Beijing Must Not Oppose Taipei Signing FTAs with Other Countries

Beijing Must Not Oppose Taipei Signing FTAs with Other Countries
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
June 4, 2010

Beijing must not stand in the way of Taipei signing free trade agreements (FTAs) with other countries. Doing so would run counter to the goal of improved cross-Strait relations that the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA) is attempting to establish. Doing so would seriously undermine the meaning and achievements of ECFA.

During a Beijing Ministry of Foreign Affairs press conference, a reporter from Taiwan asked how Beijing felt about Taipei's desire to sign FTAs with other nations with the help of ECFA. Spokesperson Jiang Yu replied, "[mainland] China has no objection to Taiwan having non-official economic and trade exchanges with other countries. But for agreements of an official nature, we are opposed."

Some have concluded this means Beijing is opposed to Taipei signing FTAs with other countries. Others have concluded that "opposition to Taiwan signing official agreements" is not the same as "opposition to Taiwan signing FTAs."

For verification, a reporter from this paper, the United Daily News, asked a follow-up question. The Beijing official said that once ECFA is signed, if Taipei wants to sign FTAs with other countries, Beijing will be delighted. It would not stand in Taipei's way, as long as they are "purely economic agreements" that do not involve sovereignty, and are beneficial to the development of Taiwan's economy. We believe that given Beijing's concerns about Taipei, this is a reasonable and predictable response. Unless one is obtuse beyond belief, no other response is possible.

Beijing cannot possibly oppose Taipei signing FTAs with other countries. That's because ECFA is not merely a "cross-Strait economic agreement." It is also an important framework for cross-Strait "peaceful development." Was ECFA negotiated with sincerity and goodwill? The public on Taiwan has a single criterion. Will Taipei be allowed to sign FTAs with other countries. As this newspaper asked, is ECFA an "Invitation to a Funeral," or an "Invitation to a Dance?" The answer will depend on whether Taipei is allowed to sign FTAs with other countries. This affects not merely the hearts and minds of the public on Taiwan. It is also the key to the cross-Strait struggle between the two largest political parties on Taiwan. Beijing cannot possibly be unaware of this.

Taiwan has a "shallow dish economy." If Taipei hopes to sign FTAs with any other countries, they will have to "cut Taipei some slack." Otherwise the FTAs will exert dangerous pressure on Taiwan society. But once Taipei signs ECFA, it must demonstrate its autonomy by signing FTAs. Otherwise given internal struggles between the two largest parties on Taiwan, the ruling administration's policies would not pass muster. Failure to sign FTAs would cast a pall of skepticism over cross-Strait "peaceful development." It would seriously undermine the significance and achievements of ECFA. This why Taipei must attempt to sign FTAs. This is the reason Beijing is not opposed to Taipei signing FTAs.

Therefore one possibile future development is that Taipei will sign a number of FTAs with its major trading partners, such as the United States, as well as with certain nations such as Singapore, which poses no agricultural threat. On the one hand, this will help make Taiwan's economy more liberal and open. On the other hand, and more importantly, it will help win the hearts and minds of the public vis a vis cross-Strait exchanges. If the ROC can maintain diplomatic ties with a certain number of allies, that will be beneficial to cross-Strait relations. The same is true for FTAs. Surely Beijing sees how FTAs will stabilize and improve cross-Strait relations. What reason does it have to oppose them?

Let us review the comments made by Beijing's Ministry of Foreign Affairs. They opposed Taipei signing "agreements of an official nature" with other countries. In fact, this was their "three standard comments," namely that "The People's Republic of China is the sole legal government and represents all of China." Have cross-Strait relations evolved no further than this? What is ECFA? Is it an "economic and trade exchange of a non-official nature?" Or is it an "agreement of a non-official nature?" Did Beijing sign an ECFA with Fujian Province? Will Fujian Province sign FTAs with other countries? We do not think Beijing can break through such contradictions and psychological barriers in the short term. But if cross-Strait relations are to "develop peacefully," why invoke such terms as "sovereignty?" when they merely muddy the waters?

Cross-Strait relations have transitioned from hostility and conflict to "peaceful development." Governments on both sides must respond in a timely manner to this rare historical opportunity. They must lay down important cornerstones for cross-Strait relations. ECFA is one of the most important. But ECFA alone is not enough. Most importantly, the two sides must understand the hearts and minds of the public. One might say that the reason for ECFA is to win the hearts and minds of the people. But if one loses the hearts and minds of the people, what good is ECFA?

The hearts and minds of the public on Taiwan have two main pillars -- self-esteem and trust. If we have ECFA but no FTAs, where is that self-esteem? Where is that trust? How can the meaning and achievements of ECFA remain intact?

北京不可反對台灣與他國簽FTA
【聯合報╱社論】
2010.06.04 03:05 am

北京不可反對台灣與其他國家簽定自由貿易協定（FTA）。因為，這不啻與兩岸經濟協議（ECFA）所欲追求的兩岸關係之氛圍與境界是背道而馳的，反而將嚴重摧毀ECFA的意義與成就。

在北京外交部記者會上，台灣記者問，大陸對台灣希望ECFA有助於與其他國家簽定FTA持何態度？發言人馬朝旭答稱：「……中方對於台灣同其他國家開展非官方經貿往來不持異議，但對官方性質的協議，我們是反對的。」

有人認為，此說表示北京反對台灣與他國簽FTA；也有人認為，在「反對台灣簽官方協議」與「反對台灣簽FTA」之間，不能劃上等號。

本報記者後續的查證指出，北京涉台官員表示：在簽定ECFA後，台灣若要與其他國家洽簽FTA，只要是「純經濟協議」，不涉及主權，對發展台灣經濟有利，北京樂觀其成，不會阻撓。我們認為，面對台灣方面的疑慮，這是北京方面一個合理且可以預期的解釋，倘非至愚至昏，不可能有第二種答案。

北京不可能反對台灣與他國簽定FTA。因為ECFA不止是一個「兩岸經濟協議」，更是兩岸奠定「和平發展」的氛圍與境界的重要架構；而ECFA是否存有誠意與善意，對台灣主流社會而言，能否與他國簽定FTA，已成為主要的指標。若用本報的兩岸語彙來說，ECFA究竟是「請君入甕」或「與卿共舞」，就看能否與他國簽FTA；這非僅影響台灣主流社會的民心向背，更是台灣兩黨兩岸政策鬥爭的勝敗關鍵。凡此種種，北京豈會不知？

其實，以台灣的淺碟經濟，欲簽定任何FTA，對方若不「讓利」，對台灣社會皆會造成壓力與風險。但在簽定ECFA後，台灣若不能展現可以簽定FTA的自主權，這不但在內部兩黨鬥爭上過不了關，且必為兩岸關係抹上一層有害「和平發展」的不信任陰影，因而勢將嚴重摧毀了簽定ECFA的意義與成就。這是台灣必須設法簽ＦＴＡ的原因，也是北京不可反對的原因。

因而，未來的可能發展是：台灣與主要貿易夥伴如美國，及選擇性的對象如新加坡（無農業威脅）簽定幾個FTA；一方面固然可藉以錘煉台灣經濟體質的更趨自由開放，另一方面更重要的則是藉以印證兩岸關係的更符民心。此與中華民國能夠維持若干邦交國之對兩岸關係有利，是同一道理。北京方面不會看不到FTA對穩固及改善兩岸關係的種種重大利益，豈有反對之理？

現在回頭看北京外交部的相關談話。宣稱反對其他國家與台灣簽定「官方性質的協議」，其實仍是「老三句」（中華人民共和國是代表中國的唯一合法政府）的思維。如果在兩岸關係演化至今日地步仍持此說，則莫非ECFA也是「非官方的經貿往來」，或「非官方性質的協議」？難道北京會與福建省簽ECFA？或福建省會與他國簽FTA？我們不認為北京能夠在短期內破解此種矛盾與心障；但若欲使兩岸關係「和平發展」，豈宜動輒即用「主權」這類言詞來攪渾一池好不容易才沉澱下來的春水？

兩岸關係正從衝突敵對朝往「和平發展」的轉型階段。兩岸政府適時回應了此一珍貴的歷史機遇，為兩岸關係奠定了諸多重要的基石，ECFA即其中大者；但徒有 ECFA尚不足以自行，重要的是，必須因勢利導民心的趨向。也可以說，為了民心而有ECFA；若失民心，ECFA有何用？

台灣民心的二大支柱是自尊心及信任感。但倘若只可有ECFA而不可有FTA，自尊心何在？信任感何在？而ECFA的意義及成就，更將如何維繫？