During the meeting between Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan (
Lien wasn't the first one in Taiwan to publicly drum up the idea of setting up a common market similar to the EU as an institutionalized mechanism for economic and commercial cooperation across the Taiwan Strait. His vice-presidential running mate in the 2000 presidential election, Vincent Siew (
Siew, chairman of the Chung-Hua Institution for Economic Research, believed the common market can serve as a framework for economic cooperation, eventually leading to political integration.
No doubt Siew regards these as very visionary goals. Unfortunately, the prescription by Siew and now by Lien doesn't deal with the central problem. The important questions are, do Taiwan and China share either the basic economic structure or universal principles of the European integration model in terms of democracy, human rights and the rule of law? Also, how will the job get done, given China's insistence upon the "one China" principle and its denial of the sovereign state that Taiwan is?
To be honest, there is no fault with the common-market concept itself. But there does exist a greater difference between the attitudes of China and Taiwan toward a cross-strait common market. For Taiwan, a common market may represent an alternative to unification with China and at the same time a chance to exploit the massive Chinese market. But for China, the cross-strait common-market scenario is nothing but part of its united-front tactics to divide Taiwan as it hopes to achieve its unification goal.
The discussion about forming a common market will probably go nowhere as long as Beijing maintains its precondition for talks -- that Taiwan must recognize the coercive "one China" principle.
So Lien and his party's enthusiasm about the common-market concept may appear one-sided. First of all, the communique did not elaborate on the matter, although Lien later that day said his idea behind the concept was to increase and guarantee investment and trade across the Taiwan Strait. Secondly, he argued that the private sector can begin with economic forum discussions to lay down the foundation for a future common market, if President Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁) government refuses the idea. Maybe Lien should be reminded of the fact that the issue is dependent on government-to-government talks.
Sure, talks would help. But the solution for breaking the political impasse across the Taiwan Strait doesn't lie in the formation of a common market.
No one can possibly say whether the European model of integration can be transplanted to the two sides of the Strait. But at this point, both sides are members of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and there do exist opportunities that the two countries can talk on the issue of legal protection for businessmen, particularly in such areas as investment guarantees and bankruptcy codes at the world trade body.
The WTO is a non-political and multilateral organization which clearly outlines the rights and obligations of its member nations. As the WTO helps depoliticize disputes by setting out uniform standards, theoretically it should provide a good opportunity for cross-strait talks. But the truth is China still refuses to talk to Taiwan on an equal basis under the WTO framework, so how can we place our hopes for stable political and economic development across the Taiwan Strait on a proposed common-market concept?
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS