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.
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