Taiwan’s Mainland Affairs Council (MAC) has rejected applications from Chinese tourism operators seeking to conduct “familiarization” inspections on the island. MAC Deputy Minister and spokesperson Liang Wen-chieh confirmed on July 25 that the government will not bypass official communication channels, insisting that such cross-strait tourism matters must be handled through the established “small-two-association” negotiation mechanism.
While the MAC required formal negotiation for tourism inspection groups visiting the main island of Taiwan, it previously allowed Chinese groups to visit the outlying islands of Kinmen and Matsu without going through the “small-two-association” process, citing the need for greater control over travel to the main island.
Why the government rejected the inspection request
The rejection follows a push by Chinese authorities to resume tourism-related activities. In April, following the “Zheng-Xi” meeting, the Taiwan Affairs Office (TAO) of the People’s Republic of China announced 10 policy measures, which included the normalization of direct air travel and the resumption of individual travel for residents of Shanghai and Fujian to Taiwan.
According to Liang, the government identified that the Chinese tourism operators—representing groups from both Shanghai and Fujian—filed their applications to visit Taiwan simultaneously. Liang stated that the coordinated timing suggests an organized effort. Because the Chinese side attempted to bypass official government-to-government channels by requesting local Taiwanese groups to file the applications, the MAC stated it “cannot cooperate” with the request.
The diplomatic context of cross-strait travel
TAO spokesperson Chen Binhua claimed on July 24 that these inspection trips are standard industry practice intended for coordinating logistics like food, lodging, and tourist attractions. Chen characterized the requirement to use the “small-two-association” negotiation mechanism as an “artificial barrier” to what he described as private business exchanges.
The friction highlights a fundamental disagreement on the legitimacy of official channels. By insisting on the “small-two-association” framework, the Taiwanese government is asserting its sovereign authority to regulate entry, while the Chinese side’s attempt to use local proxies signals an effort to normalize interactions while bypassing the current administration’s political protocols.
What may happen next
Given the current stance from the MAC, it is unlikely that Chinese tourism inspection groups will be granted entry to Taiwan’s main island without first undergoing the formal negotiation process. Analysts expect the impasse to continue as long as both sides remain at odds over the required diplomatic foundations—such as the “1992 Consensus”—which the Chinese government links to the broader implementation of its 10-point policy. Future developments may depend on whether the Chinese authorities choose to engage through the requested “small-two-association” channel or maintain their current approach of working through local Taiwanese entities.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why did the government reject the Chinese tourism inspection group?
The MAC stated it rejected the request because the Chinese side attempted to bypass official “small-two-association” negotiations by using local Taiwanese groups to file the applications.
How does this differ from the trips to Kinmen and Matsu?
The government previously allowed inspection groups to visit the outlying islands of Kinmen and Matsu without formal negotiations, treating them as special, more easily controlled areas, whereas travel to the main island involves more complex considerations.
What was the goal of the Chinese 10-point policy announced in April?
The policy included measures such as pushing for the normalization of direct cross-strait flights, establishing communication mechanisms between the KMT and the CCP, and promoting the resumption of travel for Shanghai and Fujian residents to Taiwan.
How should the government balance the desire for economic tourism exchanges with the need for formal diplomatic oversight?
