The long-awaited meeting between President Chen Shui-bian (
During the two-hour meeting, Ma called on Chen to open direct transportation links, initiate cross-strait agricultural cooperation, relax restrictions on Chinese tourists traveling to Taiwan and allow Taiwan's financial services sector to establish branches or subsidiaries in China. He seemed to be saying that if Taiwan and China could resume talks there would be a range of benefits. Cross-strait relations would improve, Taiwan's economic problems would be solved, private investment would be stimulated and foreign investment would flow into Taiwan, but only if the government was willing to acknowledge the "1992 consensus."
However, Ma's remarks are misleading and could lead to misguided economic policies and jeopardize the security of the nation.
There is nothing new about Ma's arguments. They are the same old pro-China pan-blue arguments, and a trap set by Beijing. In order to set up agricultural cooperation between Taiwan and China and further strengthen its "united front" strategy against Taiwan, Beijing has set up experimental zones for agricultural cooperation over the years.
Last year, Beijing invited Taiwanese agricultural experts to attend its cross-strait Agricultural Development and Cooperation Forum and provided Taiwanese farmers with various incentives such as the free use of land to lure them into transferring Taiwan's modern agricultural technology to China. According to media reports, the Guangdong-Taiwan Agricultural Cooperation and Experimental Zone has attracted Taiwanese investments amounting to NT$300 million (US$9.3 million), introduced Taiwan's orchid seeds and Taiwan-style orchid plantations to China, and thereby become a major competitor to Taiwan's flower and plant industry.
Clearly, Ma's proposal to enhance agricultural cooperation between China and Taiwan is exactly what Beijing wants. In the past, the relocation of Taiwan's manufacturing sector to China has resulted in Taiwanese companies having their technology copied by Chinese companies. If Taiwan's agricultural industry also jumps on the "China fever" bandwagon, they will go down the same road, and the victims will be millions of Taiwanese farmers and their families.
Ma's proposal to allow the financial services sector to set up branches or subsidiaries in China is even more worrying. This also indicates that the KMT is still unable to rid itself of outdated corporate ideas when it comes to the economy. "Wherever our customers are, our service is there" may be the trend in bank operations, but as their leverage increases, so does their risk.
Concentrating large assets in a nation that has vowed to annex Taiwan is tantamount to giving China control over the wellbeing of Taiwan's financial institutions. Some banks may maintain that Taiwanese banks must be internationalized. However, this can be achieved in a variety of ways and in many locations.
While China is still oppressing Taiwan on the diplomatic front, it is by no means a good time for the nation's banks to expand their business into China. Nor should this be on the agenda of a responsible government. In short, Ma is completely in the hands of big business and he lacks a comprehensive overview of national and financial security.
Ma's biased economic view that cross-strait direct links will save Taiwan is even more worrying. His argument is that once such links are established, Taiwanese companies will be able to reduce costs, thereby increasing their willingness to continue investing in Taiwan and thus helping to break the domestic economic deadlock.
His direct links argument is, however, flawed. According to an assessment of the effects of direct links conducted by the Mainland Affairs Council, the establishment of cross-strait direct links will lead to China-bound investments nearly doubling and a huge increase in China-bound Taiwanese tourists, resulting in an outflow of between NT$30 billion and NT$40 billion from Taiwan.
An opinion poll conducted by the Chinese National Federation of Industries, a strong proponent of the establishment of cross-strait direct links, suggests that 52.3 percent of Taiwanese companies will increase their China-bound investments once cross-strait direct transportation links are normalized, while only half, 27.4 percent, would increase their investments in Taiwan.
If NT$30 billion flows into China, the investment rate in Taiwan would be reduced by 3 percent, aggravating the domestic unemployment problem. Ma's proposition is by no means good news to Taiwan's general public.
Following Monday's meeting, Ma held a press conference criticizing Chen for not being concerned about the general problems facing the people of Taiwan. However, it seems it is Ma who has shown no concern for the future development of the nation.
Ma also attacks Chen's failure to improve the nation's economic performance, despite repeated promises. The reason Chen is unable to deliver is that he panders to pan-blue proposals that Taiwan should pin its hopes on China, thereby falling for the myth that "economic achievement requires stable cross-strait relations."
If this misconception remains in place, all our efforts to strive for a better economy and a higher standard of living will disappear among our attempts to strive for an opening up toward China.
We hope Ma will come to his senses and rid himself of his deviant "China complex" and seriously consider Taiwan's economic prospects from a Taiwanese perspective.
Translated by Daniel Cheng
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS