“Black holes” are points in outer space where gravity and mass interact in such a way that all matter is sucked into nothingness.
The image of a black hole comes to mind when reading about the charter and articles of agreement of the newly founded Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) in Beijing.
The plans for the AIIB’s remit are huge: The starting capital is US$100 billion — twice the size of the Asian Development Bank and almost as much as the World Bank, both well-established institutions. Its purpose is to finance major infrastructure investment projects in China’s periphery in Southeast Asia, South Asia and Central Asia. Most of these would presumably be part of the grandiose concepts Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) launched under titles such as the “new Silk Road,” “maritime Silk Road” and “One Belt, One Road.”
While it is tempting to jump on this bandwagon, a word of caution: When projects like this are pushed through, the economic and institutional base can easily become unstable. Countries might have to pour money into the black hole for a long time before any results are seen.
For Taiwan, there are some special considerations. While President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) aministration has been over-eager to join the AIIB, China has relegated the nation to the backburner, first refusing to accept Taiwan as a founding member — with the argument that it does not consider Taiwan a “state” — and then adding a clause to the agreement referring to applicants who are “not sovereign or not responsible for the conduct of its international relations” — obviously also aimed at Taiwan.
Are there any reasons why Taiwan should join the AIIB? What is in it for Taiwan? Is Taiwan likely to benefit from any of the infrastructure projects? No.
The investments are designed to help build infrastructure in China’s south and southwest, and are to strengthen Beijing’s economic (and political) influence.
Taiwan’s construction industry is unlikey to benefit by taking part in the building of roads and high-speed railways. As Taiwan’s construction industry has always focused on projects within Taiwan, it would have a hard time competing against the much larger Chinese conglomerates that have much more international experience.
The Ma administration has argued that membership in the AIIB would advance Taiwan’s opportunities in regional economic activities and would increase its participation in international organizations.
This argument also falls by the wayside, as it is abundantly clear that China plans to tightly control the AIIB and dictate all aspects of Taiwan’s participation, leaving no room for Taiwan to maneuver and enhance its international reach.
Also lacking in the debate in Taiwan or the arguments presented by the Ma administration is any discussion on the structure and governance of the new organization.
Most European countries contemplating joining the AIIB held intense discussions questioning if the AIIB would abide by international standards related to labor rights, the environment, transparency and accountability. What is the governance structure to be in terms of decisionmaking and contracting and procurement rules?
Jumping on the AIIB bandwagon is ill-advised, as there are few tangible benefits for Taiwan.
The nation will only hear a swooshing sound as the contributions are sucked into a black hole.
Gerrit van der Wees is editor of Taiwan Communique, a publication based in Washington.
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,