| |
Status
quo: Beijing, Taipei and the WTO
By Laurence Eyton
TAIPEI - While Taiwan is still trying to get over one example of what it
considers to be mainland China's outrageous behavior, it now must try to ward
off another Beijing-inspired slight.
Prior to the meeting last month of the World Health Assembly (WHA) in Geneva,
the governing body of the World Health Organization, Taiwan thought it had a
good chance this year of being able to join the WHO as an observer, a goal it
has pursued for half a decade. After all, it was hit hard by severe acute
respiratory syndrome (SARS) and there was reason to believe that the situation
had been exacerbated by Taiwan's absence from the world health body and
resultant lack of access to WHO material on fighting the disease. Also it had
won the support of the US Congress, which passed a bill mandating the US
government to seek ways for Taiwan to enter the United Nations health
organization.
Nevertheless, muscle-flexing by Beijing resulted in the assembly tossing out a
request for a hearing on Taiwan's membership to be placed on its agenda. Given
the scale of the panic about SARS in Taiwan, and especially in the capital,
Taipei, Beijing's action was a supreme slap in the face, at which even the
heads of the opposition pro-unification parties had to protest.
To add insult to the WHA injury, China also had the gall to suggest that Taiwan
did not need to be in the WHO since - as a province of China - its health needs
were adequately taken care of by Beijing. Since this is obviously false, it is
hard to know why China tried to make such a claim. The result was to lower the
temperature of Taiwanese sentiment toward Beijing to an arctic chill.
"When crying, stung in the face by a bee," the Japanese say about a double
misfortune. The bee in this case is a simmering row between Taiwan and the
World Trade Organization (WTO) Secretariat over Taiwan's status in the
organization.
China joined the WTO in late 2001 and Taiwan shortly after, in January 2002,
China under its own name and Taiwan as the "Separate Customs Territory of
Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu". Nations' representative offices to the WTO,
based in Geneva, are accorded the status of diplomatic missions. Taiwan has,
therefore, for the past 18 months operated its "Permanent Mission of the
Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu".
In February this year WTO head Supachai Panitchpakdi met with Taiwan's
representative to the body - Yen Ching-chang, a former finance minister in
Taiwan's government - to issue three demands: that the title of Taiwan's
mission be changed to "office", which is the title used by Hong Kong and Macau;
that members of the Taiwan mission refrain from using the customary diplomatic
titles and ranks; and that Taiwan refrain from using any words in WTO-related
documents such as the country's name or references to its central government
that imply that Taiwan is a sovereign country.
Quite what role China played in this is obscure. Taiwanese Foreign Minister
Eugene Chen insists that Supachai's demands were a direct result of pressure
from Beijing, to whom, Taiwan's supporters in the US Congress allege, Supachai
has been close since his stint in the 1990s as Thailand's minister of commerce.
There is, however, no smoking gun, which is just as well since the secretary
general is forbidden by WTO regulations, specifically Article 6 of the
Marrakech Agreement that set up the organization, to "seek or accept
instructions from any government or any other authority external to the WTO",
ie, acting on behalf of the political interest of a member state.
Nobody in Taiwan, even in the pro-Beijing opposition parties, is under any
doubt however that China is behind Supachai's demands. Who else, they argue, is
so affronted by the idea that a Taiwan representative office should enjoy
diplomatic status, and has an unrelenting campaign to downgrade Taiwan's
representation overseas whenever and wherever it can?
Beijing also has a track record at the WTO itself. Last November it notified
Taiwan's mission of a desire to talk over exports of cold-rolled steel. In its
correspondence China referred to Taiwan's mission as a an economic and trade
office rather than using its official title. Taiwan promptly told the Chinese
side that it had no obligation or intention to sit down for talks on anything
until requested to do so in the appropriate manner, that is, using the
appropriate title. China overcame its reluctance to do this so that talks could
start in January. Supachai made his demands in February. Coincidence? Most
officials in Taipei think not.
That there should even be a dispute over Taiwan's level of representation at
the WTO is odd, since the conditions of its membership were fixed in the
articles of accession approved unanimously by the other members prior to
Taiwan's joining the organization. The members at that time did not, of course,
include China, but membership conditions are not supposed to be something that
can be changed at the instigation of new members.
Supachai based his demand, however, on a 1992 agreement by the governing body
of the WTO's predecessor the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade when it was
decided that "the representation of Chinese Taipei [meaning Taiwan] in GATT
would be along the same lines as that of Hong Kong and Macau during the course
of its status as an observer and subsequently as contracting-party delegation"
and "titles carried by its representative would not have any implication on the
issue of sovereignty".
The problem with this is that the 1992 statement was made by the chairman of
the GATT council and "noted" by the members present, rather than officially
adopted. Taiwan reads this as a statement of policy that in the end was not
followed through. That it wasn't is quite clear, argues Taipei, simply from
comparing the entry procedures for Taiwan with those for Hong Kong and Macau.
Both of what are now the special administrative regions of China joined the
trade organization as separate tariff areas of their former colonial masters,
the United Kingdom and Portugal. As such they entered the GATT under Article 26
Section 5c of that organization's charter, which basically deals with separate
membership for colonies or dependencies of contracting parties that become
autonomous in their commercial relations.
Both Taiwan and China, however, applied for entry to the GATT under Article 33,
which is basically for applications by the governments of economically
sovereign states. Taiwan argues that since it was accepted into the WTO after
the same application process as a member recognized as a sovereign state, it
should enjoy the same treatment and privileges as any other member, whatever
the diplomatic stance of individual countries toward it.
Since February the argument has festered. Publication of this year's updated
WTO internal directory was due in April, but has been delayed until the "Taiwan
question" has been dealt with. At a meeting with Yen on June 16, his first
since the February meeting where the five demands were made, Supachai has
reportedly toned down the demand that Taiwan accept the same status as Hong
Kong and Macau; now the proposed name change is from "Office of the Permanent
Mission" to "Office of the Permanent Representative", the word "mission"
suggesting diplomatic status that Taiwan is not supposed to have.
However, Yen has, as the time of writing, rejected this, sticking by the letter
of the accession protocols. Meanwhile Taiwan is sending a delegation to Geneva
consisting of Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs Michael Kau and Liu Jung-chuo,
director general of the ministry's Department of Economic and Trade Affairs, to
fight Taiwan's corner.
Washington insiders say the US State Department and in particular the office of
US Trade Representative Robert Zoellick have let Supachai know they do not
approve of the move to lower Taiwan's status. "The US supports Taiwan's full
and equal membership in the WTO consistent with Taiwan's terms of accession as
approved by the WTO membership," a State Department statement at the end of
last month said.
The irony of this is that after both Taiwan and China had finalized their entry
bids and were scheduled to join the WTO there was much talk of the trade body's
providing a forum to ease tensions across the Taiwan Strait. That the two sides
seldom do anything other than exchange barbs is largely a result of the fact
that they cannot agree on the matter of status; China refuses to treat Taiwan
as anything but a subordinate and Taiwan refuses to accept this. So the
provision of an international forum with mutually agreed rules, policed - if
that is the word - by peers, where the two sides could interact as equals, was
expected to have a therapeutic effect on the relationship. Whether Supachai's
move works or not, there now seems little hope of this.
(Copyright 2003 Asia Times Online Co, Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact
content@atimes.com for information on our
sales and syndication policies.)
|
| |
|
|
 |
|
