During Sunday's televised presidential debate, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) used the cooperation between EU members as a model for successful economic cooperation between China and Taiwan, or what has been called a "one China market policy."
The comparison is misleading. EU cooperation has been built over years on very strict principles, none of which apply to Taiwan and China.
The EU is composed of 27 independent countries. In other words, each member of the EU recognizes the other members as sovereign nations. This is the foundation for cooperation between European countries and a fundamental condition that does not apply to the relationship between China and Taiwan, as Beijing considers Taiwan a rebel province.
To join the EU a nation must meet the Copenhagen criteria laid down at the June 1993 European Council in Copenhagen, Denmark, which states that a nation must be a stable democracy, respect human rights and the rule of law, protect minorities and have a functioning market economy.
In other words, most of European countries want to form a unity with nations that are politically and economically free, humanitarian and believe that no one is above the law.
Again, none of the above-mentioned applies to China.
Is it then in the interest of Taiwan to join a "one China market" and economically unify with a country that believes in the rule of power, violates human rights and oppresses minorities -- a country that is still far from a free market economy.
Using the EU as an example shows that cooperation and a common market can be built only among countries that have the institutions to preserve democratic governance and human rights.
Hanna Shen
Taipei
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