A world of free-trade agreements (FTA) will open to Taiwan and the nation will enjoy greater international space if it just signs an economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA) with China. At least, that’s the pipe dream the government is trying to sell.
Here’s a reality check: The government will only be pursuing FTAs with countries that have already inked FTAs with China.
This is the impression President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) gave when he said, according to a report in the China Times on Jan. 12: “As long as other nations have already signed FTAs with the mainland, Beijing will have no objections if these countries wish to discuss similar deals with Taiwan.”
China’s acceptance is apparently key — this is not the same as allowing Taiwan more international space. On the contrary, it seems to reduce Taiwan to a province of China.
Thus, this policy fits well with the grand strategy of unification. The time is simply not ripe yet for unification, the KMT says. Nevertheless the government seems to be headed unfalteringly in this direction and hoping that time is on its side.
The consequences of a China-leaning FTA policy will not only hurt Taiwan’s sovereignty, but also its economic development. International experience shows that the most effective economic integration is done between countries at an equal development stage. An FTA between Taiwan and the EU, for example, would benefit both parties.
Taiwan would be able to improve its already competitive services in the finance, business and engineering sectors, while the EU would benefit from technological cooperation.
This would advance Taiwan’s knowledge economy.
Danish consultancy firm Copenhagen Economics estimates that an FTA would generate 20 billion euros (US$28 billion) over 10 years for the EU, while Taiwan’s GDP would grow 1.2 percent.
China trails Taiwan in industrial sophistication, so linking Taiwan’s economic freedom to FTA agreements China has signed with other countries would not necessarily advance the competitiveness of Taiwanese industries.
China and the EU have no FTA, and therefore, Taiwan would not be allowed to enter into negotiations with the EU. Nor does it help that the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) seems rather uninterested in the EU. This, despite South Korea’s recent FTA with the EU and the announcement that Singapore and the EU agreed to start negotiations on an FTA.
This KMT policy will exacerbate Taiwan’s isolation and its disappearance into a coming cross-strait market envisioned by the KMT, which will easily become a Greater China Market including China, Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan.
This will be a “one country, four systems” model.
Taiwan will not be able to escape this fate if it signs an unstrategic agreement bound by Chinese tunnel vision.
An ECFA with China is not necessarily a bad idea, but it all depends on the content and the room for maneuver that it leaves Taiwan in terms of seeking deals with other countries.
There are countless reasons to be pragmatic when dealing with China. There is no reason to be irresponsible and short-sighted.
The 2012 presidential election will not only concern economic and political integration with China but also the nation’s international status and democratic future.
Taiwan’s democracy would not survive political integration with China.
Michael Danielsen is the chairman of Taiwan Corner.
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Former minister of culture Lung Ying-tai (龍應台) has long wielded influence through the power of words. Her articles once served as a moral compass for a society in transition. However, as her April 1 guest article in the New York Times, “The Clock Is Ticking for Taiwan,” makes all too clear, even celebrated prose can mislead when romanticism clouds political judgement. Lung crafts a narrative that is less an analysis of Taiwan’s geopolitical reality than an exercise in wistful nostalgia. As political scientists and international relations academics, we believe it is crucial to correct the misconceptions embedded in her article,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
RSS