Share this

Mar 6, 2009

Links

China ready to talk peace: Wen

Talks require ‘1992 consensus,’ goodwill: Taiwan

China says ready to talk, end hostilities

6 comments:

Robert R. said...

Economic pact with China would prevent Taiwan's marginalization: KMT

And I'd say it'll hasten Taiwan's marginalization.

Tim Maddog said...

Here's how I would rewrite those headlines:
* China ready to accept Taiwan's surrender: Wen
* Stop pointing out Wen Jiabao's repetition of the PRC's own "one-China" precondition: Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT)
* China says "Stop waving the white flag and sign the one-country, one-party, one-system unification-CEPA-CECA-ECFA already ('cuz it'll make us look like the good guys)"
* All that matters is shutting up those pesky supporters of Taiwan's existing independence: KMT
* Economists see right through the BS, protesters say "If you think we're a minority, bring on a referendum, mofos!"

Tim Maddog

janice said...

What to make of this?

Taiwan Says It Is Not Ready for Peace Talks With China

TAIPEI, Taiwan, March 5 -- Taiwanese President Ma Ying-jeou on Thursday ruled out any near-term prospect of peace talks with China, saying relations are too tenuous to consider discussing political or military issues.

"At this stage we will only talk about economic and trade issues," Taiwanese presidential spokesman Wang Yu-chi said.

Thomas said...

What to make of it? Ma knows that responding positively to Hu's overture would cut him deeply. Hu has said that a peace pact and military exchanges would be based on the One China policy. He did not mention other interpretations. And Ma is currently under fire because opponents of an ECFA have been very loudly criticising the economic AND political ramifications of such a treaty.

So all Ma can offer for a response is the tired old refrain about only focusing on economics, whether or not the pacts Taiwan signs will be purely economic or not.

The moment Ma says that political talks are on the agenda, he will walk into a domestic trap of his own making, as no political talks can be had without recognising China's One China, and he knows it, just as he knows that Taiwanese don't want to be treated as anything less than equals.

So all we can expect for the time being are politicoeconomic treaties, dressed up as mere economic measures, designed to hasten economic integration and therefore hasten the intended political result.

Thomas said...

Ma says that he hopes the possibility of signing an ECFA at a later date can be discussed at the upcoming trade talks in May.
Of more interest is this nugget from the Taipei Times: http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2009/03/07/2003437831

Wang Yu-chi says that the upcoming talks will not touch on an ECFA because of time restrictions. Lai Shin-yan says that the MAC will make arrangements to include ECFA discussions in the talks if Ma wants them there. Liu Chao-shiuan says that any ECFA-related discussions won't be on the formal agenda, but they will be held on the sidelines of the talks, and there will be no resolution.

Got a controversy? No problem. Just keep the masses confused. Then, you can claim to support all viewpoints in a pinch. You can even go forward with the talks in a surprise fashion if you want to, then say that they were only "sideline" talks, and nothing serious. Is this really bumbling or is it caculated bumbling? And why do people put up with it?

Thomas said...

Sorry. I poorly edited my message. It should read:

Of more interest is this nugget from the Taipei Times: http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2009/03/07/2003437831

Ma says that he hopes the possibility of signing an ECFA at a later date can be discussed at the upcoming trade talks in May.

Wang Yu-chi says that the upcoming talks will not touch on an ECFA because of time restrictions. Lai Shin-yan says that the MAC will make arrangements to include ECFA discussions in the talks if Ma wants them there. Liu Chao-shiuan says that any ECFA-related discussions won't be on the formal agenda, but they will be held on the sidelines of the talks, and there will be no resolution.

Got a controversy? No problem. Just keep the masses confused. Then, you can claim to support all viewpoints in a pinch. You can even go forward with the talks in a surprise fashion if you want to, then say that they were only "sideline" talks, and nothing serious. Is this really bumbling or is it caculated bumbling? And why do people put up with it?