Although the title “Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu” at the WTO is not the most desirable, the need to maintain “normalization of economic and trade relations” with the People’s Republic of China (PRC) under the WTO framework does not necessarily mean that Taiwan has to sacrifice its political autonomy for economic benefits. However, this is what the incumbent government in Taiwan is doing (“ECFA poses three likely outcomes for Taiwan,” March 5, page 8).
The central issue on an economic cooperative framework agreement (ECFA) is not about normalizing trade relations with the PRC. It’s about the trade-off that comes when we consider giving up our independent sovereignty, Taiwan’s “de facto” political autonomy, for economic/trade benefits. Furthermore, sovereignty is a public good and belongs to the 23 million people of Taiwan.
A negative outcome of an ECFA is the erosion of Taiwan’s autonomy which will be borne by all its citizens, yet the benefits of the agreement will only extend to those sectors negatively affected by the free-trade agreement (FTA) between the ASEAN nations and the PRC.
It is like asking the general public to bear the burden of pollution without penalizing those firms who dispose of their industrial wastes. In socio-political terms, it would be more justifiable for the government to adopt some remedies through industrial adjustment policies or even social policies in sectors such as petrochemicals, textiles/clothing, machinery and others affected by the ASEAN-PRC FTA.
What evidence is there that Taiwan’s sovereignty will be eroded by signing an ECFA with the PRC? One could give a list of concrete examples, which is too long to be published here. Yet, the fact the contents of an ECFA were not based on the equilateral basis of the WTO principle, but on Chinese President Hu Jintao’s (胡錦濤) six points erodes Taiwan’s political autonomy.
The erosion of Taiwan’s sovereignty in signing an ECFA includes the absence of a guarantee that Beijing won’t block Taiwan from signing FTAs with other countries, which is a legitimate right for any WTO member.
While President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration claims an ECFA would mean Taiwan won’t be marginalized from economic integration, one has to point out that, without signing FTAs with other major trading partners, Taiwan will be locked into the “Greater China Economic Zone” in the short run, and get sucked into the PRC’s political orbit over the long term.
The PRC has been and still is an authoritarian regime. A marriage of convenience between a democratic Taiwan and an authoritarian PRC is doomed to fail economically and politically.
Moreover, the PRC’s relationship with the US and other industrialized democracies in the world is subject to instability and is unpredictable. Should the US-PRC relationship deteriorate in the near future, Taiwan’s inclusion in the “Greater China Economic Zone” will make the country vulnerable to external shocks from Washington.
One has to remind the Ma administration that globalization without independent sovereignty is like a piece of drifting wood in the ocean. Anyone can claim it. Ma should not trade away Taiwan’s sovereignty, which belongs solely to the people of Taiwan, for presumable economic benefits from a trade pact with the PRC.
Peter C.Y. Chow is professor of economics at the City University of New York and a research associate of the National Bureau of Economic Research.
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