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.
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