The influence of APEC has been on the decline, but the US’ recent breakthrough following several years of promoting the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement (TPP) increased the importance of the annual APEC summit in Japan earlier this month.
Although the TPP was not developed within the APEC framework, APEC member countries treated it as a possible option when discussing the feasible directions of the proposed free-trade area of the Asia-Pacific (FTAAP). Naturally, Taiwanese are concerned about whether Taiwan will be able to join the TPP and end its exclusion from the current wave of free-trade agreements (FTA).
The TPP was first proposed by the US in 1998. In the beginning, it was driven by economic motives and Washington hoped it would be able to attract the Asian APEC members to the free-trade group as soon as possible. This did not happen at the time and by 2006, it was merely a minor free-trade area consisting of four small economies: Brunei, Chile, Singapore and New Zealand, known as the Pacific-4 (P-4).
However, regionalism has continued to grow in East Asia, leading to greater regional cooperation, such as ASEAN Plus One, ASEAN Plus Three and the East Asia Summit. Meanwhile, China’s regional influence is increasing and might now have surpassed that of Japan.
Based on its own strategic interests, the US has begun to plan for a “return” to Asia to fill the power vacuum that resulted after former US president George W. Bush concentrated diplomatic resources on his “war on terror,” or to actively work to maintain a balance in the region as Asian countries raise concerns over China’s rise. Obviously, the TPP is becoming the most effective tool for Washington to implement this economic and trade tactic.
After the US announced that it would start TPP negotiations with the P-4 in 2008, Australia, Peru and Vietnam, followed by Malaysia last month, also joined TPP talks. A total of nine countries are now engaging in TPP talks and the first round is expected to conclude by the next APEC summit, scheduled for late next year in the US. Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Canada and Mexico have all expressed their willingness to join in the talks. The completion of the talks for these countries or a second expansion phase are expected in 2015, in step with the pace of East Asian economic integration. It will include all other APEC member countries by 2020 if everything goes to plan. By that time, it will have integrated East Asian regionalism and indirectly realized an FTAAP under the APEC framework.
The above is a description of how the US wants to use the TPP to deconstruct East Asian regionalism. Whether it will achieve its goals will of course depend on a number of variables.
For example, US President Barack Obama has emphasized that the TPP will be a high--quality, 21st century trade agreement with an extensive membership. “High quality” refers to a high degree of free trade, as most industries will be included in the scope of negotiation, while member countries may have to eliminate all tariffs or open their markets completely within 10 years.
Clearly, it will be difficult for Japan to join the group if it continues to maintain its protectionist agricultural policies. In addition, Obama seems to have more room to move in foreign affairs than in domestic affairs. US labor unions and a Democrat-dominated US Congress have always opposed FTAs and this may restrict the US’ deployment in the Asia-Pacific region.
Since China’s regional advantage is concentrated in East Asia and especially in ASEAN Plus Three, it has adopted a defensive role toward Asia-Pacific regionalism. Beijing is also aware that the expansion of the TPP is part of the US’ Asia-Pacific strategy and is therefore unlikely to express its stance too early. China is therefore likely to wait and see how things develop.
As for Taiwan, the TPP does have an open clause and seems to welcome all APEC members or other economies with similar views to join. However, membership requires the approval of all existing members, making Taiwanese membership difficult.
Finally, the TPP is Washington’s grand strategy for its Asia-Pacific deployment. Even if Beijing, a complex factor, is excluded, Taiwan is not the US’ first priority at a time when the economic and trade order in the Asia-Pacific is being realigned. Thus, even in the best conditions, Taiwan is not likely to join in the near future, but rather at the time of a future third expansion. According to this analysis, that would be after 2015 at the earliest.
Honigmann Hong is an assistant professor in the China studies program at National Tsing Hua University.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS