Taiwan-Japan Investment Agreement: Impact on Cross-Strait Investment Agreement

Taiwan-Japan Investment Agreement: Impact on Cross-Strait Investment Agreement
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 30, 2011

Summary: The Taiwan-Japan Investment Agreement was signed on Thursday. This economic and trade agreement has the deepest significance and is the most widely covered topic since Taipei and Tokyo severed diplomatic relations in 1972. On the basis of this milestone, the future of Taipei/Tokyo economic and trade liberalization talks looks bright. We salute the Ma administration's accomplishments. Tokyo now sees Taipei/Tokyo relations in a new light. Many new opportunities are now available. By contrast, negotiations over the Cross-Strait Investment Agreement have stalled. They are all thunder and no lightning. Everyone is anxious. But certain considerations mean they cannot be rushed.

Full Text below:

The Taiwan-Japan Investment Agreement was signed on Thursday. This economic and trade agreement has the deepest significance and is the most widely covered topic since Taipei and Tokyo severed diplomatic relations in 1972. On the basis of this milestone, the future of Taipei/Tokyo economic and trade liberalization talks looks bright. We salute the Ma administration's accomplishments. Tokyo now sees Taipei/Tokyo relations in a new light. Many new opportunities are now available. By contrast, negotiations over the Cross-Strait Investment Agreement have stalled. They are all thunder and no lightning. Everyone is anxious. But certain considerations mean they cannot be rushed.

The Taiwan-Japan Investment Agreement keeps pace with international trends. The degree of investment liberalization, the scope and extent of protections provided, including international arbitration, break with Taiwan's current system. Take land acquisition compensation for example, Taiwan and Japan must provide compensation. The compensation must be immediate. Furthermore, it must reflect fair market value. So-called "fair" market value means it must exclude the devaluation resuting from acquisition. All levels of government must implement these compensation mechanisms. The spirit of fair market value compensation must be implemented, both internally and externally. This will help resolve many domestic disputes over land acquisition. The Taiwan-Japan Investment Agreement includes three codiciles. They list our government's current restrictions on foreign investment, making them part of an international agreement. In the future the government must gradually lift these restrictions, It can no longer renege. The effect will clearly be liberalizing.

We must uphold the the rule of law. Developed nations have transparent administrative procedures, Their institutional mechanisms and relief programs already provide adequate protection for investors. Unpredictable incidents are rare. For them, bilateral insurance agreements have limited significance. The scope of the the Taiwan-Japan Insurance Agreement is wide. The justice system on Taiwan is defective. But it is improving. Therefore, as far as attracting Japanese investment, the insurance agreement is probably icing on the cake. It is not the decisive factor. If we truly wish to attract Japanese and other foreign investments, we must improve our overall investment environment, improve cross-Strait relations, and take concrete steps to liberalize our markets,

Consider the impact of the Taiwan-Japan Investment Agreement: on the Cross-Strait Investment Agreement. The differences are clear. Taiwan businesses have been investing on the Chinese mainland for years. They have amassed vast investment interests. The legal system on the Chinese mainland provides inadequate legal protections, Therefore the Cross-Strait Investment Agreement is far more significant than the Taiwan-Japan Investment Agreement. The Taiwan-Japan Investment Agreement was reached in short order. Negotiations over the Cross-Strait Investment Agreement have gone back and forth repeatedly, They remain stuck on issues of personal safety and investment dispute resolution. Cross-strait relations are far more complex than Taiwan-Japan relations. But a more important reason is the sensitivities the two sides stillhave regarding sovereignty and other forms of political authority.

Beijing wants us to afford Mainland capital the same protections we normally give other countries. But it also wants to avoid the internationalization of cross-Strait arrangements. This may be the basis for insurance agreement negotiations. We want to allow in Mainland capital and to increase protections for Taiwan businesses on the Chinese mainland. We want equal treatment and a mandatory investment dispute settlement mechanism. These are difficult problems. But they do not figure into Taiwan-Japan relations. They have made a Cross-Strait Investment Agreement difficult to reach. That is understandable. Our side must normalize the investment of capital from the Chinese mainland. That is only reasonable. The other side is responding positively to concerns about personal safety. But it remains reluctant to accept an impartial, compulsory, third party dispute settlement mechanism. These are the key issues for the two sides. Apparently various forces are still wrestling with each other. A significant gap must be closed.

Cross-Strait relations are different from Taiwan-Japan relations. But the Taiwan-Japan insurance Agreement has yielded an early harvest. Everone on Taiwan, including the business community, sees the Taiwan-Japan Investment Agreement as a benchmark for a future Cross-Strait Investment Agreement. The Taiwan-Japan Investment Agreement has taken one giant leap. The cross-Strait agreement must offer more than merely proclamations and voluntary provisions. If it offers little more than the current Taiwan Business Protection Act, the government will have a hard time anwering to the public. The issue would become a political football. Therefore the Cross-Strait Investment Agreement must not be rushed. The most important thing is substance, Only then can we protect the interests of Taiwan capital on the Chinese mainland. In the end, it is more important that the Cross-Strait Investment Agreement be done right than done fast.

從台日投保協議看兩岸投保協議
【聯合報╱社論】
2011.09.30 02:57 am

台日投保協議上周四完成簽署。這是台日在一九七二年斷交以來，涵蓋議題最廣最深的經貿協議。在這個里程碑的基礎上，台日未來繼續推動經貿自由化談判，也會相對容易許多。政府的努力，值得肯定；日本對於台日關係的新思維，也帶來許多契機。反觀在同一時間展開協商的兩岸投保協議，卻還停留在只聞樓梯響的階段；各界固然心急，但也有急不得的考量。

無論在投資開放、保護範圍與程度，以及國際仲裁等方面，台日投保協議的內容都與國際趨勢高度接軌，甚至還有超越台灣現行制度的突破。以土地徵收補償為例，台日投保協議非但規定補償必須即時，更進一步要求應與公平市場價值相當，而所謂「公平」市價，指的是必須排除社會知悉徵收規劃後所造成的貶值。如果各級政府能藉此推動徵收補償機制，對內、對外都落實「公平市價補償」的精神，更可一併解決許多國內的土地徵收糾紛。此外，台日投保協議的三個附件中，將我國目前實際上對外資的保留限制都逐一列出，成為國際協議的一部分；這意味著未來政府只能逐步解除這些限制，再無法倒退反悔，也具有一定的自由化效果。

不過，對於法治健全、行政程序透明成熟的國家而言，其本身各種機制及救濟程序原本就已對投資提供充分保障，不可預測的突襲性行為也不常出現，故洽簽雙邊投保協議的意義仍屬相對有限。對此，台日投保協議的涵蓋範圍固然廣泛，但因台灣行政司法制度雖不盡完善，卻也日趨現代化，因此對吸引日資而言，投保協議本身大抵僅有錦上添花之效，而非決定性的因素；整體投資環境的完備、兩岸關係的持續改善，再結合市場開放的決心與具體作為，才是吸引日資、外資的根本之道。

由台日投保協議來看兩岸投保協議，即可明顯辨識其不同。由於台商在中國大陸投資多年，已累積巨大投資利益，加上對岸行政司法制度對台商保護相對不足，兩岸投保協議對台灣的重要性及實質意義，遠超過台日投保協議。相較於台日投保協議的迅速達陣，兩岸投保協議的協商進展卻反反覆覆，始終在人身保護及投資爭端解決等幾個老問題上打轉。其中，兩岸關係的複雜性固然遠非台日關係所能比擬，但更重要的原因，可能還是雙方在涉及主權等敏感問題尚未取得政治上的授權。

對陸方而言，要求我方給予陸資比照其他國家的正常待遇，以及避免任何可能造成兩岸關係國際化的安排，可能是其協商投保協議的基本原則；我方則以不失去陸資開放的自主空間，強化台商人身安全，以及爭取公平、具強制性的投資爭端解決機制為準則。這些在台日關係中都不存在的難題，造成兩岸投保協議難產，是可以理解的。目前看來，我方必須在陸資投資正常化部分有所交代才合情合理，而對岸對人身安全機制也漸有正面回應，但仍不願接受某種強制由公正第三方進行爭端解決的機制。目前兩岸在這些關鍵議題上，似乎還有各種力量在角力對抗，仍有相當落差需要校準。

不過，雖然兩岸關係不同於台日關係，但在台日投保協議先一步收割的局面下，很難不期待台灣各界及台商社群，以台日投保協議的成果及內涵，作為檢視兩岸投保協議的基準。因此，相較於台日投保協議的跨大步，兩岸投保協議的內容若多屬宣示性條款、自願性規定，只比中國大陸現行的「台商保護法」向前走出一小步，則非但很難對內交代，更可能在此時此刻變成政治炒作的話題。就此而言，兩岸投保協議並不需要急於在時間上追趕，最重要的還是要有具體的作為，能夠顯著提升對台商大陸投資權益的保障。所以，還是一句老話：兩岸投保協議談得快，不如談得好！