Transparency Will Expedite FTA Negotiations

Transparency Will Expedite FTA Negotiations
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 23, 2012

Summary: The Taiwan stock market continues to stumble. The regularly scheduled meeting of the Cross-Strait Economic Cooperation Committee will be held on Thursday. The two sides will begin a new round of follow up ECFA consultations. They will address the mutual opening of markets, and add new items pertaining to the Taiwan stock market. ECFA cannot be quite as transparent as other bilateral free trade agreements (FTAs). To the public, the government's FTA policy is smoke and mirrors. Do the pros in this case outweigh the cons? This is a question the government needs to ask itself.

Full Text below:

The Taiwan stock market continues to stumble. The regularly scheduled meeting of the Cross-Strait Economic Cooperation Committee will be held on Thursday. The two sides will begin a new round of follow up ECFA consultations. They will address the mutual opening of markets, and add new items pertaining to the Taiwan stock market. ECFA cannot be quite as transparent as other bilateral free trade agreements (FTAs). To the public, the government's FTA policy is smoke and mirrors. Do the pros in this case outweigh the cons? This is a question the government needs to ask itself.

Negotiating a bilateral FTA is the government's main economic and trade policy. Everyone from the president to the heads of industry have vowed to expedite the signing of an agreement. Everyone wants to get a leg up on South Korea, Singapore, and other major trading competitors, who already enjoy the advantages of FTAs. A few days ago President Ma even said he hoped to complete follow-up negotiations on ECFA with Mainland China, to sign economic cooperation agreements with New Zealand and Singapore, and to resume negotiations over the US Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (TIFA). If so, our economy will experience a rebirth. But in most in people's eyes FTA negotiations have stalled. They have yet to pay off. Is this mere appearance? Or is it fact? The public has no idea, and the government is unwilling to say.

Take FTA negotiations between Taipei and Singapore. FTA negotiations between South Korea and the European Union required a total of 19 months, from start to finish. Economic negotiations between us and Singapore are much smaller in scale than FTA negotiations between South Korea and the EU. The FTA between Taipei and Singapore was supposed to take only 12 months. Instead, it has already taken 19 months, and a signing is nowhere in sight. Worse still, Singapore demanded the recall of our representative to Singapore. Just how many items are on the Taipei/Singapore FTA agenda? We have already held many consultations. What exactly is the impasse? Did the recall of our representative to Singapore have anything to do with it? Outsiders have no idea. They don't even have any idea how far the talks have progressed.

Government officials may think that secret negotiations minimize outside interference, internal dissent, and political obstructionism by Beijing. But considering the lack of progress made with several FTAs, the alleged benefits of secrecy are far from obvious. On the contrary. secret negotiations offer protectionists a perfect refuge, Outsiders have no idea what is holding up the FTAs. They have no idea whether they should support the FTAs or not. They fear backroom deals over FTAs may discredit the government's policies. Even if the FTAs are eventually successful, the damage may be irreparable. .

FTA negotiations involve disputes between vested interests. They involve legal technicalities. They are difficult for outsiders to understand. But the United States, Europe, even Japan, Korea, and other countries do their best to explain what is going on, both during the negotiations and after the FTA is signed. They tell the public where negotiations are being held, and which topics are being negotiated. Afterwards they explain the progress and achievements they made, or failed to make. This transparency begins when negotiations begin. Actually it begins before negotiations begin. The scope of the FTA and its main framework is also made known.

Transparent consultations have advantages. They reduce recriminations against the government, for springing surprises on the public. They increase policy predictability. Domestic and foreign trade and economic agreements are made public once consultations have been concluded. Springing the results on the public all at once catches people by surprise. It provokes as much controversy as secret negotiations. It is more vulnerable to charges of "un-democratic," Legislative oversight is not the only way to honor democracy.

Furthermore, transparency allows affected industries and interested parties to express their views. Currently views are sought only from a handful of industries via small scale inquiries that lack breadth and depth. They are not conducted according to the Administrative Procedure Act as it pertains to public hearings. The industries queried may not need protection. Departments not queried many be the ones most in need of relief. More importantly, transparency enables the public to understand the negotiation progress. It enables them to understand the achievements made along the way, and the obstacles encountered along the way. It subjects the negotiations to scrutiny under the bright light of day. It enables the public to understand the urgency of liberalization. Otherwise, high officials invariably set illusory economic goals. They invariably use unconvincing arguments to make us accept real world changes.

Our government's FTA provisions specify the need for transparency. Ironically, the FTA talks are almost completely lacking in transparency. The negotiation process must be made transparent. This does not mean the detailed arguments and bargaining chips used in the talks must be disclosed. It is absolutely unnecessary to undermine the negotiations. The two sides agreed to make their FTA negotiations public. Secrecy is unnecessary. Beijing has raised no obstacles. Outsiders can be apprised of the obstacles encountered during negotiations through many means. Even the agenda and number of consultations for sensitive cross-Strait agreements can be indirectly released to the media. If this can be achieved during cross-Strait consultations, it can be achieved during FTA consultations with other countries. Let us begin with the Taipei/Singapore FTA negotiations.

透明化是加速FTA協商的促進劑
【聯合報╱社論】 2012.04.23

正在台股跌跌不休之際，為推動ＥＣＦＡ而設的兩岸經合會例行會議在本周四舉行，雙方將進入ＥＣＦＡ後續協商新一回合談判，觸及相互開放市場等議題，為台股增添新題材。相比ＥＣＦＡ，其他洽談中的雙邊自由貿易協定（ＦＴＡ）可沒有這麼透明化，讓國人對政府的ＦＴＡ政策猶如霧裡看花，其利弊得失，值得政府再好好盤算。

洽簽雙邊ＦＴＡ是政府的主要經貿政策，從總統到產業界均誓言要加速洽簽，以突破韓國、新加坡等主要貿易競爭對手的ＦＴＡ優勢；馬總統日前更表示，如果能與中國大陸完成兩岸ＥＣＦＡ後續談判，與紐西蘭、新加坡談好經濟合作協議，又和美國恢復台美貿易暨投資架構協定（ＴＩＦＡ）談判，則台灣一定可以脫胎換骨。然而，呈現在國人眼前的卻是，除ＥＣＦＡ外，ＦＴＡ談判似乎全都陷入膠著，遲遲未見成效；這是表象，還是真相，民眾不知，政府也不明說。

就拿台星之間的ＦＴＡ談判來說，韓國與歐盟洽談ＦＴＡ，從開始到結束共花費十九個月的時間，而我國與新加坡之間這個經濟量體、談判規模均比韓歐盟ＦＴＡ小得多的ＦＴＡ，原訂是十二個月完成，但迄今已耗時十九個月，不僅短期內沒有完成的跡象，這段期間還歷經駐星代表換人的風波。台星ＦＴＡ到底包含那些議題、迄今協商幾次、瓶頸僵局何在、換人風波有無影響等一連串問題，外界非但無從知悉，就連到底談到什麼程度，也是毫無頭緒。

政府官員或許認為，鴨子划水式談判可以減少外部干擾，除了內部不同聲音，也可防止中國大陸的政治性阻攔。然而，從幾個ＦＴＡ進展來看，秘密進行的利益並不明顯，反而是黑箱作業提供了保護主義者絕佳的藏身處，外界既不清楚究竟是什麼阻礙了ＦＴＡ，也不知道應不應該支持；相對的，外界對ＦＴＡ利益分配的穿鑿附會，卻可能傷害政策信譽。這些內傷，即使未來ＦＴＡ順利完成，也未必能夠治癒。

ＦＴＡ協商涉及既有利益的折衝，又有法律技術議題，外界確實並不易瞭解，但美、歐乃至於日、韓等國在洽簽過程中，仍會儘可能簡要在事前進行預告，事後加以說明；其預告內容主要包含時間、地點及主要議題，事後則會說明進度及成果（或無成果）。這些透明化項目，是談判啟動後的工作；在協商開始前的初始階段，也會公開協定的涵蓋範圍及主要架構。

這種協商透明化的優點，首先是可降低突襲式執政的責難，提升政策的可預測性。目前國內涉外經貿協定都是協商完成後，一次性地向國內公開結果，不免令人有措手不及之感，引發的爭議也不會比秘密進行少，更容易遭到不符合民主程序的批評，畢竟民主絕非只有國會監督一種方式。

再者，透明化也可使受影響的產業與利害關係人，能夠即時反映意見。目前徵詢意見的程序中，除針對少數產業進行小規模探詢外，廣度及深度都不足，更不曾依據行政程序法辦理公聽會。然而，受政府關愛的產業未必都需要保護，而未獲得徵詢機會的部門，卻可能很需要關懷。更重要的是，透明化能夠使社會各界瞭解協商進展、各階段的成就及困難，讓內部阻力及障礙攤在陽光下受到檢視，也使各界理解自由化的急迫性；否則，政府高官每次都以虛幻的經貿目標，要求大家接受現實世界的改變，實在不具說服力。

我國ＦＴＡ規定都有透明化條款，但諷刺的是，ＦＴＡ談判卻幾乎沒有絲毫透明化可言。談判過程的透明化，並非公開具體談判內容、爭議及籌碼，斷無影響談判的問題，而這些ＦＴＡ協商既然已經雙方同意公開，也失去秘密進行以降低彼岸阻礙的考量。事實上，相對敏感的兩岸協議，從談判議題到回合協商，至少會以間接方式，透過媒體預告說明，也有許多管道讓外界知悉談判的困難與障礙。如果兩岸協商可以做到，與他國的ＦＴＡ更無窒礙難行之理。就以公開台星ＦＴＡ的進展，當做開始吧！