Straits Exchange Foundation Chairman Chiang Pin-kung (江丙坤) said recently that dependence on China is not a bad thing and what should really worry us is that China might not allow Taiwan to depend on it. As irritating as this statement may be, it exposes the focus of the government’s policies: a determination to depend on China in the hope of gaining economic benefits.
In the past, dependency theory was used by the political left to describe how imperialism relied on a core-periphery relationship of exploitation and economic colonization.
The theory was used to explain why third world countries remained in poverty: The higher the periphery’s dependency on the core, the tighter the core’s control over the periphery.
A semi-periphery was later added to the theory to explain how the four Asian Tigers could be dependent yet able to develop, a relationship that was termed “dependent development.”
This meant that the four Asian economies were economically and politically dependent on the US, but managed to develop economically because they benefited from the periphery that also depended on the US.
Dependency theory was swept away by the waves of globalization, as previously anti-imperialist states like the Soviet Union, China and India either collapsed or turned to capitalism.
Together with Brazil, these countries, referred to as BRIC, turned into opportunists led by the principles of international capitalism.
The theory of a core-periphery relationship became insufficient to explain the significant changes that were observed in economic fortunes.
The only nation that still swears by anti-imperialism and now and then test-shoots its missiles against its neighbors, North Korea, is a different variation on leftism.
It is therefore surprising to suddenly hear someone singing the praises of dependent development for Taiwan, although the core that we are supposed to cling to now is not the US or Japan, but rising Chinese imperialism.
The government has no shortage of compradors ready to act as brokers between the core and the periphery.
It seems to be quite an easy task and they claim to be working to save the nation’s economy, which makes it almost impossible to condemn their efforts.
Furthermore, Guangdong Province’s gross regional product surpassed Taiwan’s gross national product several years ago, while Jiangsu and Shandong provinces did so last year and Zhejiang Province is expected to catch up with Taiwan this year.
This illustrates that the nation’s economic position is deteriorating.
The Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics’ recent prediction that GDP will shrink this year confirms negative market expectations and strengthens the public’s sense of economic marginalization.
This atmosphere is a hotbed for proponents of a new dependency theory.
The results of the government’s agenda can already be seen.
Public debate about whether to pursue de jure independence is no longer on the political agenda.
If the public raises concerns about a Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement, it can always be labeled as something else. The point is, the train is about to leave the station and it won’t stop before its dark destination.
Hsu Yung-ming is an assistant professor of political science at Soochow University.
TRANSLATED BY PERRY SVENSSON
Why is Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) not a “happy camper” these days regarding Taiwan? Taiwanese have not become more “CCP friendly” in response to the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) use of spies and graft by the United Front Work Department, intimidation conducted by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and the Armed Police/Coast Guard, and endless subversive political warfare measures, including cyber-attacks, economic coercion, and diplomatic isolation. The percentage of Taiwanese that prefer the status quo or prefer moving towards independence continues to rise — 76 percent as of December last year. According to National Chengchi University (NCCU) polling, the Taiwanese
It would be absurd to claim to see a silver lining behind every US President Donald Trump cloud. Those clouds are too many, too dark and too dangerous. All the same, viewed from a domestic political perspective, there is a clear emerging UK upside to Trump’s efforts at crashing the post-Cold War order. It might even get a boost from Thursday’s Washington visit by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. In July last year, when Starmer became prime minister, the Labour Party was rigidly on the defensive about Europe. Brexit was seen as an electorally unstable issue for a party whose priority
US President Donald Trump is systematically dismantling the network of multilateral institutions, organizations and agreements that have helped prevent a third world war for more than 70 years. Yet many governments are twisting themselves into knots trying to downplay his actions, insisting that things are not as they seem and that even if they are, confronting the menace in the White House simply is not an option. Disagreement must be carefully disguised to avoid provoking his wrath. For the British political establishment, the convenient excuse is the need to preserve the UK’s “special relationship” with the US. Following their White House
US President Donald Trump’s return to the White House has brought renewed scrutiny to the Taiwan-US semiconductor relationship with his claim that Taiwan “stole” the US chip business and threats of 100 percent tariffs on foreign-made processors. For Taiwanese and industry leaders, understanding those developments in their full context is crucial while maintaining a clear vision of Taiwan’s role in the global technology ecosystem. The assertion that Taiwan “stole” the US’ semiconductor industry fundamentally misunderstands the evolution of global technology manufacturing. Over the past four decades, Taiwan’s semiconductor industry, led by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), has grown through legitimate means
RSS