beijing’s call for cross-
Strait consultations not just on Taiwan’s participation in official
international organizations, but also in unofficial NGOs. The PRC also
continues to take a reserved position on economic cooperation
agreements/free trade agreements (FTAs) between Taiwan and nations in
the region, apparently waiting to see how the first one (with Singapore)
goes before taking a position on others.
Fundamental issues in cross-Strait relations also began to surface in
the late fall and winter. First, there were indications that Beijing was
looking for something “more” from Taipei on the issue of “one China,”
though exactly what was unclear, as was whether failure to achieve
“more”—however defined—would really stall or even set back relations,
as some PRC officials seemed to suggest. Second, the DPP renewed its
rejection of the “1992 Consensus,” leading the PRC to openly suggest that
any Taiwan government that rejected that that “Consensus” or that did not
oppose “Taiwan independence” would be stymied in efforts to improve
cross-Strait relations.
U.S.-PRC tensions peaked during the summer and early fall over
issues relating to North Korea, and these questions received far greater
attention—and priority—in Sino-American relations than did Taiwan.
Nonetheless, PRC officials made clear that U.S.-Taiwan relations
remained a central element in the elevated level of bilateral tensions
throughout 2010 and could again obstruct better relations in the future,
especially in connection with American arms sales to Taiwan.
For now, President Hu Jintao’s state visit to the United States in late
January generally contributed to the stabilization of relations. U.S.-PRC
military-to-military dialogues were restored in the context of that visit, and
included a visit by Defense Secretary Robert Gates to China in January
2011.
Signing ECFA
The signing of the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA) between
Taiwan and the Mainland, which was in immediate prospect as the last issue of China
Leadership Monitor went to the editors,1 went ahead on schedule in Chongqing on June
29, along with an agreement on protection of intellectual property rights.2 The DPP
continued to attack ECFA as inadequately protective of Taiwan’s sovereignty and
independence and inadequately attentive to the needs of most people in Taiwan,
including small and medium-size business (as opposed to the economic interests of large
corporations).3 At the same time, the party made clear that it would support the
continuing efforts of its smaller opposition partner, the Taiwan Solidarity Union (TSU),
to put a referendum on ECFA before the people of Taiwan.4 In fact, however, as
discussed in the previous essay in this series, and to the reported confusion of some
demonstrators organized by the DPP on the eve of the signing, the substantive focus of
the party’s efforts shifted from attacking the specific terms of ECFA—which, in the end,
appeared to most people to be highly favorable to Taiwan—to the vaguer charge that the
agreement would create a political debt on which Beijing would one day collect and the
call for a referendum.5
The governments in Taipei and Beijing took a far more positive stance regarding the
agreement, of course. A PRC spokesman hailed ECFA as signifying that cross-Strait
economic relations had entered into a stage of “institutionalized cooperation,” creating a
“new pattern of great communication, cooperation and development” between the two
sides; providing strong support for them to “jointly participate in the new round of
international competition”; and fostering “institutional assurances for the gradual
normalization of the cross-Strait economic ties and for further liberalization of relations
in the future.”6
International observers also greeted ECFA enthusiastically, with one major business
journal calling it a “game changer”7 and the United States government welcoming the
increased cross-Strait dialogue and interaction that the agreement represented.8
Moreover, in large part because of the successful negotiation of ECFA, projections for
Taiwan’s economic growth were revised upward by virtually all analysts, and in the end,
the government reported that GDP grew by almost 11 percent during the year.9
In the traditional battle of conflicting electoral polls before the municipal balloting,10
the DPP released survey results on the eve of the agreement showing significant public
concern about the effect of ECFA on personal incomes and unemployment as well as on
the income gap in Taiwan.11 For its part, the government released the results of a poll
conducted shortly after the agreements were concluded reporting 60–70 percent approval
of virtually all aspects of the accords.12 The Mainland Affairs Council attributed the
growth in support after ECFA was signed both to the confirmation that Taiwan
agriculture would not be impacted and Mainland laborers would not be allowed into
Taiwan and to the favorable view people had of the “early harvest” list once its contents
were known.13
Meanwhile, after the signing, attention immediately shifted to the ratification process
within Taiwan (discussed below) and to the formation of a Cross-Strait Economic
Cooperation Committee. Following numerous delays, the committee was finally set up in
early January, with its first meeting scheduled for late February. It is to function via the
existing umbrella institutions, Taiwan’s Straits Exchange Foundation (SEF) and the
PRC’s Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait (ARATS), but will be staffed
from related bureaus and ministries, led by economic officials at the vice minister level. It
is to be responsible for guiding talks over the first six months of ECFA’s functioning,
including negotiating agreements in four critical areas: merchandise trade, services,
investment protection, and a trade dispute–settlement mechanism. In the meantime,
before these agreements are concluded, the committee will be charged with facilitating
talks on the implementation,14 interpretation, and coordination of the “early harvest” list
and other ECFA-related matters, including settlement of disputes.15
It was recognized early on that none of the “supplemental” agreements would be
easy to conclude—SEF chairman P.K. Chiang even suggested they might not be finished
before the end of 201116—but, because they would govern the great bulk of economic
interaction in the future, they were seen as being of even greater importance than
ECFA.17 Of the four, the investment protection agreement had seemed most likely to be
on the agenda for the sixth SEF-ARATS meeting to be held in Taipei in December, along
with medical cooperation.18 In the event, however, the issues involved proved too
challenging, and conclusion of the agreement was postponed until the seventh SEFARATS
meeting, likely to be held in the first half of 2011,19 leading P.K. Chiang to
reiterate his sober assessment about the prospects for concluding all of the follow-on
agreements.20 For his part, TAO Director Wang Yi said that ECFA marked a new chapter
in cross-Strait economic relations, but he noted it was just the beginning.21 Wang
indicated that even if an investment protection agreement could be signed by the end of
the year, implementing ECFA effectively to the maximum benefit of the people on both
sides of the Strait would take much effort and a positive attitude on both sides, and that
there was a very long road ahead.22 Meanwhile, it was reported that the PRC Commerce
Ministry proposed establishing in the first half of 2011 semi-official offices representing
the two sides’ economic and trade organizations.23
Legislative Yuan Action
As noted in earlier essays, the question of the Taiwan Legislative Yuan’s role had been
contentious for months, with the DPP seeking to enhance the legislature’s oversight
function while the administration tried to ensure that the LY would not pick the
agreement apart. LY Speaker Wang Jin-pyng, though a member of the KMT, also clearly
wanted a larger role for the legislature, though his goal seemed to be more a matter of
asserting institutional prerogatives and inserting himself more centrally into the process24
than an effort to defeat ECFA, as the DPP wanted to do. In the end, Wang proposed a
“compromise” approach, which was adopted. Still, before he offered that proposal, he
seemed to many observers to be as uncooperative with the administration as were the
opposition parties.25
Much has been written about the controversy that ensued in the LY—which included
violent confrontations resulting in physical injury to members—as well as between the
legislature and the administration. We will not rehearse that process here in all its gory
detail. As we have reported before, essentially the administration argued that, although
not a “treaty”—because it is technically not an agreement between two countries—ECFA
has the characteristics of a treaty and should therefore be treated as one.26 Thus it should
be given an up-or-down vote in plenary session rather than being examined—and
potentially amended—on a provision-by-provision basis in committee. The
administration argued that any amendments would vitiate the agreement and, moreover,
that other nations would be unwilling to negotiate trade agreements with Taiwan if the
LY could pick them apart.27 President Ma suggested that any differing views about ECFA
could be expressed in a supplementary resolution and then discussed with the Mainland
in the next round of negotiations.28
The DPP argued that ECFA was deeply flawed and that, given the KMT dominance
of the LY, such up-or-down treatment without the possibility of revision would render the
legislative “review” meaningless.29 Reflecting the high degree of interparty suspicion,
DPP Chair Tsai Ing-wen even suggested that blocking an article-by-article examination
could imply there had been some under-the-table arrangements with Beijing.30
In the end, the LY took up the agreement July 8 in extraordinary (and, as indicated,
unruly) session. It was agreed to skip the committee process and move directly to a
second reading at the next plenary session. The second session was then delayed until
August by a DPP withdrawal from the LY deliberations.31 ECFA was eventually passed
on August 18 and took effect September 12 (although the tariff concessions and market
opening measures did not go into effect until January 1, 201132).
In the process, a statement by PRC Taiwan Affairs Office Director Wang Yi to
Taiwan media on the issue of future FTAs factored into the internal Taiwan debate. As
we have pointed out in earlier essays, the Ma administration has long argued that ECFA
would facilitate (though not guarantee) Taiwan’s ability to negotiate FTAs, or FTA-like
agreements, with others. Moreover, Taipei had made clear to Beijing in the ECFA
negotiations its intention to proceed with such negotiations once ECFA was concluded.
Following the signing on June 29, and in response to Taiwan press questions about
the PRC’s attitude toward this issue, Wang Yi observed that should Taipei sign an FTA
with another country, that action would involve the question of Taiwan’s international
space and would “of course involve a certain degree of complexity and sensitivity”
(). Beijing expected, he said, that those countries having
diplomatic relations with the PRC would adhere to the “one China” policy and would
conduct business with Taiwan on that basis. Wang went on to note, however, that the
Mainland understood Taiwan’s desire to sign economic agreements with other economies
in order to satisfy its own economic development needs. Thus, he said, in the context of
developing peaceful cross-Strait relations, maintaining positive interactions, and
continuously promoting mutual trust, Beijing believed that practical solutions could be
found. He said one could sum this up in two six-character phrases: “the matter should be
handled fairly and reasonably and it should be managed pragmatically and appropriately”
().33
This generated a series of reactions from the DPP and the Ma administration. The
former rejected the notion of signing FTAs under the “‘1992 Consensus’ so-called ‘one
China principle’” () because this would be tantamount to
taking sovereignty away from Taiwan ().34 The administration, for its part, said
ECFA had no effect on sovereignty, but generally did not address the “one China” issue
directly, stressing rather that Taiwan would proceed according to its qualifications as a
member of the WTO, just as it did with ECFA.35 At the same time, the government
acknowledged that “sensitive political issues” were involved, and to circumvent them, it
would seek to sign trade pacts called “economic cooperation agreements” rather than
“FTAs.”36 Readers will recall that the Ma administration had already said that, to avoid
provoking an unproductive controversy with Beijing over questions of sovereignty, it
would sign any such agreements under Taiwan’s WTO name, the “separate customs
territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu.”37
In any event, DPP lawmakers had already laid down a marker, stating that should
Taiwan fail to sign any FTAs with other nations within one year, the party would launch
an effort to cancel ECFA.38 It may not come to that, however: Following numerous signs
that the two were moving toward formal negotiations,39 in mid-December Singapore and
Taiwan announced that they would be sitting down for talks early in 2011.40 Although the
August announcement of exploratory talks between Taipei and Singapore produced only
a standard response from Beijing,41 it was clear that the PRC was reserving its position on
future agreements. As sometimes explained by PRC officials, when Beijing considers its
posture on any future such efforts, it will want to see whether the negotiating process
with Singapore interferes with cross-Strait relations and whether it damages the “one
China” framework in the international community.
ECFA Fades as a Political Issue in the Mayoral Elections
As early as late June, before ECFA was signed but after the then-latest TSU referendum
proposal had been turned down, reports emerged from DPP sources that the party would
not highlight ECFA as a campaign theme, at least in the Taipei and Xinbei elections,
where the issue was not seen as so “salient” as in the south.42 Although it sought to keep
ECFA alive by blaming the administration for the “flawed” process, and while it asserted
its continuing opposition “in principle” to the specific agreement reached, in most
meaningful ways the DPP moved away from attacking the agreement as a central
campaign theme. Indeed, although the KMT suggested that ECFA would be a top issue in
the election—because the economic progress it generated would be felt from the central
to the local level43—the DPP believed that the KMT had totally misread public opinion.
One senior DPP leader asserted that ECFA would not strengthen the KMT hand and that,
in fact, cross-Strait issues as a whole would not have any effect on the outcome of the
November elections.44 Rather, as former premier and DPP candidate for mayor of Taipei
Su Tseng-chang put it, in local elections voters are most concerned about local issues.45
In the end, this seemed largely to be the case.
It was not unnatural that local DPP leaders—like others—would seek to take full
advantage of ECFA for their constituents (or would-be constituents) despite the claims of
its unfairness and other shortcomings. Within days of the signing, for example,
Kaohsiung City mayor and DPP candidate for mayor of “Greater Kaohsiung,” Chen Chu,
said she would support those parts of the agreement that were favorable to farmers and
fishermen. Seeking to maintain faith with the party position, her office director argued
that “critics should not mix this [the desirability of shipping farm and fishery products all
over the world, including to the Mainland] with the ECFA issue.” 46 In early 2011, Mayor
Chen openly welcomed ARATS head Chen Yunlin to Kaohsiung with a large trade
delegation.47 The victorious DPP candidate in Tainan likewise said he would be willing
to go to the Mainland to drum up tourism business for his city.48
Still, the handling of ECFA proved tricky during the campaign. For example, Su
Tseng-chang had to walk a fine line between the more strident views of the DPP stalwarts
whose support he would need in a presidential bid in 2012, on the one hand, and the more
moderate, business-oriented constituency in Taipei whose support he needed during the
November municipality election, on the other. He appealed to the former by opposing the
specific content and procedures of ECFA and by arguing that the agreement needed to be
supplemented with a package of comprehensive supporting measures and stipulations—
and that it must go through a referendum. With the Taipei constituency in mind, however,
he also stressed that he supported the idea of signing agreements with the Mainland.49
Trying to pull off a balancing act of this sort was not unique to Su. Indeed, within
about two weeks after ECFA was signed, perhaps after reviewing the results of public
opinion polls, the DPP made known that it did not want to become stuck in an anti-ECFA
fight in the LY. Thus, the party caucus whip revealed that, following the anticipated
month-long period between the two extraordinary sessions and the inevitable passage of
ECFA in mid-August, the dispute over ECFA would be over.50 As Party Chair Tsai Ingwen
put it, if the DPP tried to block ECFA in the LY, a bloody revolution would occur
because the ruling party had a supermajority in the legislature and tremendous
administrative resources to manipulate the process. She also seemed to acknowledge that
it would be a hard fight to win on the merits in the eyes of the public in the short term,
since some benefits would come relatively quickly while, she said, the problems would
only emerge over time. Thus, instead of “barking” at the ruling party every day, she said
she could put her time to better use campaigning to help the DPP candidates win the
municipality elections in November.51
But Tsai went beyond this. In addition to pulling back from an LY fight and from
highlighting ECFA in the municipal election campaign, she initiated a series of
statements that greatly softened her stance on what might happen to the agreement should
the DPP return to power in 2012.
Readers may recall that Tsai had earlier indicated that if ECFA went into effect
without having been approved ahead of time by a referendum, and if the DPP returned to
power, the new administration would take some action on the issue. She spoke of putting
it to the people for a vote, noting that if ECFA were disapproved in a referendum Taiwan
could unilaterally repeal the agreement or reopen negotiations with the Mainland
“according to international custom.”52
Now she said that her earlier remarks had been blown out of proportion and that
what she meant was simply that people should have a say on major issues through
plebiscites. If the DPP returned to power, it would ask the people: “Would you like to
make another choice?”53 But in amplifying what this meant, Tsai said: “There are many
ways to deal with ECFA, one of which is to launch a plebiscite. Only after understanding
to what extent ECFA will affect Taiwan can we decide on the best way to handle it.”54 In
a far cry from the expressed determination months earlier to hold a referendum, she now
said the DPP would not rule out the possibility of holding a referendum to decide whether
to abolish ECFA if the party returns to power.55
In an interview in late September, Tsai was even more insistent that she would not
act rashly. She said that the DPP would “not go so far as to” put forward a referendum to
abrogate ECFA if the DPP regained power. Consistent with her earlier statements, this
did not appear to rule out a plebiscite to ask whether people were satisfied with ECFA.
But she put emphasis on changing policies of a previous administration only through “the
necessary democratic procedures and consensus.” As she put it, “political orientation is
one thing and stability is another. Stability is the most important thing for cross-Strait
relations. The DPP must build up trust among the public.”56
Whether this was a tactical shift to enhance the DPP’s electoral chances—including
her own—in the November municipality elections seemed to be an open question. But
senior DPP member and former SEF chairman Hong Chi-chang foreshadowed greater
flexibility on ECFA as well as on the party’s overall approach to the Mainland in an
interview as early as late May. On ECFA he said:
ECFA is a complicated issue. Given the objective situation between the
two sides, this is not a pure economic and trade issue; there is politics
involved. The DPP was not against the signing of an ECFA. It only
required a longer period before the signing, until everything becomes open
in the air. The DPP must also face the issue of a dialogue with China.57
Continuing to focus on relations with the Mainland, Hong pointed out that Tsai had
twice called for dialogue with the Mainland, albeit without “preconditions” such as the
Mainland’s insistence that all cross-Strait dealings, including party-to-party dialogue, had
to be under the rubric of “one China.” Hong observed that Tsai had made this point
during the April 25 TV debate with Ma Ying-jeou over ECFA and had done so once
again in the May 13 debate for the DPP chair election. He noted she had said she would
pursue a more practical cross-Strait policy, again without accepting preconditions. He
foreshadowed the line Tsai took three months later, in late September, about acting in a
responsible manner:
Responsible, democratic political parties will not challenge the current
international system. In the current international structure, it would be
infeasible and irresponsible for the DPP to act as it did in the past eight
years to challenge and to change the political status quo for a newly
established, legally independent “Republic of Taiwan.” As a responsible
political party of Taiwan, the party should guarantee the entity of Taiwan
and ensure reasonable international space for Taiwan in line with
Taiwan’s economic and trade status without sacrificing Taiwan’s current
political system.
Be that as it may, the Mainland reacted with skepticism to Tsai’s statements about
maintaining continuity of policy if the DPP regains power. For example, when she was
asked about Tsai’s interview with Apple Daily, TAO spokesperson Fan Liqing questioned
the DPP chair’s credibility.58 And in later speeches, Wang Yi stressed the need for people
on both sides to cherish, maintain, and develop cross-Strait exchanges in various fields.
When asked by the Taiwan press if he was suggesting there was a problem in the
relationship, Wang acknowledged that there were “elements of uncertainty.” Without
elaborating further he said: “You know what I am talking about.”59
After the election, Tsai indicated yet again (having tried to do so several times
before) that she would lead a DPP effort to fashion a new approach to dealing with the
Mainland as part of the party’s new 10-year program.60 But she added that the internal
party discussion would likely require several months to complete. The strong implication
was that, while it sought to distinguish its position from that of the “overly solicitous” Ma
administration, the DPP’s approach would become more pragmatic.
As discussed below, however, in framing how the DPP’s policy might be
approached, the crucial issue of the “1992 Consensus” became a point of contention once
again both between the Ma administration and the DPP61 but also between the DPP and
Beijing.62 Indeed, this is likely to be a prominent issue leading up to the 2012 Taiwan
presidential election.
The Special Municipality Elections
The outcome of three of the five mayoral contests to be held on November 27 seemed to
be a foregone conclusion well before the event, and in the end, although there were some
close calls, there were no huge surprises. In Kaohsiung, despite the damage to her
reputation from her handling of preparations for—and cleanup after—Typhoon Fanapi in
mid-September, the very popular DPP mayor Chen Chu won easily. Against two
candidates, including the former DPP magistrate of Kaohsiung County as well as the
KMT candidate, she won over 50 percent of the vote.
In the Greater Taichung race, Taichung City KMT mayor Jason C. Hu was initially
seen to be the strong favorite, and indeed he did win. But in the end he only squeaked by
with a 2.24 percentage point win over a DPP “heavyweight,” but one who was a relative
newcomer to the Taichung area, Su Jia-chyuan. After the close vote, Su’s star within the
DPP quickly rose, and he became secretary general of the party in early December
In Tainan, especially with the Tainan City DPP mayor Hsu Tain-tsair having decided
against an independent candidacy despite bitterness over having lost the party’s
nomination,63 the DPP candidate, legislator William Lai Ching-te, swamped his KMT
rival, university professor Kuo Tien-tsai, as expected.
It was in Taipei City and Xinbei that control of the special municipalities seemed to
hang in the balance. As indicated earlier, the campaigns focused on local issues, not on
broader questions of cross-Strait relations or even the state of Taiwan’s overall economy.
In Taipei, normally a majority pan-Blue city, incumbent Mayor Hau Lung-bin was
not only viewed by many people as a lackluster candidate, but he also faced a number of
attacks for mistakes in handling local issues, some involving alleged corruption. With
respect to the hardy perennial complaint of urban residents everywhere, transportation
issues, Hau’s approval rating slid to a new low of 40 percent in mid-July.64 As the
campaign wore on, DPP candidate Su Tseng-chang sought to capitalize on this by
proposing a new transportation plan designed to appeal to motorized commuters,
pedestrians, and bicyclists alike.65 Su also charged that, under Hau, and implicitly under
Ma Ying-jeou before him, Taipei lacked an urban development plan worthy of a capital
city.66
Hau was also caught up in a string of procurement scandals related to the Taipei
International Flora Exposition, and in other issues,67 regarding which he was subjected to
a sharp grilling even by KMT city council members, who were up for election in
November as well.68 Having accepted the resignations of three key aides who were not
charged with having any role in the scandals but who were felt to have mismanaged the
response to them,69 Hau promised that he would resign immediately if any evidence was
found by the prosecutors that he was guilty in a prominent construction case—or, indeed,
in any other scandal.70 (None was.) Shortly afterward, he created a team of
“spokespeople” to respond to any accusations hurled at him and to launch and “all-out
counterattack” against the “trail” that Su Tseng-chang “must have left . . . in every public
office he held over the years.”71 One such case had to do with alleged bribes paid to Su
from the Chinese medicine sector. Su, like Hau, vigorously maintained his innocence,72
and the charges eventually faded from the press.
All that said, Hau won by almost 12 percentage points, seen even by the pro-Green
Taipei Times as a “decisive victory.”73
In the other hotly contested race in the north, Xinbei, DPP Chair Tsai Ing-wen
mounted a strong challenge to the going-in favorite, former Taoyuan County magistrate
Eric Chu Li-luan. In the end, Tsai lost by five percentage points, a considerably narrower
margin than Su’s in Taipei. Although she lost, because she did as well as she did, her
position as DPP chair was consolidated, and calls by some within the party for her to step
down to “take responsibility” for losing three of the five contests were easily set aside. 74
An important “subterranean” issue in the mayoral contests was the potential impact
on the DPP’s choice of candidate to oppose Ma Ying-jeou in 2012. Although skeptics
believed he would find a way to back out of his promise, Su Tseng-chang pledged
numerous times that if he won the Taipei election he would serve out his term, thus
formally ruling out a run in 2012.75
Until the very last moment, Tsai Ing-wen was far less categorical. On agreeing to run
in Xinbei in May, the furthest she would go was to pledge, “If we’re fortunate enough to
receive the support of Xinbei residents and be elected, we will definitely fulfill our
responsibility.”76 In an October interview she explained her reticence this way: “People
who know how I think and weigh my actions [would know] that the time is not ripe and
that I will not make any decision prematurely . . . My current choice is to be elected
Sinbei [sic] City mayor.” Only on the very eve of the vote, under severe pressure from
her KMT opponent to be definitive, did Tsai finally (seemingly) pledge to serve out her
term.77 (In the event, after losing the Xinbei election, Tsai made known she was
considering a run for president.78)
A point of some importance to both parties is that although the KMT won three out
of the five contests, taken together the DPP candidates won 400,000 more votes. There
were some special circumstances. For example, while it is true that Chen Chu won over
500,000 more votes than her KMT opponent in Kaohsiung, an important factor was the
fact that the former DPP Kaohsiung County magistrate—running as an independent—
pulled many more votes from the KMT ticket than from Chen. So her margin of victory
over the KMT candidate in a two-way race would likely have been significantly smaller.
Moreover, the KMT won more Kaohsiung city council seats than the DPP, suggesting
that the distribution of support between the parties is more even than Chen’s victory
margin would imply.
That said, not only would Chen likely have won handily even in a two-way race, but
the DPP swept Tainan by almost 214,000 votes. Thus, especially in light of the very close
race in Taichung, the results of these five elections, in areas that hold over 60 percent of
Taiwan’s population, laid out the opportunities for the DPP and the challenge for the
KMT as they approach the 2011 LY elections and the presidential contest in 2012. The
issues will likely be quite different from those in the municipal contests, but both parties
took note of the November outcome and are already shaping their future efforts
accordingly.
Another point that has to concern the KMT is the fact that President Ma Ying-jeou’s
polling numbers continued to lag the improvement in the economy throughout much of
the period. Even as economic statistics were moving in a strikingly favorable direction
over some period of time,79 Ma’s support did not reflect these developments.80 On the
other hand, at the end of the period, Ma’s fortunes turned sharply up as, in January, he
garnered the second highest approval rating since taking office in May 2008 and the
highest public trust rating since June 2009.81 Given rising economic trends, one would
have to say that as of this moment, still over a year before the first ballot is cast, the odds
of reelection are in Ma’s favor.82
The Course of Cross-Strait Relations in the Period Ahead
Despite occasional reminders from Mainland officials about the importance of political
dialogue, as we have discussed before, Beijing seems to have come to terms with the fact
that political dialogue is simply out of the question for the foreseeable future.83 And as
frequently discussed before, in the context of preventing “Taiwan independence,” the
main thrust of the PRC’s policy is to weave a thick fabric of economic, social, and
cultural relationships with both short- and long-term goals in mind.
On the other hand, Beijing is by no means giving up on political dialogue. As a
senior PRC official explained it, “to say we will move from economic to political means
there is the political there. And to say we will move from easy to hard means there is the
hard there. So it cannot be that every time we talk about politics people think they cannot
bear this burden.”84
In the short term, Beijing seeks to use these new relationships to win hearts and
minds on the island, gain support for even closer cross-Strait relations, and weaken any
potential support for Taiwan independence. While it actively seeks to court favor with
individual DPP members and officials, it is obvious that Beijing still wants to bolster Ma
Ying-jeou’s chances of reelection in 2012.
Over the long term, the PRC seeks to smooth a path to ultimate peaceful
reunification. Some people see indicators that the patience required to pursue this path,
however, may be wearing thin.
In part, these indicators may reflect concern that the DPP could win in 2012, so
Beijing wants to lock in as much as possible before that happens, limiting the possibilities
that a new government could reverse course. In part, they may reflect a genuine
impatience on the part of some Mainland constituencies (usually described as “public
opinion” but presumably encompassing a wider and more important set of elite actors as
well), who believe that the PRC is always giving more to Taiwan than it receives in
return without any real assurance that they will reach the ultimate goal. The current PRC
leadership may also want to advance cross-Strait ties as much as possible now, so that the
post-2012 leadership doesn’t have to confront difficult questions with Taiwan in the first
part of its tenure. Finally, as indicated in earlier essays, this attitude of seeming
impatience may reflect concern that even the KMT is not as supportive of “one China” as
once believed, and that Taiwan will become complacent with what it can gain from its
informal separate status without feeling any pressure to move ahead to unification,
leading to what some Mainland observers have labeled “peaceful separation”—an
unacceptable outcome for Beijing.
Thus, Beijing is at least testing the waters to see if it can obtain “more” in the realm
of “one China” even in the run-up to 2012. No one realistically expects Ma could openly
endorse either unification or the PRC’s “one China” principle. But with increasing
frequency one hears musings from PRC officials about getting Ma to focus more on
“China” and less on the “ROC.” As TAO Deputy Director Sun Yafu put it in an early
December speech: “The crucial point is that we should reach a more explicit and definite
common understanding that the Mainland and Taiwan are parts of the same China.”
(.)85
PRC officials insist that Beijing will not press Ma or “ask him to do what he cannot
do.” What they say is that Beijing wants an orderly, two-way relationship that
demonstrates mutual sincerity and works toward a “big common goal.”86 One senses that
the argument is not only that certain areas of activity such as international space or
reduction of military deployments may be closed off unless there is some progress along
these lines, but that there are even limits on how far economic cooperation can go. But
the question is whether this line of thinking takes sufficient account of the realities on the
island today.
That being said, common sense would suggest that, especially after the November 27
elections, policy-makers in Beijing will grasp that Ma has not got the flexibility to do
what they would prefer, and that they will stick, instead, with the line put forth by Hu
Jintao in his meeting with Lien Chan on November 13, 2010, to maintain “sustained and
stable development” () in cross-Strait relations.87 This position, reiterated on
several occasions since then, is grounded in the theory that unless one keeps moving
ahead one is likely to stumble. So, as Wang Yi has explained, it is not advocacy of a
static status quo or stagnation, much less retrogression.88
But that does not dictate any particular speed or change in direction. Nor, logically at
least, would it seem to require abandonment of the position that the “1992 Consensus” is
good enough, with its “one China” premise, along with Ma’s commitment to the ROC
“one China” constitution. As already suggested, however, the PRC may not share this
logic, and thus there exists the risk that it will levy demands that not only create
roadblocks to further progress, but could set back some of the achievements to date.
One recent development that could spur further PRC demands is the renewed
argument within Taiwan over the existence and validity of the “1992 Consensus.” Ma
Ying-jeou, of course, has reaffirmed the centrality of that concept to all that has been
achieved in cross-Strait relations since he took office in spring 2008. DPP Chair Tsai Ingwen
has, by way of contrast, reaffirmed her and the DPP’s belief that there is no “1992
Consensus” and that it is not an acceptable basis for proceeding to deal with Beijing, even
though she intends to maintain the basic approach that Ma has adopted if the DPP returns
to office in 2012. This contretemps led ARATS chair Chen Yunlin to raise the prospect
that Beijing might “reconsider everything” in its current cross-Strait policies if one day a
government came to office in Taipei that abandoned the “1992 Consensus” and
opposition to “Taiwan independence.”89
The DPP’s renewed rejection of the “1992 Consensus” will, of course, reinforce the
PRC’s belief that the KMT must remain in office. So, while Beijing will issue warnings
about the consequences of the DPP’s position becoming government policy, and while
one should not be surprised by probes regarding building political trust, especially
proposals to develop somewhat closer positions on “one China” as discussed earlier, the
PRC’s likely emphasis will be on positions that will strengthen the perception in Taiwan
that dynamic cross-Strait relations are in the interest of the people of Taiwan. The
Mainland will therefore likely stress further progress on economic relations as well as on
cultural, educational, and tourism exchanges.90
Beijing is sticking to its position that issues of Taiwan’s international participation
can be addressed if done so “without creating ‘two Chinas’ or ‘one China, one Taiwan’
under the premise of pragmatic negotiation by both parties to make proper
arrangements.”91 However, it is apparently maintaining that position with respect not just
to international governmental organizations but also nongovernmental organizations. The
inclusion of NGOs has generated a particularly strong rebuff from Taipei.92
As has been argued in this essay series before, one would hope Beijing would go
beyond its current position to actively endorse non-sovereignty approaches to Taiwan’s
international space (including not only in UN specialized agencies but in its quest for
trade cooperation agreements) and cease the pressure on Taiwan NGOs. To have any
hope of encouraging this, all responsible actors in Taiwan would also need to temper
statements that directly challenge Beijing to “accept” the ROC.
Among such statements were those by Premier Wu Den-yih that discussion of
missile issues can only come with PRC “acceptance of ROC sovereignty”93 and by MAC
Minister Lai Shin-yuan that Beijing “must respect and face up to the fact of the existence
of the Republic of China.”94 Although Mainland officials say that at some future time,
among all of the difficult issues, one can address the “even more complicated” issue of
how to regard the title “ROC,” they strongly counter any suggestion that Beijing accepts
ROC sovereignty or even “official relations.” Beijing takes this to the extent of rejecting
the characterization of contacts between bureaucrats of the two sides as “official” or
“government-to-government.” “Official-to-official contacts are impossible,” said one
official. 95 Rather, the PRC sees them as contacts between the “professional departments”
concerned.
Hence, in light of the PPRC’s current rather rigid position, as well as of the political
need by both the KMT and the DPP to demonstrate stout defense of Taiwan (or ROC)
sovereignty, action from either side of the Strait that could lead to compromise on this
question seems unlikely in the foreseeable future.
The U.S.-PRC Factor
Although the U.S.-PRC military-to-military dialogue, which had been cut off in early
2010 after announcement of a large Taiwan arms package, was restored by early 2011—
most importantly symbolized by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates’ trip to Beijing in
early January—senior Chinese civilian and military officials continued to warn of drastic
consequences should further sales of advanced weapons to Taiwan take place.96
Moreover, on the eve of Hu Jintao’s state visit to Washington in mid-January, Vice
Foreign Minister Cui Tiankai warned again that the Taiwan issue remained the most
sensitive question in U.S.-PRC ties.97
Still, unless a large package of sophisticated arms is approved, the action in cross-
Strait relations will remain decisively in the hands of Taipei and Beijing. The PRC will
doubtless continue to try to obtain American commitments forswearing future sale of
advanced weapons systems and endorsing Beijing’s terms for engaging with Taipei. But
any such efforts will not succeed. Just as the Obama administration turned aside any idea
of negotiating a “Fourth Communiqué” during the January 2011 Hu Jintao state visit,98
there is no possibility the United States will agree to negotiate such a document at any
time in the future. Hence, while the PRC will continue to identify Taiwan as the most
important and most sensitive issue in the relationship, and while that issue indeed will
continue to have the potential to disrupt U.S.-PRC ties, unless something unanticipated
goes terribly wrong, it will not be a prominent item on the bilateral agenda in the
foreseeable future.
Notes
1 Alan D. Romberg, “Ma at Mid-Term: Challenges for Cross-Strait Relations,” China Leadership Monitor,
no. 33, Summer 2010.
2 The full text of the ECFA agreement is available from both PRC (http://news.xinhuanet.com/tw/2010-
06/29/c_12277378.htm) and Taiwan (http://www.moea.gov.tw/Mns/populace/news/News.aspx?kind=
1&menu_id=40&news_id=19723) websites. An English-language translation of the basic agreement
(without annexes) is available at http://www.bilaterals.org/IMG/pdf_ECFA.pdf.
The IPR text is also available from Xinhua (http://news.xinhuanet.com/tw/2010-06/29/c_12277392
.htm), and from Taiwan’s Mainland Affairs Council (http://www.mac.gov.tw/public/Data/062915395071
.pdf). A very thorough presentation and analysis of it in English by Daisy Wang, “Taiwan and China sign
IP agreement,” contributed by Lee and Li Attorneys at Law, October 4, 2010, is available at
http://www.internationallawoffice.com/Newsletters/detail.aspx?g=4a61da7a-f092-4d0a-aa4e-319d34d447
1e#Terms (may require registration).
According to senior IPR officials in Taiwan, the cross-Strait agreement is more substantive than similar
agreements the Mainland has signed with other trade partners, because it will give Taiwan patent applicants
priority and plant variety rights. (Sofia Wu, “Investment pact high on post-ECFA agenda,” Central News
Agency [CNA] Talk of the Day, citing the Commercial Times, June 28, 2010,
http://focustaiwan.tw/ShowNews/WebNews_Detail.aspx?ID=201006280006&Type=aTOD.)
3 Vincent Y. Chao, “ECFA panders to large corporations at expense of small companies, DPP says,” Taipei
Times, June 25, 2010. The administration countered that as many as 22,700 small and medium-sized
companies employing 4.26 million employees would benefit. (“ECFA to benefit over 22,000 SMEs:
[Minister without portfolio] Yiin [Chii-ming],” China Post, June 27, 2010.)
Although the administration argued it had taken many steps to protect those who might be hurt by
ECFA, in what could be interpreted as a display of some sensitivity to the charge, the Cabinet adopted a set
of five measures in mid-July designed to assist local traditional industries and small and medium-size
industries in the wake of the conclusion of ECFA. As described by one media outlet:
The five measures include enhancement of cooperation and technical transfer between
industry and academics sectors for upgrading technologies through innovation,
strengthening market development domestically and overseas, integration of cross-strait
industrial supply chains to help Taiwanese merchants deploy globally, the exploration of
new business opportunities for services sector, and make a healthy and sound industrial
development environment by carrying out the Industry Innovation Act. The Taiwan
government will also help banking, securities, insurance, MICE [Meetings, Incentives,
Conventions, and Exhibitions], IT, professional design and cinema to explore the China
market. [Ben Shen, “Taiwan takes 5 steps to assist traditional industries in post-ECFA
era,” Taiwan Economic News, July 14, 2010,
http://cens.com/cens/html/en/news/news_inner_32907.html.]
4 Several efforts by the TSU to place such a referendum on the ballot
No comments:
Post a Comment