In my recent book, The East Asian Economic Integration Regime and Taiwan’s Strategy (東亞經濟整合與台灣的戰略), I suggested that the government first draft a comprehensive global economic integration strategy that could also serve as a basis for its cross-strait economic integration strategy. However, the Ministry of Economic Affairs (MOEA) issued a press release on May 20 rebutting my argument, saying I had misunderstood WTO regulations.
With the ASEAN Plus One (China) free trade zone scheduled to start operating next year, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) has stressed the need for the two sides of the Taiwan Strait to sign an economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA) as soon as possible to prevent Taiwanese industries from being marginalized. But to date, the government has not provided a full ECFA evaluation and policy plan, nor has it drawn up complementary measures to assist industry transformation and establish a mechanism for the ruling and opposition parties to reach a consensus on the issue.
As an ECFA is a framework agreement lacking in substantive economic integration details, it could easily set off speculation as to what it entails, which could in turn lead to political and economic disputes. If the government pushes ECFA talks dealing with a framework for comprehensive economic cooperation, it will only make it difficult to reach a consensus between the ruling and the opposition parties, various industries and the two sides of the Taiwan Strait, thereby delaying urgent consultations for certain industries. Instead, the two sides could first engage in negotiations on liberalizing select industries to solve the pressing problems of sectors that may be adversely affected by the launch of the ASEAN Plus One.
An economic pact with China will only intensify conflict and societal concerns. Over the past year, Taiwan has signed nine economic agreements with China. The Ma government has said that an ECFA with China would entail the integration of ongoing consultations.
However, the two sides can continue to engage in economic talks without an ECFA. My suggestion is adopting a multi-pronged approach to cross-strait economic integration consultations. The government should first promote cross-strait industrial preferential trade agreements, continue to push for normalization of cross-strait economic relations and cooperation consultations, and then organize cross-strait free-trade agreement (FTA) talks or similar negotiations.
The MOEA, however, said in its press release that Taiwan and China could not engage in separate industrial talks without signing an economic agreement because both are WTO members, making an ECFA with China necessary. This criticism misses the point of my suggestion that the two sides should prioritize signing an industrial preferential trade agreement.
There are three WTO regulations providing for economic integration among member states: Article 24 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade regarding trade liberalization in commodities; Article 5 of the General Agreement on Trade in Services regarding trade liberalization in services; and the Enabling Clause, which permits trade preferences targeted at developing countries.
Article 24 provides a legal basis for FTAs, which states that duties are eliminated on “substantially all” the trade between the constituent territories “within a reasonable length of time.”
The Enabling Clause, which was adopted in 1979, provides another legal basis for developing countries to enter into preferential trade agreements that may cover a very limited range of products and lower — not abolish — tariffs between member states. Moreover, developed countries are allowed to give preferential treatment to poorer countries. As of the end of March, a total of 29 regional trade agreements have been signed in accordance with the Enabling Clause.
The question is whether Taiwan is considered a developing country under the WTO framework, which would allow it to sign an industrial preferential trade agreement with China by citing the Enabling Clause. The WTO charter does not discriminate between developed and developing countries among member states and each member defines its own status. For example, South Korea and Singapore signed three trade agreements, including the Asia-Pacific Trade Agreement in 2002 and the ASEAN-China Free Trade Area, in accordance with the Enabling Clause.
When Taiwan joined the WTO in 2002, the government defined Taiwan as a developing country. The following year, then-minister of economic affairs Lin Yi-fu (林義夫) declared that Taiwan was a developing country at the WTO Ministerial Conference in Cancun, Mexico. Therefore, Taiwan, which attended the Doha Round of WTO negotiations as a developing country, can sign a cross-strait industrial preferential trade agreement with China, citing the Enabling Clause aimed at reducing and exempting tariffs for some industries.
Tung Chen-yuan is an associate professor in the Graduate Institute of Development Studies at National Chengchi University.
TRANSLATED BY TED YANG
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
“I compare the Communist Party to my mother,” sings a student at a boarding school in a Tibetan region of China’s Qinghai province. “If faith has a color,” others at a different school sing, “it would surely be Chinese red.” In a major story for the New York Times this month, Chris Buckley wrote about the forced placement of hundreds of thousands of Tibetan children in boarding schools, where many suffer physical and psychological abuse. Separating these children from their families, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) aims to substitute itself for their parents and for their religion. Buckley’s reporting is
Last week, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), together holding more than half of the legislative seats, cut about NT$94 billion (US$2.85 billion) from the yearly budget. The cuts include 60 percent of the government’s advertising budget, 10 percent of administrative expenses, 3 percent of the military budget, and 60 percent of the international travel, overseas education and training allowances. In addition, the two parties have proposed freezing the budgets of many ministries and departments, including NT$1.8 billion from the Ministry of National Defense’s Indigenous Defense Submarine program — 90 percent of the program’s proposed
RSS