When Deputy US Trade Representative Karan Bhatia visited Taipei in May, the local media called it progress. It was the first visit by a senior US government official in a long time. Over the 1990s there had been Cabinet-level visits, but none in the present administration of US President George W. Bush. That's progress?
The purpose of the visit was a long awaited Trade and Investment Framework Agreement meeting. Taiwan had shown sufficient progress on intellectal property rights to remove it from the 301 Priority Watch List. In this meeting, Taiwan continued to show progress on other matters but work still had to be done.
However, the real interest in the meeting was in the potential for a free trade agreement between Taiwan and the US, and its impact on cross-strait relations. There are various interests on cross-strait issues within Taiwan, but some of the Taiwan media played the FTA issue as most important.
Soon afterwards the issue of a possible FTA for Taiwan was raised in Bhatia's testimony to the US House International Relations Committee. It seems to be common in Washington these days, with it's almost complete focus on the Middle East and North Korea, that the usually ambiguous words used on other sensitive issues easily get policy vocabulary a bit twisted.
The first talks between the US and Taiwan on the feasibility of a FTA took place several years ago. The competition among countries that wanted to sign a FTA agreement with the US at that time was just as difficult as it is today. Then as now, the US Trade Representative (USTR) established the economic goals the US wants from a FTA.
What was seen by the US side in those early years, and openly agreed by many on the Taiwan side, was that the FTA priority for Taiwan was political -- including support for Taiwan's participation in the international community and strengthening its position in cross-strait relations. The USTR, with its economic priorities, saw this as an opportunity to improve on bilateral economic problems, most wanted by US companies or industries, such as intellectual property rights, not on a FTA agreement that would be of less importance to US companies.
Taiwan now seems to have established a much stronger economic basis for arguing its case on a FTA, helped ironically by the rise of China's economic importance. Ironically also, however, it seems the US side has changed its strategy on the FTA issue with Taiwan -- in entirely the opposite direction. There is now in Taiwan a very strong and important debate on the extent Taiwan's economy can gain from greater relations with China's economy, without losing it's separate identity, sovereignty and democracy. That is of crucial importance to Taiwan, but it also is equally important to the US and Japan.
Taiwanese companies need to expand to other countries besides China. Over the years, they have demonstrated their capacity to move quickly from one country to another when necessary, especially in Southeast Asia, but elsewhere as well. Many US companies in China have Taiwanese supervisors and technicians. Having a US-Taiwan FTA partnership would be important for both the US and Taiwan.
The statements in the press made by Bhatia seem to suggest that Taiwan should have closer ties to China. That "given the important role China plays in the East Asian economy, and given the integration of the East Asia economy that is ongoing, it's important that Taiwan not be economically isolated from developments in the rest of East Asia ... and cross-strait relations affect that."
His remarks were about Taiwan's need to move closer to China for its own interests as well as those of US companies with China exposure -- and that might help in getting a FTA agreement. He seems to believe that it is Taiwan's policies, not China's, that are preventing this from happening.
Setting aside the internal struggle within Taiwan on matters dealing with cross-strait issues and Taiwan's liberty, the suggestion is that Taiwan's industry, more closely tagged to China, would be better for the US. There may be some US companies that would like it, but it's doubtful that leaders responsible for security -- in the US, Taiwan or other allies -- would agree.
The Taiwanese government has often called for dialogue with China to discuss the many practical issues that need to be addressed. The US government publicly encourages this.
It is still US policy that a change in Taiwan's relationship with China, such as that being suggested, would need the assent of the people of Taiwan.
Now that Taiwan has developed a sound economic basis to argue for a FTA, the USTR seems to think that Taiwan should cozy-up to China. That is close to a policy of no FTA until Taiwan is part of China (the price the PRC demands is that, ultimately, Taiwan must accept becoming a part of China). While most observers feel the US had never been interested in negotiating a FTA with Taiwan, few thought it would come to this.
In the end, the price Taiwan would have to pay for agreeing to an FTA, as suggested by the USTR, would be beyond what a free country finds acceptable. A Taiwan that can help the region maintain its economic and political liberties, might convince US businesses that the price would be too high even for them.
Nat Bellocchi is a former chairman of the American Institute in Taiwan and is now a special adviser to the Liberty Times Group. The views expressed in this article are his own.
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