On March 18, the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission (USCC) held a hearing on recent economic, political and military developments between Taiwan and China and their implications for the US. A broad range of important issues was raised, but one is of utmost interest: the proposed economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA) between Taiwan and China.
While trade agreements between countries are commonplace, this one has some complex elements: It will be an agreement between two “entities” (for lack of a better term) which officially do not recognize each other’s sovereignty.
Much has changed since the days of the Chinese Civil War. Taiwan made a momentous transition to democracy in the early 1990s, and China experienced its rise as a major economic and political power. Some things, however, have stayed the same: China still claims Taiwan as part of its territory and vows to take military action against it if it moves toward de jure independence.
Now an ECFA enters the picture. While under “normal” circumstances such an agreement would be a good thing, there are, in the present context, ample reasons to have serious doubts.
At the USCC hearing, several witnesses argued in favor of an ECFA, seemingly implying that it would be good for US relations with Taiwan and China. This, as US Senator Sherrod Brown and Commissioner Dennis Shea stated, is by no means certain.
Brown expressed reservations on both the content and the process for approval in Taiwan. He noted that the two parties in the negotiations were rather unequal in size and felt that Taiwan was “giving too much away with too little in return.” He also criticized the lack of transparency in the negotiations and the fact that the legislative branch was not consulted in the process. He advised the administration of US President Barack Obama to urge Taiwan to make the process fully transparent and adhere to the basic principles of checks and balances within the political system.
Shea said that Taiwan and China have very different motivations and expectations for going into such an agreement. The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government wants to get out of the economic doldrums and sees closer economic association with China as the only way out. For China, it is much more political: Chinese officials and analysts see it as a stepping stone toward unification.
So what are the implications for the US and other countries in the region? It is beyond doubt that such an agreement between China and Taiwan will move Taiwan further under the Chinese umbrella. A closer link between the two economies will lead to a distancing between Taiwan and the US. Over time, this will also mean that Taiwan will drift away from the US politically. Is this what we want?
During the past decades, Taiwan’s economy and political system have thrived because of its close ties with the US and the West in general. Freedom and democracy became an integral part of the political, economic and social system in Taiwan, in part because of frequent and close interactions with the West.
The big questions policymakers in Taipei, Washington and Europe should grapple with are these: If Taiwan becomes more economically integrated with China, what will this do to its flourishing democracy? If Taiwan shines less brightly as a beacon for democracy, what does this do to our support for democracy in Asia as a whole and the confidence people in East Asia will have in the US?
Nat Bellocchi is a former chairman of the American Institute in Taiwan and a special adviser to the Liberty Times Group. The views expressed in this article are his own.
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
RSS