For some time now, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) has said the government will seek to sign free-trade agreements (FTA) with other countries in the Asia-Pacific region after it signs an economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA) with China. The rationale is that somehow, after an ECFA is signed, Beijing will be more amenable to Taiwan signing FTAs with other countries.
It is inconceivable, Ma said recently, that in the entire region only Taiwan and North Korea — the two extremities of global integration — have yet to sign FTAs. True enough. Pyongyang, an isolationist and pseudo-communist regime, has done so by choice. By not providing any context to his statement, however, Ma is hinting that Taiwan is in the same situation for the same reasons, and implying his predecessors didn’t seek to sign FTAs with other countries.
The real barrier, of course, has always been Beijing, which has used blackmail and the threat of an economic slap in the face against any government that crosses certain lines on, among other subjects, Tibet and Taiwan. Aside from joining international organizations that require statehood, such as UN agencies, signing FTAs is also an act that symbolizes statehood.
In light of the Chinese delegation’s obstructionism at the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change summit in Copenhagen, where Taiwan was barred entry as an observer and was forced to participate through non-governmental organizations — which were listed as being from “China” — there is no reason to believe that Ma’s cross-strait peace initiative, or even an ECFA, would compel Beijing to change its stance on “one China.”
What’s even more troubling is that Ma, once again, seems to ask us to take his word for it. What he does not do is show us why the road to FTAs passes through an ECFA. He has yet to provide a single document proving that Beijing would be willing to show flexibility on Taiwan signing trade pacts within the region after an ECFA is signed. He hasn’t even told us if Beijing has made such a promise.
Either he’s being lied to, or he’s lying. But precedents tell us that Ma’s expectations are ill-founded and likely never to be realized.
We mustn’t delude ourselves into thinking that after an ECFA is signed, other countries in the region will suddenly be willing to risk “angering” Beijing by seeking to create closer economic ties with Taiwan. Another reason why Taiwan is alone in the pit with North Korea is that most countries in the region don’t have the guts to stand up to Beijing on Taiwan. There is no reason to believe that this would change after an ECFA is sealed.
If Beijing were to yield anything after an ECFA, it can be assumed that it would have to be under its “one China” principle — in other words, with terminology clearly stating that Taiwan is part of China, just as the trade pacts signed between Hong Kong and, say, New Zealand, were achieved under the ambit of the closer economic partnership agreement between China and the special administrative region.
And here lies the trap. For the first time, Taiwan could indeed find itself in a position where it can sign FTAs with other countries. But the rules and conditions would be dictated by Beijing, and however desirable those may be, Taiwan would be forced to enter into FTAs under the condition that it accepts the notion that it is part of China.
Whatever Ma says, an ECFA will compromise Taiwan’s sovereignty.
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
RSS