The WTO promotes the value of trade liberalization and advocates cutting tariffs and reducing obstacles to trade. The most influential aspect of this promotion is the expansion of the scope of trade liberalization from traditional commodities trade to include service industries. In fact, "globalization" consists precisely of the expansion of cross-border flows from tangible commodities to also include intangible services.
Although its goal is trade liberalization, the WTO is an international organization, and so cannot ignore global political factors. Article 21 in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade -- "Security Exceptions" -- and Article 35 of the same agreement -- "Non-application of Agreement between Particular Contracting Parties" -- stipulates that WTO member countries can be exempted from applying any WTO agreement in relation to another member state based on political considerations. The purpose of this provision is to avoid a situation where a country may not be willing to join the organization because internal political and economic conflict could lead to major domestic controversy.
Taiwan joined the WTO in 2002. Although admitted to the organization a few days later than China because of political factors, becoming a WTO member was an important milestone for both sides of the Taiwan Strait. It should be stressed that neither Taiwan nor China applied the non-application provision.
This provision can only be applied on accession to the organization, but neither of the two countries referred to it in the accession protocol.
From the perspective of international economic and trade law, the cross-strait relationship should thus be the same as Taiwan's trade relations with other countries. Otherwise, Taiwan might be in violation of the WTO's nondiscrimination principle.
However, since Taiwan joined the WTO, there have been considerable discrepancies between what cross-strait economic and trade relations are supposed to be and reality, mostly because Taiwan has imposed cross-strait trade restrictions based on concerns about its small economy and national security.
Such unilateral discrimination could be handled through the WTO's dispute settlement system, but maybe because Taiwan's market represents limited benefits, maybe because the Chinese government wants to act generously in order to court the Taiwanese public, or maybe because China is unwilling to create an impression of "two Chinas" or "one China and one Taiwan" in the international community, Beijing has never internationalized the issue even though it is losing some economic and trade benefits.
Despite this, the impact of Chinese products on Taiwan's industry continues to spark conflict between economic and trade policy and social justice. One example is how the dumping of Chinese-made towels caused Yunlin County's towel industry to ask the government to implement trade relief measures.
In a similar case, the alleged dumping of Chinese wood-free paper was in the end not considered dumping as a result of different interests in the paper manufacturing industry and the publishing industry. In yet another case, China's Ministry of Commerce recently authorized the opening up of sandstone exports after requests from Taiwan's construction industry to address shortages caused by a ban on sandstone mining in the country.
Although WTO regulations still have not been fully implemented in cross-strait trade, Taiwan is working hard to adapt to the situation, and it is clear that the integration of cross-strait trade and industrial division of labor are complex issues making it difficult to find simple and objective standards as a basis for policy.
Under these circumstances, it might be very difficult to alleviate public doubt over discussion of a more liberalized common cross-strait market unless careful planning takes place.
If the Democratic Progressive Party is really worried that "men won't find work and women won't find husbands," it could have taken the same approach as it did when opposing the construction of the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant and chose not to implement WTO regulations in cross-strait trade after taking power.
This would not only have defended the core value of Taiwanese consciousness, but would also have prevented undermining local industry and excessive economic dependence on China. Anyone can see that if it had wanted to show good will to China, enjoy the benefits of China's development, or satisfy foreign business in Taiwan, eliminating the use of WTO regulations was not feasible.
It's convenient to use the argument that China is an authoritarian regime as a reason for controlling cross-strait trade, but maybe precisely because China is an authoritarian regime, it is willing to sacrifice economic and trade benefits to win the approval of the Taiwanese public.
If China becomes a democracy, pressures within the country will force the government to make economic and trade policy reflect the interests of industry. Maybe that is what Taiwan really should worry about.
No matter who is in office, currently implemented WTO regulations are already enough of a headache for the government. Let's deal with these before we start talking about a cross-strait common market.
Chang Sheng-hsin is a judge with the Taichung District Court.
Translated by Ted Yang and Anna Stiggelbout
A chip made by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) was found on a Huawei Technologies Co artificial intelligence (AI) processor, indicating a possible breach of US export restrictions that have been in place since 2019 on sensitive tech to the Chinese firm and others. The incident has triggered significant concern in the IT industry, as it appears that proxy buyers are acting on behalf of restricted Chinese companies to bypass the US rules, which are intended to protect its national security. Canada-based research firm TechInsights conducted a die analysis of the Huawei Ascend 910B AI Trainer, releasing its findings on Oct.
Pat Gelsinger took the reins as Intel CEO three years ago with hopes of reviving the US industrial icon. He soon made a big mistake. Intel had a sweet deal going with Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), the giant manufacturer of semiconductors for other companies. TSMC would make chips that Intel designed, but could not produce and was offering deep discounts to Intel, four people with knowledge of the agreement said. Instead of nurturing the relationship, Gelsinger — who hoped to restore Intel’s own manufacturing prowess — offended TSMC by calling out Taiwan’s precarious relations with China. “You don’t want all of
In honor of President Jimmy Carter’s 100th birthday, my longtime friend and colleague John Tkacik wrote an excellent op-ed reassessing Carter’s derecognition of Taipei. But I would like to add my own thoughts on this often-misunderstood president. During Carter’s single term as president of the United States from 1977 to 1981, despite numerous foreign policy and domestic challenges, he is widely recognized for brokering the historic 1978 Camp David Accords that ended the state of war between Egypt and Israel after more than three decades of hostilities. It is considered one of the most significant diplomatic achievements of the 20th century.
In a recent essay in Foreign Affairs, titled “The Upside on Uncertainty in Taiwan,” Johns Hopkins University professor James B. Steinberg makes the argument that the concept of strategic ambiguity has kept a tenuous peace across the Taiwan Strait. In his piece, Steinberg is primarily countering the arguments of Tufts University professor Sulmaan Wasif Khan, who in his thought-provoking new book The Struggle for Taiwan does some excellent out-of-the-box thinking looking at US policy toward Taiwan from 1943 on, and doing some fascinating “what if?” exercises. Reading through Steinberg’s comments, and just starting to read Khan’s book, we could already sense that
RSS