EDITORIAL: Why bother with Twin City Forum?

Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an (蔣萬安) last month said the Taipei-Shanghai Twin City Forum was expected to be held in Taipei in December, but the Mainland Affairs Council’s (MAC) rejection of a Shanghai official’s application to enter Taiwan last week reignited the debate: “Why hold the Twin City Forum?”

The MAC rejected Shanghai Taiwan Affairs Office (TAO) Deputy Director Li Xiaodong’s (李驍東) application to visit Taiwan last year, saying that the other approved personnel were sufficient. Separately, it has cited what it said was the Shanghai TAO’s obstruction of Taiwanese businesspeople returning to Taiwan for government-related events and that Beijing’s so-called “22 guidelines to penalize Taiwanese independence separatists” as reasons for tightening security on TAO officials.

Chiang said that the more difficult cross-strait relations become, the greater the need for communication and dialogue, and that the forum is a long-standing platform for “purely municipal exchange,” which his administration has conducted under the principles of equality, mutual dignity, goodwill and mutual benefit.

MAC Deputy Minister and spokesman Liang Wen-chieh (梁文傑) said they receive and review applications from local governments for cross-strait exchanges every day.

“People don’t need to treat the Taipei-Shanghai Twin City Forum as such a big deal, because in reality, it doesn’t do anything to promote peace,” he said. “The Taipei City Government should not view its exchanges with Shanghai as something more important than it really is.”

The forum was first held in Taipei in 2010 under then-Taipei mayor Hau Lung-bin (郝龍斌) of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), and continued to be held under former Taipei mayor Ko Wen-je (柯文哲), who later founded the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP). The forum has since rotated between the two cities. Every year before the forum, whether it should be held or attended becomes a political issue across party lines.

The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and its supporters have often argued that amid China’s hostility, coercion and military threats against Taiwan, along with Taipei’s failure to uphold parity and dignity, the forum becomes a platform for China’s “united front” propaganda. Examples include Ko’s controversial “two sides of the Taiwan Strait are one family” and “community of common destiny” remarks in his 2017 speech at the forum.

The KMT and the TPP defend the forum, saying that cross-strait communication is important, and blaming the DPP government for tensions with China.

The biggest problem is not Taiwan, but China and its peremptory attitude — after the DPP government took office in 2016, Beijing has suspended all official communication channels with Taiwan. As a result, opposition parties that communicate with China do so without authority or legitimacy to negotiate on Taiwan’s behalf in an attempt to improve cross-strait relations. They blame the DPP for limiting Taiwan’s exchanges, while the ruling party criticizes the opposition for belittling the nation and kneeling to China.

Looking at the outcomes of the past forums, 49 memorandums of understanding (MOUs) have been signed, although Taipei officials this month acknowledged that not all have been implemented.

A report in 2024 said that nine of 19 MOUs signed under Hau’s administration, 17 of 23 under Ko and all three MOUs under Chiang in 2023 had not been executed as of June that year. The ones that were implemented included “fluff content,” such as municipal policies that were already in place, or promising more mutual visits in competitions or events.

Although many MOUs are nonbinding expressions of intent to cooperate, the low implementation rate is a good reason to re-examine a forum that delivers such poor results.

The principles of “equality, dignity, goodwill and mutual benefit” cited by Chiang do not seem to get through to Beijing, nor does the forum help promote peace. The day after Chiang left last year’s forum in Shanghai, the Chinese People’s Liberation Army announced joint military exercises around Taiwan.

Chiang had announced “three preconditions” for holding the forum during his 2022 mayoral bid — China stops harassing Taiwan, shows goodwill toward Taiwan, and the two sides engage on equal footing. He seems to have forgotten his promise after taking office.

A forum held only for the sake of “exchanges” and wishful thinking that “communication brings peace and prosperity” is not enough, especially when it delivers very few substantial outcomes, has not been accompanied by greater cross-strait peace and comes amid continued Chinese military pressure on Taiwan. Taipei deserves to have better exchanges with more trustworthy international cities that can provide real benefits to people, with no political preconditions.