Over the past weeks there have been a number of statements by President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration to the effect that Taiwan has not made sufficient progress toward trade liberalization because of the stalled cross-strait service trade agreement, causing Taiwan to fall behind South Korea, its main competitor.
The government is of course blaming the delay on the Sunflower movement and the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), accusing them of impeding Taiwan’s inclusion in international free-trade agreements.
In the meantime, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) portrays China as the gatekeeper to Taiwan’s participation in the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) as well as free-trade agreements with other nations, saying that “progress” needs to be made in the agreements with China before the nation can move toward other agreements.
There is a US colloquialism that sums up this argument perfectly: “Hogwash,” meaning “pertinently untrue” or even “utter nonsense.” Here is why.
First, it is crystal clear that China is inhibiting and constraining Taiwan in its attempt to gain more international space. What does the Ma administration do in response? Try to get closer to China. This is an utterly self-defeating approach, which will only lead Taiwan into a one-way alley toward Beijing.
Second, the cross-strait service trade agreement — and the proposed trade-in-goods agreement and the proposed free economic pilot zones — would not help Taiwan in its economic development and trade liberalization, but severely damage it.
The reason is that these agreements would undermine Taiwan’s industrial, agricultural and service base: Even more jobs would disappear and Taiwan would be flooded by Chinese goods and services, leaving little room for Taiwan’s own industry, agriculture and services.
Third, accepting China as a “gatekeeper” for Taiwan’s participation in regional trade organizations and bilateral trade agreements is tantamount to giving up the nation’s sovereignty. Taiwan needs to be self-confident and rely on its own strengths, and refuse to give China an excuse to choke its freedom to act in its own interests or in broader regional interests. Beijing itself is the reason other countries are hesitant to sign free-trade agreements with Taiwan, and it is highly deceptive, and even immoral, for the Ma government to pretend otherwise.
Last but not least, from many discussions with DPP representatives and the Sunflower movement, it has become apparent they are very outward-looking and highly supportive of real trade liberalization for Taiwan.
However, this real trade liberalization does not come about by cozying up to China. On the contrary: it would only come about if Taiwan distances itself from a repressive and authoritarian China, and builds up its own confidence to engage in international trade agreements in a democratic and transparent fashion — something that has been sorely lacking under Ma’s administration.
Taiwan can and should move toward true trade liberalization, but — as former US secretary of state Hillary Rodham Clinton said in June in an interview with Taiwan Business Weekly — avoid becoming economically over-reliant on China, which would entail it losing its economic and political independence.
Such real trade liberalization would require difficult choices for Taiwanese: there is a need for structural economic reform, simplifying the legal structures, cleaning up the bureaucratic red tape, investing in innovation and upgrading the manufacturing sector. All of that needs to be done in a democratic and transparent manner, so that society as a whole is brought to a new level and nobody is left behind.
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