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.
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