Threesome!

Scott Cook plays at the Early Bird, Taichung. (Taichung misses you Scott)

Sorry to disappoint but this won't be an autobiographical exposition on primate mating. Instead, my 'Zhainan' sense sent a chill of delight down my spine when I picked on the following titbits:

United Daily News Editorial. This pro-China / pro-KMT newspaper had to put a positive spin on Beijing's refusal to 'allow' Taiwan to sign FTAs once ECFA has been signed, as President Ma had led Taiwanese to believe would likely be the case. Check this for spin:

This statement (by Beijing above) has been interpreted by some as meaning that China is against Taiwan signing FTAs with other countries.

The United Daily News later verified the remarks with Chinese officials and was told that Beijing will not block any "purely economic agreements" between Taiwan and other countries that do not involve sovereignty issues. This explanation is reasonable and predictable.

Beijing is unlikely to oppose FTAs signed by Taiwan. The ECFA is not only a cross-strait economic agreement but also an important framework that will create a climate for peaceful development.

I don't know what they are smoking in their pipes up at the United Daily News but its obviously something potent. In the field of international agreements in the global economy there are no such things as 'purely economic agreements' that do not in some way touch on sovereignty issues. For China, there are even less agreements that don't touch on sovereignty and none when it comes to Taiwan. The 'clarification' by Beijing is a clever divertisement. "We do not oppose purely economic agreements but on a case by case basis we will probably find that all proposed economic agreements with Taiwan and other countries will impact on sovereignty issues". Whilst I agree with UDN that Beijing's explanation was predictable, it is certainly not reasonable but if anything cunning its beguiling allure. Finally, the UDN's claim that Beijing is unlikely to oppose FTAs signed by Taiwan speaks volumes for China's predictability on long term promises. The fact that they choose the word 'unlikely' signals that not even the UDN are sure whether to take Beijing at its word but they can't quite bring themselves to say it.

In the second but related items of note concerns the visit of Raymond F. Burghardt, chairperson of the American Institute in Taiwan. At a tea session with Taiwan's media, Taiwan News reported the following comments:

“The planned Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA) should never be in the way of TIFA (Trade & Investment Framework Agreement) between Taiwan and the US,” said the diplomatic veteran at tea session with Taiwan media yesterday.

Burghardt noted that the negotiation of the TIFA, put to a halt since July, 2007, will be resumed by the end of the year.

Burghardt’s remark overturns President Ma Ying-jeou’s claim that the trade pact with China is a prerequisite for free trade agreements with other countries.

First, great news on getting TIFA talks started if they do materialise. Second, why did they stop in July 2007? Has the US got a GOOD rationale for why they stopped or is it just the 'Chen-The-Provoker' thesis? Why get TIFA on track now? Are the US hoping for a trade agreement similar to ECFA that balances out the US-China-Taiwan relations triangle's natural equilibrium of strategic ambiguity and 'status-quo' (since ECFA will put it out of kilter toward the Chinese side)? By all means, it was still one in the eye for President Ma and his claim that AFTER ECFA Taiwan would be able to sign FTAs and one in the eye for Beijing and their no-FTAs (of any significance) position.

Finally, I didn't comment too much on the outcome of the Referendum Rejection Committee's (TM Taiwan Matters) rejection of the TSU referendum question since other people covered it well enough. One thing that did make me laugh out loud was this comment from the Government:

The ruling Kuomintang spokesman Su Jun-pin called on the opposition camps to respect the committee's ruling but asked them not to use the referendum for political gains.

Mr Su clearly doesn't understand much about politics or democracy judging from these comments. The very point of a referendum is putting a choice in people's hands so that they may determine what direction will produce the most gain for them in the long run. Since the referendum will be held in a political system and political parties will invariably divide over how to vote, and since a national vote entails matters of great political import, it is impossible not to use a referendum for political gain. What Mr. Su is really saying is that the DPP and TSU have used the referendum just to raise their electoral fortunes and ratings with voters. Therein lies a contradiction. Even if they were doing this, they wouldn't do it unless they thought that those issues were close to voters interests. Therefore, using a referendum on ECFA to make electoral gain makes complete sense. It would be odd, and electoral suicide, if they chose a topic that the public were not interested in just for the sake of exercising their right to a referendum. The goal of Mr. Su's comments is to slander the DPP and TSU as political 'troublemakers' who are not 'reasonable', 'predictable' and 'rational'. It is to spit in the face of direct democracy, or any democracy for that matter, having just turned down a referendum request on the most flimsy and trite grounds. This cartoon from the Taipei Times sums it up well: