In the extraordinary legislative session aimed at reviewing the cross-strait service trade agreement, legislators have said that they will go through the agreement clause-by-clause and vote on each clause, and that if any of the deregulated items would result in unfair competition between Taiwanese and Chinese industries, they will take a conservative approach and initiate renegotiations. While this may seem like a cautious and serious approach, it disguises the agreement as a purely economic issue, which risks ruining Taiwan’s sovereignty and freedom.
Is the service trade agreement an economic issue? Of course it is not. It is a political one, because its political goals extend way beyond its economic goals. Using economic means to spur unification has always been the most important guiding principle in China’s attempts at unifying Taiwan with China. The Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA) is a product of this guiding principle, while the service trade agreement is the most important pillar within the ECFA framework and something that will be used to help China leverage investment, immigration and other incentives to control how Taiwanese vote and achieve its goal of unification.
From the government’s perspective, the agreement will help large conglomerates enter the Chinese market, and it will also bring Chinese capital and workers into Taiwan and help consolidate and further President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) goal of eventual unification, while helping pave the way for another Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) victory in the 2016 presidential election. In this way the government can kill two birds with one stone.
The KMT knows allowing the service industry to enter China will further hollow out Taiwan and that a depressed economy and public complaints are not beneficial to the party’s chances of being re-elected. However, the Ma administration still believes that the ability to make a living is more important than the strong public outpouring of discontent. It believes that when people lose their financial power, they will choose to remain silent instead of unite in action. This, coupled with China’s promise of economic prosperity, is what the KMT believes will ensure another election victory. This was the main reason Ma won by 800,000 votes in last year’s presidential election despite four years of poor political results.
Another political motive of the service trade agreement is to bring about a meeting between Ma and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平). Ma’s re-election as KMT party chairman was also in line with Beijing’s “one China” principle because it helps pave the way for the same meeting. The “one China” principle, a meeting between Ma and Xi, and the service trade agreement represent a new triangle for Ma’s current policy of eventual unification. The service trade agreement is necessary for the formation of this new triangle.
We should therefore understand that the service trade agreement is not only something characterized by “backroom deals” or a lack of “communication,” but that it is also an agreement with secret political motives. This is not something that can be solved by reviewing the agreement, voting on it and negotiating parts of it that would bring about unfair competition between Taiwan and China. We should remind our legislators and economic and political leaders who wish to keep Taiwan’s sovereignty, freedom and democracy intact that they must understand the true nature of the service trade agreement.
We should not oppose, and maybe even welcome the economic cooperation agreement that was recently signed with New Zealand because it is purely economic in nature. Opening up and competition is nothing to be afraid of, and the signing of free-trade agreements with other countries should be encouraged. However, we should not sign the service trade agreement with China, because it is politically motivated and will only do Taiwan harm and no good.
Huang Tien-lin is a former presidential adviser.
Translated by Drew Cameron
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump’s second administration has gotten off to a fast start with a blizzard of initiatives focused on domestic commitments made during his campaign. His tariff-based approach to re-ordering global trade in a manner more favorable to the United States appears to be in its infancy, but the significant scale and scope are undeniable. That said, while China looms largest on the list of national security challenges, to date we have heard little from the administration, bar the 10 percent tariffs directed at China, on specific priorities vis-a-vis China. The Congressional hearings for President Trump’s cabinet have, so far,
For years, the use of insecure smart home appliances and other Internet-connected devices has resulted in personal data leaks. Many smart devices require users’ location, contact details or access to cameras and microphones to set up, which expose people’s personal information, but are unnecessary to use the product. As a result, data breaches and security incidents continue to emerge worldwide through smartphone apps, smart speakers, TVs, air fryers and robot vacuums. Last week, another major data breach was added to the list: Mars Hydro, a Chinese company that makes Internet of Things (IoT) devices such as LED grow lights and the
The US Department of State has removed the phrase “we do not support Taiwan independence” in its updated Taiwan-US relations fact sheet, which instead iterates that “we expect cross-strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means, free from coercion, in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of the Strait.” This shows a tougher stance rejecting China’s false claims of sovereignty over Taiwan. Since switching formal diplomatic recognition from the Republic of China to the People’s Republic of China in 1979, the US government has continually indicated that it “does not support Taiwan independence.” The phrase was removed in 2022
RSS