CEPA between Taiwan and China

It still looks on track, and I expect it will be on the December agenda of the next SEF-ARATS meeting. The name may change, but the content won't much.

President Ma: expand foreign relations on basis of '92 consensus, constitution

The statement came today in an RTI interview. After rambling a bit about how Taiwan hopes to improve relations with China and what a breakthrough Lien Chan's appearance at APEC was, we get to the key passage:

The host asked about to alleviate the suspicion that Taiwan's soverignty would be lost [due to the government position]. The President responded saying he believes throughout the history of cross-strait relations, some DPP members and opposition figures have had strong views on this topic. But if one carefully examines the six agreements that have been signed with the mainland to date, Ma said, not a single one degrades Taiwan or sacrifices Taiwan's sovereignty, and he has never heard anyone clearly explain a point to the contrary.

The President pointed out that the ROC has not changed since its inception, and he is still the president of the ROC. Some people have said that the government's acceptance of the '92 consensus is the reason relations have been going so smoothly, that and the '92 consensus does not harm national sovereignty. Ma said he believes the 92 consensus is "One China, two interpretations," that the constitution is a "One China" constitution, and the government wants to discuss matters with the mainland on these terms; sovereignty has not been harmed in any way.

The President expressed that in the past, the DPP government did not understand priorities, and made mainland recognition of "one side, one country" a precondition for talks. Not only was this not effective, but in fact made it impossible to deal with other important priorities, and increasingly isolated Taiwan.

This final bolded point is simply false, as the DPP continually proposed talks without preconditions, while the Chinese precondition was acceptance of "One China." The DPP hoped to enter dialogue in a situation where there was hope for continual de facto independence with some chance of eventual de jure independence. The current KMT position is that Taiwan is not independent from China, as they are both the same country (the ROC), and as long as China will talk on that basis, nothing bad will happen.

And as far as the first bolded point, let me explain: whether you call it the ROC or the PRC, agreeing that Taiwan is a part of the One China gives Taiwan little choice on the question of unification or independence, because you've already decided it, and the position will obviously not result in ROC control over the mainland. To the contrary.

Update: Also, see this on the next round of talks, from ICRT:

The Mainland Affairs Council has said that the agenda for the third
cross-strait meeting will be finalized by the end of this December, or early
January at the latest.

According to M-A-C Vice Chairman - Fu Dong-cheng - an initial agenda was for
the third round of talks was debated when the head of China's Association for
Relations Across the Taiwan Straits visited Taiwan last month.

However ... Fu admitted that there are still some differences to be worked
out om the exact agenda for further talks ... but that a finalized agenda for
the next round of talks will be ready within the coming months.

Reports have said that the signing of a memorandum of understanding on
financial cooperation is one of the issues on the agenda, as well as the
possible establishment of a cross-strait crime mechanism and a strengthening
of food safety measures.

More treaty speculation.

As I do from time to time, I scoured the intertubes for some news on the future cross-strait peace agreement that might indicate the position one of the parties will take in negotiations.

Here's an opinion from a Hunan public official published at China Review News:

The two sides can sign a peace agreement, but we must insist on two preconditions: first, that the agreement clearly states both sides adhere to the One China principal and oppose indpendence; and second, that as soon as th eTaiwan region moves twoard making indepdence or reality, or if there is a major event that makes indepence likely, than the agreement will automatically cease to function.

That's not an official position, but as I outlined earlier, it seems to be about the position China would take.

Meanwhile, New Party buddy and CEO of Tainet (台聯電) Robert H.C Tsao (曹興誠) suggests a three step process: first, passing a domestic peace law; then, allowing China to bring to Taiwan a concerete unification plan; and finally, allowing the people to vote on it by referendum.

Cao's plan would not "require" eventual unification, but would create a situation of 'automatic' unification if a referendum passed on it (and of course, no referendum would have the independence option). He sees this as establishing a non-cohersive path to unification that, one way or the other, would eventually get Taiwan there.

Ma expresses sympathy to Chinese fears of Cape No. 7

Rumor has it that the Chinese have slowed or may cancel the release of Cape No. 7 in China on grounds that it promotes Japanization.

In an interview with RTI yesterday (which broadcasts mainly to China), President Ma Ying-jeou praised the movie, expressed confidence that China would allow it to run, and responded to questions of Japanization.

Ma pointed out that Taiwan had been colonized by Japan for 50 years, and although lots of people had suffered during that time, there would still be love stories between people.

Quoth Ma: "Although there's been lots of both positive and negative sentiment between Japan and Taiwan, just like with the mainland, people are still people in the end, and human nature is unchangable. If you look at it from this perspective, many situations and stories can be sympathized with. I hope our mainland compatriots can view Cape No. 7 from this angle. "

I would just said, "You've got to be kidding me. What Japanization?"

Speculation

After going through a couple of the '78-'83 documents yesterday where China lays out the policy for "peaceful unification," I was struck at how little the official position has changed. I mentioned that Hu Jintao could have written Deng Xiaoping's editorial. But he hasn't.

And then I wondered why the CCP has been keeping such a low profile.

If I were the CCP, and I had all these great sounding terms for unification (they sound like "status quo, but we get your 22 allies"), why wouldn't I talk about them them? And then it struck me that the CCP just spent the last 8 years berating and threatening Taiwan; that they got their man in power already; and that if they can just pretend 30 year old terms are new proposals, people might buy it this time around!

So to make that happen, you have to minimize talking about those terms in places where they'll hit the Taiwanese media at large. You've got to keep them fresh. So you just wait. Expect to hear the terms around the time of the peace treaty.

Does this strike you as an accurate reading of the situation?

I-shou University dean: Most Chinese students in Taiwan are CCP Youth Leaguers

Whoops! Probably didn't mean to say that out loud.

I-Shou university currently has the most Chinese students of any university in Taiwan; as Taiwan gets ready to expand the program, we should seriously consider the dean's statement that these Communist Youth League members are eager to join Taiwanese student groups and that being a CCYL member is likely a basic prerequisite for coming to Taiwan as a student.

Ma goals & the CCP's, Part II

This 1983 editorial published in the People's Daily, which outlines the main points Deng Xiaoping made when meeting with an American academic, shows remarkably few signs of aging. Here it is, with my own rough translation, again.

What strikes me about this is for all intents and purposes, it could have been written by Hu Jintao yesterday. You will also note the insistence of Deng of holding talks on "equal footing" as two parties, not as a central government to a regional government. This could well indicate that the DPP attacks against China's "downgrading" Taiwan in talks has been misguided -- and that the KMT defenses don't really get to the point either.

A few parts have been bolded by me. Enjoy!

The core issue is national unification. Peaceful unification has already become the common language used by the Nationalist and Communist parties. But this is not a unification where we would gobble [Taiwan] up, or they would gobble us up. We hope that the Nationalist and Communist parties can work together to complete the unification of our people and that everyone can make a contribution to the Zhonghua minzu.

We do not support the suggestion that Taiwan have "complete autonomy." Autonomy must obviously have some limits; if there are limits, the autonomy would not be "complete." Complete autonomy would be the same as 'two Chinas,' and not One China. The systems used [in Taiwan and China] can be different, but internationally there can only be one representative of China, and that is the People's Republic of China. We admit that the local Taiwan government can take care of policies related to its internal affairs. Taiwan as a special administrative region, although it would have a regional government, would be like other provinces, cities and autonomous regions [like Tibet and Xinjiang], though it would have some unique rights not seen in other provinces, cities or autonomous regions. The precondition is that those rights do not infringe on the national interests.

After unification, the Taiwan special administrative region can operate independently, and can continue to develop a system different than the mainland. The legal system can be independent, and final judgments would not have to go through Beijing. Taiwan can maintain its own army, as long as it does not threaten the mainland. The mainland would not dispatch any officials to Taiwan, would not send PLA there, and would not send government administrators there. Taiwan's party system, government, military and other systems would all be run entirely by Taiwanese. The central government [in China] would even allow Taiwan a quota for immigration and emigration [to the mainland]. [A-gu: not sure about this sentence, any corrections?]

Peaceful unification is not where the mainland swallows Taiwan, and of course it is not where Taiwan swallows the mainland. The so called idea of "unifying China under the Three People's Principles" is simply not realistic.

To realize unification, we need to use every appropriate method; therefore we suggest holding talks between the CCP and KMT and realizing the Third United Front, rather than having "central government to regional government" discussions. After both sides come to an agreement, then we can make a formal announcement. But what we cannot allow is foreign interference, which would imply that China was not yet independent, and that would carry disastrous consequences.

We hope the Taiwanese, to clarify their misunderstandings, will carefully read the nine points raised by Ye Jianying (叶剑英) in September 1981 [already discussed in Part 1, here] as well as the July 1983 statements Deng Yingchao (邓颖超) made in his opening remarks at the sixth People's Political Consultative Conference meeting.

The conference you held in March this year in San Francisco, "A Look ahead at Chinese Unification," was a great thing.

We want to complete the as yet uncompleted grand mission of unification. If the Nationalist and Communist parties can do this, then all the history that will be written about [Chiang Kai-shek and Chiang Ching-kuo] will be a little less harsh. Of course, realizing peaceful unification will naturally take time. If you say there is no hurry, that is nonsense; there are still elderly people around that hope to see unification soon. We need more exchanges, increased understanding. We can send anyone to Taiwan, and the visit can be informal and without talks. We can also welcome them to send someone here, where we would gaurentee their safety and privacy. We mean what we say, and do not intend to mess around.

We have already made 'peaceful solidarity' a reality [probably refers to stabilizing China internally]. The principle of peaceful reunification of the motherland was approved at the CCP's Third Plenary Session of the 11th Central Committee. That policy was gradually developed, and we will adhere to it unwaveringly.

Sino-American relations have been changing lately, but the American leadership has not given up the "two Chinas" or "one and a half China" approach. America always talks about how great their system is, but the president says one thing during the election and then does another after he's in power. At the mid term elections there's still another position, and when its time for the next election there's still another policy. America likes to say China's policy is unstable, but compared to the United States, our policies are very stable indeed.

Ma goals & the CCP's, Part I

The 1981 People's Daily editorial lays out the nine objectives of the CPP when it comes to unification pretty well. And they are moving toward their objectives pretty well, too. Here they are, roughly translated:

(1) In order to achieve a rapid end to the unfortunate split between the Chinese people, we suggest holding talks between the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) on equal footing in order to realize the Third United Front and work together toward the great task of unifying the motherland. The two sides can send contacts to fully exchange ideas.

Status: check.

(2) All people on both sides of the Taiwan strait hope for a resumption to communication, visiting of relatives, trade relations and increased understanding. We suggest that both sides work toward signing agreements for establishment postal links, shipping, direct flights, visiting of relatives, tourism and artistic, cultural and educational exchanges.

Status: check.

(3) After the unification of the country, Taiwan will be a special administrative region and can maintain a high degree of autonomy, and may even keep its own army [A-Gu: Deng mentioned "as long as it doesn't threaten China"]. The central government will not interfere in Taiwan's internal affairs.

Status: waiting on the "unification" part, but I don't see much difference between this and Ma's current policy of downplaying military exercises and total foot dragging on the arms purchase, which may well be the last one.

(4) The social and economic system employed Taiwan now would not change, their way of life would not change, and Taiwan's economic and cultural relations with foreign countries would not change. Private property, homes, land and industry would have the right to continue legal agreements with foreign investors.

Status: well, this is more of a promise to alleviate fear of unification, and short of an invasion it will naturally be kept. And notice that China, like Ma, doesn't want Taiwan to have chance for formal relations with foreign countries here. So, check.

(5) The Taiwan authorities and representatives from every sphere may have positions of leadership in the political system of China and may participate in national administration.

Status: almost! Really, who knows, they could come work here as civil servants too...

(6) When there are economic or political difficulties in the Taiwan region, the central government will be willing to assist.

Status: check.

(7) Taiwan compatriots of all fields and ethnicities who wish to move back to China will be protected, not be discriminated against and will have freedom of movement.

Status: check. And that's a good thing, of course.

(8) We welcome Taiwanese business to come back to the motherland and invest in the mainland, including those businesses from all sectors, and we will guarantee legal protection of their rights.

Status: check; at least, they've been more protected than most foreign businessmen or regular Chinese investors.

(9) Everyone has a responsibility to help unify the motherland. We enthusiastically welcome suggestions and efforts of achieving this great goal from Taiwanese of all stripes, people from all sectors and civic organizations.

Status: no doubt, check! Or, search the bottom of this page for KMT distaste of the whole idea of "self-determination." And these exchanges between Ma and Chen are fascinating, with Chen emphasizing Taiwan's right to determine its future by referendum while Ma emphasizes that the ROC government does and should claim China, hence the need for "one China, two interpretations."

It seems to me with all the basics covered now, there really is only one place to go from here: negotiations for a peace treaty, which without doubt, would be seen as an important precursor toward formal unification in a "one country, two systems" framework.

Don't think they've given up on it.

Excellent News!

There's nothing on the regular wires, newspapers or cable news worth talking about this afternoon so far!

One piece of news I can't decide to classify as laughable or ominous, though: the People's Daily Taiwan subpage is prominently celebrating the 30th anniversary of The Message to the Compatriots in Taiwan issued by China on January 1, 1979. That letter more or less established the "strive for peaceful unification, but by God there will be unification" policy.

You can see their celebratory page here, read the original letter in full here, and read about the "contributions" of Deng, Jiang and Hu to unification as well.

Dalai bet

With the Dalai Lama ignoring China and expressing interest in coming to Taiwan next year, how much do you want to bet that politically-related complications will prevent his trip? How much do you want to bet that the KMT will actually reject his visa application, if it comes to that? I think Ma & Co. would rather reject his visit than piss off the Chinese at that time.

Between Chen "Giant Ham" Shui-bian and Ma "Roll Over and Hope They Don't Rip Your Entrails Out " Ying-jeou, I'm thinking I need a mental health break from news and politics.

Naturally, I'm not helped out when Taipei Mayor Hau Lung-bin (郝龍斌) claims Maokong Gondala structural problems have nothing to do with the previous mayor who ordered the construction without an environmental assessment (for fear the DPP might actually reject it for "political reasons," of course).

A-bian just can't get out of the spotlight

With his lawyer announcing that Dialog in Prison <<獄中對話>> now completed, A-bian has decided to start the second book of his detention-without-charges writing sprint, which will be titled Taiwanese Independence <<台灣獨立>>.

::sigh:: It seems this will just never end. And while his current detention is inexcusable, his determination to be front and center is dragging the weak, gasping troop of the DPP into abyss with him. And given the media and lack of due process in Chen's case, I'm not even sure they have a choice but to be taken along for the plunge.

New, not so funny joke: How many vote buying KMT legislators does it take to consider changing the election law?

Five. [TVBS video]

Meanwhile, China delays the release of Cape No. 7 in China (but really, not for political reasons!); the Justice Minister states (rather unconvincingly, given the evidence,) that it would be "impossible and unacceptable" for the judicial branch to become a political tool; the unreasonable and overly expensive 18% preferential savings rate for civil servants is rebutted with a creaking, verbal promise of reform; and the endless Chen Shui-bian drama continues.

We don't need no stinkin' oversight

Forget referendums. We don't even need the legislature to approve what would be a treaty in any normal reading of reality. Forget that several aspects of the agreement don't conform with current law. Do we need oversight? No way, no how.

KMT lawmaker Lin Yi- Shih, executive director of the KMT Central Policy Committee and a deputy chairman of the KMT, told reporters it appears that the agreements would not be approved in early December on the floor of the legislature.

Lin explained that in accordance with the Act Governing Relations between the Peoples of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area, the four agreements will become effective automatically if the legislature has not acted to sanction the pacts within one month after they were sent to its Procedure Committee.

This is rich.

Shameless.

Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Wu Poh-hsiung (吳伯雄) yesterday said all KMT assets had been acquired legally, but added that the party must divest itself of them “within a short period of time.”

Speaking at the party’s Central Evaluation Committee meeting, Wu said that no KMT assets had been obtained illegally because if the KMT had any illegal assets, the former Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) administration would have confiscated them...

While the party had a net value of NT$20 billion (US$625 million) last year, Wu said that figure had dwindled to NT$10 billion. If the party rid itself of all its assets, Wu said, the money would go to party employee pensions, severance payments and utility bills. If there were any money left, it would be donated to civic agencies and disadvantaged groups, he said.

While the party used to have more than 4,700 full-time employees, Wu said the number had been cut to 900.

Yes, please pay no attention to the frequent and fruitless DPP efforts to confiscate the assets. And ignore the fact that the legislature was a huge obstacle to accomplishing that goal.

If you were wondering what happened to Mango daily...

... then here's the story.