ECFA, NAFTA nothing alike
Martin Phipps’ letter (Letters, Aug. 6, page 8) requires a strong rebuttal. Phipps does not understand the basics of the issues he discussed.
Phipps refers to the US’ NAFTA agreement with Canada and Mexico. That was a trade agreement between states that recognize each other’s sovereignty. He should be reminded that China does not recognize Taiwan’s sovereignty and is expanding its military with the intention of coercing Taiwan into submission.
Beijing sees in the economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA) a tool to smother Taiwan’s de facto independence.
The debate in Taiwan, pitting the Democratic Progressive Party against the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), has nothing to do with “protectionism” as Phipps claims. On the contrary, the position put forward by the DPP has to do with protecting Taiwan’s sovereignty and future as a free and democratic nation.
The KMT, on the other hand, is cuddling up to a repressive — and still very communist — China.
The policies of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and his administration seem designed to push Taiwan into an ever tighter economic embrace with China at the expense of its hard-won freedom and democracy.
Phipps claims that: “By signing the ECFA with China, Taiwan would be free to negotiate trade deals with other Asian countries.”
This is wishful thinking: If this were the case, it would be part of the ECFA negotiations. However, China has only indicated that after the ECFA is signed, it could consider it. History shows it would be naive to trust China based on this.
GERRIT VAN DER WEES
Washington
Martin Phipps is apparently not familiar with the history of Taiwan and China. The two sides have basically been hostile until now. Any agreement between them is fragile.
The example Phipps cited — NAFTA — concerned independent countries with friendly ties. His argument in favor of an ECFA is not logical as it ignores the fact that China claims Taiwan belongs to it.
For Beijing, the precondition of any agreement is that Taiwan is part of China. After signing an ECFA, Taiwan would be part of China economically. Would Taiwan be able to sign free trade agreements with other countries in Asia? Of course not — China would object.
Martin Phipps ignores the history of aggression between Taiwan and China, and China’s threat to use military force against Taiwan. He should be ashamed.
NI KUO-JUNG
Hsinchu
Stop choking Kaohsiung
The environmental impact assessment (EIA) hearing on whether Taipower’s Dalin Plant in Kaohsiung should have two or four coal-fired generators was an eye-opener.
Perhaps most shocking was the fact that the life expectancy of Kaohsiung residents is four years less than that of Taipei residents.
If this is true, the corporate leaders of Taipower should be fired for even considering expanding the plant. If air pollution in Taiwan’s second-largest city is causing such a disparity in life expectancy, then the government should be doing everything in its power to reduce pollution, not increase it.
Coal is a leading cause of global warming, which is already affecting and will continue to affect Taiwan.
If Taipower wants to diversify its power sources from natural gas — which is “cleaner” and used by most of the generators in the north — then maybe it should consider building another 5,000 wind generators rather than the mere 50 it is building now.
At the EIA hearing, Taipower officials said they were prepared to trade carbon credits or plant trees overseas to maintain the same carbon emission level.
What they are not factoring into their equation, however, is the health of the children, elderly and other residents of Kaohsiung City and Kaohsiung County. What Taipower needs more than new coal-fired generators in Kaohsiung is new leadership.
JEFFREE PIKE
Kaohsiung
US President Donald Trump has gotten off to a head-spinning start in his foreign policy. He has pressured Denmark to cede Greenland to the United States, threatened to take over the Panama Canal, urged Canada to become the 51st US state, unilaterally renamed the Gulf of Mexico to “the Gulf of America” and announced plans for the United States to annex and administer Gaza. He has imposed and then suspended 25 percent tariffs on Canada and Mexico for their roles in the flow of fentanyl into the United States, while at the same time increasing tariffs on China by 10
As an American living in Taiwan, I have to confess how impressed I have been over the years by the Chinese Communist Party’s wholehearted embrace of high-speed rail and electric vehicles, and this at a time when my own democratic country has chosen a leader openly committed to doing everything in his power to put obstacles in the way of sustainable energy across the board — and democracy to boot. It really does make me wonder: “Are those of us right who hold that democracy is the right way to go?” Has Taiwan made the wrong choice? Many in China obviously
US President Donald Trump last week announced plans to impose reciprocal tariffs on eight countries. As Taiwan, a key hub for semiconductor manufacturing, is among them, the policy would significantly affect the country. In response, Minister of Economic Affairs J.W. Kuo (郭智輝) dispatched two officials to the US for negotiations, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s (TSMC) board of directors convened its first-ever meeting in the US. Those developments highlight how the US’ unstable trade policies are posing a growing threat to Taiwan. Can the US truly gain an advantage in chip manufacturing by reversing trade liberalization? Is it realistic to
Last week, 24 Republican representatives in the US Congress proposed a resolution calling for US President Donald Trump’s administration to abandon the US’ “one China” policy, calling it outdated, counterproductive and not reflective of reality, and to restore official diplomatic relations with Taiwan, enter bilateral free-trade agreement negotiations and support its entry into international organizations. That is an exciting and inspiring development. To help the US government and other nations further understand that Taiwan is not a part of China, that those “one China” policies are contrary to the fact that the two countries across the Taiwan Strait are independent and
RSS