A report published by the Chung-Hua Institution for Economic Research (CIER) showed that the effects of trade diversion and trade creation from signing an economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA) with China would not be beneficial to Taiwan’s overall economic development.
After the signing of an ECFA, China’s exports to Taiwan would increase. Taiwan’s exports to China would increase, too, but this would have the effect of crowding out Taiwan’s exports to the US, Japan, Southeast Asia and Europe. This trade diversion would result in Taiwanese manufacturers losing market share to Chinese firms, which have lower production costs.
At the same time, it would make Taiwanese industries that enjoy comparative advantages heavily reliant on the Chinese market. The overall effect would be to make Taiwan’s economy even more dependent on China than it already is.
Besides, under the impact of zero tariffs under an ECFA, Taiwan’s electrical, electronics, medical equipment and other industries would be certain to shift their production to China to take advantage of the cluster effect, leading to a decline in production in these sectors in Taiwan. China would be the one to benefit from the trade diversion in these fields. Taiwan wants to develop its biotechnology sector, in which medical equipment is the field with the most potential. Unfortunately, as the institution’s report showed, the medical equipment sector is one of those that would suffer from the impact of an ECFA.
Electronics forms the foundation of modern technology, as well as the information and networking sectors, and is the cornerstone of a modern defense industry. These are the industries that attract Taiwan’s technical and scientific elite. They cause relatively little pollution but offer high profit potential. They are also areas in which Taiwan competes well with Europe, the US and Japan. It is hard to understand, therefore, why the Taiwanese government is willing to give up these industries in favor of high polluters like chemicals, plastics, machinery, upstream textiles, petrochemicals, catalysts and steel.
The CIER report does say that Taiwan’s chemicals, plastics, machinery, upstream textiles, petrochemicals, catalysts and steel industries would benefit from the trade creation effect of the proposed ECFA, but these are all relatively high-pollution industries with high external costs.
Besides, Taiwan does not have advantages in these industries compared with other countries. Over the past 50 years, these sectors have not been the focus of Taiwan’s development or professional training. So, while developing these sectors may gain Taiwan a share of the Chinese market, it would also make Taiwan a concentrated location for high-polluting industries within the greater China economic sphere.
One of the main reasons put forward by the government for signing an ECFA with China is that it would benefit the textiles sector. However, industries listed in a report published by the Ministry of Economic Affairs on July 27 as likely to suffer from the impact of an ECFA include many textile products such as stockings, shoes, underwear, towels, knitwear, bedding and swimwear, and these findings were confirmed by the CIER report.
Taiwan’s home appliance makers use Japanese technology, import components from China and assemble their products in Taiwan. With no tariff protection under an ECFA, this model would break down under competition from cheap equipment made in China.
Hsu Chung-hsin is an associate professor of law at National Chung Cheng University.
TRANSLATED BY JULIAN CLEGG
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion