More than a month ago, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan (
The idea of a cross-strait common market is not new at all. It has already been trumpeted by proponents including KMT Vice Chairman Vincent Siew (
In contrast to that widely circulating common-market idea, the proposed US-Taiwan free trade agreement (FTA) has not sparked as much attention. Taiwan's government proposed to enter into such an FTA with the US in 2002, the same year as its successful accession to the WTO, which came after an unnecessarily prolonged 12-year negotiation process thanks to China's political objections.
For an industrialized economy like Taiwan, economic development helps people enhance their standard of living and quality of life through the creation of domestic high-wage job opportunities, rather than pursuit of foreign low-wage workers. But high-wage jobs will never be created without domestic investment in education, research and development (R&D), and social infrastructure. Overseas investment by itself, be it in the form of either foreign direct investment (FDI) or short-term portfolio investment, cannot create -- and can even destroy -- high-wage jobs for domestic residents, in spite of potential efficiency gains in the short run. That points to a need for a balance between internal and external investment -- a balance that must be struck through government policy.
The cross-strait common market Lien recently proposed would further integrate Taiwan into a developing Chinese economy abundant in cheap labor. This would further encourage the already massive outflow of Taiwan's FDI to China and its low-wage workers, while making no contribution to the creation of high-wage jobs at home. Taiwan would also run the risk of seeing its historical links to the US, Japan and other developed economies weaken.
Taiwan's officially-approved China-bound FDI last year totaled US$7 billion, or 2.3 percent of Taiwan's GDP. This massive amount of China-bound investment is about the same amount as Taiwan's aggregate R&D investment, of which 60 percent comes from private sources and 40 percent comes from the government. It also dwarfed Taiwan's FDI to developed countries as a whole.
This is "China fever." It's alarming that Taiwan's domestic resources have been rushing to meet China's development needs rather than nurturing long-term economic growth potential at home.
Taiwan is playing catch-up in the global technology race. It cannot overlook the fact that just a few rich countries account for most of the world's creation of new technology. The G7 countries (the US, Japan, Germany, France, the UK, Canada and Italy) together account of more than 80 percent of the world's R&D spending.
From empirical studies, international technology diffusion is very much localized. Only those economies that have invested enough domestically in R&D are competent to exploit external benefits from the developed world's innovations, and thereby help themselves climb up the technology ladder.
It is time to refocus Taiwanese investment away from a China-centric economic approach and back toward the developed world and Taiwan itself. A US-Taiwan FTA should be looked at within this strategic context.
It is true that trade barriers between Taiwan and the US are modest, and that the direct benefits of further trade liberalization via an FTA must therefore also be modest. However, its strategic implications go beyond the economic dimension.
First, the US is a member of the North American Free Trade Agreement and is working with six Central American countries toward a free trade agreement called CAFTA (Central American Free Trade Agreement). An FTA between Taiwan and the US could serve as a gateway to extending Taiwan's economic outreach into Central America.
Second, a US-Taiwan FTA could serve as a platform for further development of a variety of mechanisms that channel Taiwan's venture capital and human capital into international R&D cooperation with the US and other advanced countries.
Third, a US-Taiwan FTA could provide a shield against Beijing's political clout and spur so-called "competitive liberalization" in East Asia by encouraging countries including Japan and ASEAN members to enter into FTAs with Taiwan. Taiwan could therefore mitigate the risk of being marginalized by China's plan to push an "ASEAN plus three" free trade area (the three being China, Japan and South Korea) -- a bloc that would deliberately exclude Taiwan and the US.
Last but not the least, a US-Taiwan FTA could help Taiwan prosper economically. This would enable Taiwan to better contribute to regional stability and prosperity.
A US-Taiwan FTA is thus a win-win strategy from both an economic and political perspective. US-Singapore and US-Australia FTAs have already been concluded. Why does Washington hesitate to deal with Taipei to strike a US-Taiwan FTA?
Hwan C. Lin is a research fellow of the Taiwan Public Policy Council, a US think tank, and an associate professor of economics of the University of North Carolina at Charlotte.
US$18.278 billion is a simple dollar figure; one that’s illustrative of the first Trump administration’s defense commitment to Taiwan. But what does Donald Trump care for money? During President Trump’s first term, the US defense department approved gross sales of “defense articles and services” to Taiwan of over US$18 billion. In September, the US-Taiwan Business Council compared Trump’s figure to the other four presidential administrations since 1993: President Clinton approved a total of US$8.702 billion from 1993 through 2000. President George W. Bush approved US$15.614 billion in eight years. This total would have been significantly greater had Taiwan’s Kuomintang-controlled Legislative Yuan been cooperative. During
Former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) in recent days was the focus of the media due to his role in arranging a Chinese “student” group to visit Taiwan. While his team defends the visit as friendly, civilized and apolitical, the general impression is that it was a political stunt orchestrated as part of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) propaganda, as its members were mainly young communists or university graduates who speak of a future of a unified country. While Ma lived in Taiwan almost his entire life — except during his early childhood in Hong Kong and student years in the US —
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers on Monday unilaterally passed a preliminary review of proposed amendments to the Public Officers Election and Recall Act (公職人員選罷法) in just one minute, while Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislators, government officials and the media were locked out. The hasty and discourteous move — the doors of the Internal Administration Committee chamber were locked and sealed with plastic wrap before the preliminary review meeting began — was a great setback for Taiwan’s democracy. Without any legislative discussion or public witnesses, KMT Legislator Hsu Hsin-ying (徐欣瑩), the committee’s convener, began the meeting at 9am and announced passage of the
In response to a failure to understand the “good intentions” behind the use of the term “motherland,” a professor from China’s Fudan University recklessly claimed that Taiwan used to be a colony, so all it needs is a “good beating.” Such logic is risible. The Central Plains people in China were once colonized by the Mongolians, the Manchus and other foreign peoples — does that mean they also deserve a “good beating?” According to the professor, having been ruled by the Cheng Dynasty — named after its founder, Ming-loyalist Cheng Cheng-kung (鄭成功, also known as Koxinga) — as the Kingdom of Tungning,
RSS