Ever since the government proposed the signing of an economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA) between Taiwan and China, every ECFA-related opinion poll has showed that public doubts over the issue have increased while support has continued to slide. It’s only natural the government finds this worrying and therefore offers more explanations on the issue, while the Chinese government has rushed to give up some of its benefits as a favor to Taiwan. The more explanations Taipei offers and the more Beijing agrees, the stronger the doubt among the public.
Why? Because the government’s approach to the ECFA talks includes many unreasonable conditions that appear very strange no matter how they are interpreted. One must never enter into trade talks saying that an agreement must be signed at any price and even setting a deadline for it. Doing so means giving up every bargaining chip one has. Somehow, the government remains oblivious to this.
In any trade negotiations, the parties involved evaluate the short and long-term impact on domestic industry and labor. This means the government must make concessions and compromises with its negotiating partner, while also informing and lobbying the domestic audience. This is why negotiations are often full of twists and turns and sometimes fail. In the ECFA talks, however, Beijing has continuously made concessions and constantly joins the Taiwanese government in assuring the public that Chinese labor and agricultural products will not be allowed into Taiwan, disregarding its own interests. This is unprecedented in the history of negotiation.
However, this is not strange at all, since China’s aim is to create “one China.” The ECFA talks nominally maintain a “one China” framework while in practice bringing Taiwan into China’s economic sphere as well as co-opting the public. This is key to China’s strategy of promoting unification through economic means and using business to bypass politics in order to infiltrate Taiwan and win the minds and hearts of Taiwanese. Its strategic and tactical goals are both clear and well-integrated and President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) plays along. Given this situation, it is clear that Beijing’s offer to forgo some of its benefits as a favor is simply bait to win over the public.
Ma constantly stresses the advantages of an ECFA and cooperates with Beijing to sell it to the public. The Ma administration has effectively stopped acting as a government, functioning instead as Beijing’s business representative in Taiwan. This alone erodes Ma’s credibility. Thus, instead of negotiating with China, the government is busy convincing the public to accept an ECFA. Beijing does not really plan to negotiate with Taipei either. It only wishes to further integrate Taiwan’s economic interests and tie its economic future tightly to China. What Beijing needs to figure out, then, is how many gifts it needs to offer to help Ma sign an ECFA and win the 2012 presidential election to ensure its strategies prevail.
This is the tragedy for Taiwanese. Beijing is the stronger power, while Taipei is like a businessman who only cares about the short-term interests of certain local industries and Taiwanese businesses investing in China. As it proudly brags about the Chinese gifts it brings, the Ma administration has given up on a national strategy for Taiwan. Today, the government is selling out Taiwan’s sovereignty and liberal democracy, and neglecting the widening income gap and rising unemployment rate. What is the Taiwanese public to do?
The choice is for us to make.
Lee Wen-chung is a former Democratic Progressive Party legislator.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
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