In an interview on Thursday, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) repeated his intention to push through an economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA) with China, insisting that it was the only way for Taiwan’s economy to remain competitive as regional trade pacts excluding Taiwan kick in.
However, the government has done an extremely poor job of explaining how an ECFA would benefit the public, largely because Taipei and Beijing have yet to work out the details of the proposed pact.
Since, by Ma’s own admission, no official talks have taken place and China’s position on the finer points of the pact is unknown, the rosy predictions of the benefits of such a pact made by institutions such as the Chung-Hua Institution for Economic Research seem a little far-fetched.
Another problem is that those who oppose an ECFA have not put forward a viable alternative. The truth is that apart from organizing a campaign for a referendum on the signing of an ECFA, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) has said little or nothing about what else would work.
Criticizing the ECFA is one thing, but if the opposition cannot come up with a credible new policy for people to scrutinize, then those who don’t support the pact have nothing with which to counter the government’s ECFA propaganda.
China’s growing economic and diplomatic might, its position relative to Taiwan and the history between the two mean that it cannot be ignored.
Instead of burying its head in the sand and hoping that China will go away, the opposition needs to present a way of dealing with China economically and politically that will uphold Taiwan’s interests and sovereignty.
As a former chairwoman of the Mainland Affairs Council, WTO negotiator, policy adviser to the Ministry of Economic Affairs and an expert in international economics, business law and treaties, DPP Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) should be the ideal candidate. So far, however, all Tsai has done is demand transparency during the ECFA negotiation process and repeat that the DPP opposes any treaty signed under the “one China” framework.
What she really needs to do is present a practical alternative, one that would leave no doubt about the issue of sovereignty, such as a deal signed between Taiwan and China under the auspices of the WTO.
The DPP — because of the small number of seats it holds in the legislature — has resorted to “scorched earth” tactics, such as boycotts when opposing government policies that would allow Chinese students to study in Taiwan. However, if the DPP carries on with such tactics and continues to oppose the government’s proposals for the sake of opposition — reminiscent of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) actions during its time out of power — the party could lose the credibility that it still holds in the eyes of moderate voters.
The DPP needs to come up with a counter to the KMT’s “China-centric approach” and get it out into the public domain fast before the momentum of cross-strait rapprochement becomes too great and the DPP starts to fade into obscurity.
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
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
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS