The recent developments and discussions in Taiwan regarding the cross-strait service trade agreement with China emphasise an important dilemma: Does the country’s path toward liberalization, globalization and a place in regional trade bodies go through Beijing or not?
There is no doubt that during past decades Beijing has been a major stumbling block for Taiwan’s development of better economic — and to an even greater degree, political — ties with other nations.
Time and again, Beijing has obstructed Taiwan’s participation in a myriad of organizations and agreements, claiming that Taiwan should be considered a part of China.
This Chinese claim does not have any legal or factual basis. Taiwan has been ruled independently for more than six decades, while until 1945 it was a Japanese colony. Also, Taiwan’s transition to democracy in the late 1980s consolidated its existence as a free and democratic nation that can justifiably claim equal treatment as a member of the international community.
That Taiwan has not been accorded this equal treatment is solely due to political pressure from a rising China, which is preventing other nations from developing normal relations with Taiwan.
So how does Taiwan break out of this isolation imposed on it by a large and undemocratic neighbor?
One way would be to attempt to accommodate Beijing and seek its agreement through the establishment of closer economic and cultural ties.
This is basically the present approach.
Some observers think that Taiwan should “take a chance” with China by moving closer to it economically. They say that the road to liberalization goes through Beijing.
I disagree. That approach is fraught with danger, as it makes Taiwan increasingly dependent on the whims of a Chinese regime that is pertinently undemocratic and has not shown itself to be a constructive player in the international community.
As we have seen with Tibet, East Turkestan and Hong Kong, once a territory is firmly in China’s orbit, there is very little regard for basic freedoms or democracy.
This accommodating approach also exposes Taiwan’s economy to significant dangers if and when there is a downturn in China’s economy. Many prominent analysts such as George Soros are predicting that it is simply a matter of time.
Taiwan thus urgently needs to diversify outward from its economic dependence on China.
So, the road to liberalization and globalization obviously does not lead through Beijing. On the contrary, the path should be based on a clear and stated conviction on the part of Taiwan that it intends to play a full role internationally, and on acceptance of Taiwan by the international community as an equal player.
Taiwan will be taken seriously internationally if it can present itself as a significant player, both economically and politically.
It does need to open its economy to the world, but it can do that best by establishing better trade and investment ties with other democratic countries in the region, such as Japan, South Korea and nations like the Philippines, Malaysia and Indonesia, and of course the US and Western Europe. Diversification is the word.
Credibility as a trading partner will also be enhanced if it is seen as a fully functional democracy, if the political system is seen to have adequate checks and balances and trade agreements are handled with transparency, balance and fairness.
Taiwan’s international marginalization and political isolation can end, but it requires more vision in Taipei as well as Washington.
Gerrit van der Wees is editor of Taiwan Communique, a publication based in Washington.
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