An economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA) may include cooperation in several areas, including industrial, agricultural and service industries, as well as capital and labor affairs. Regardless of how far reaching the aspects of an ECFA, the main goals will be to lower customs tariffs and deregulate markets. From this perspective, the direct consequences of such an agreement will be to increase the flow of products across the Taiwan Strait. This is also the perspective from which I want to discuss the impact of an ECFA on Taiwan’s trade status.
Taiwan’s economic development model is focused on exports. Without the export surplus, Taiwan’s economy would be in big trouble. Because the nation has maintained a trade surplus in recent years, it has also maintained a competitive edge.
In 2006, Taiwan’s trade surplus reached US$21.3 billion, in 2007 it was US$27.4 billion, in 2008, US$15.2 billion, and in January to August last year it reached US$19.5 billion. As a result of growing cross-strait trade exchanges, however, trade between Taiwan and China makes up an increasingly larger portion of the nation’s total foreign trade. In 2008, Taiwan’s China-bound exports reached US$99.57 billion, while imports stood at US$32.88 billion, giving Taiwan a trade surplus of US$66.69 billion. In the period from January to November last year, Taiwanese exports to China reached US$75.22 billion, while imports were US$22.87 billion, giving Taiwan a trade surplus of US$52.35 billion. Deducting this trade surplus with China from Taiwan’s total trade surplus converts the surplus into a deficit. In disregarding the principles of risk diversification, Taiwan is too dependent on its trade with China.
If Taiwan and China enter into an ECFA and lower customs tariffs to a certain level, cross-strait trade would be further intensified and this could bring large volumes of Chinese products into Taiwan. That in turn could gradually serve to eliminate the nation’s trade surplus. As Taiwan’s trade surplus with China decreases, the nation will experience a trade deficit. That would have dire consequences.
The East Asian financial crisis in 1997 erupted because Thailand and other Asian states were experiencing trade deficits that set off a chain reaction of financial collapse. These states were only able to save their economies thanks to capital infusions by the IMF and the World Bank. Taiwan is not a member of these financial institutions, so where could the nation turn if the same thing were to happen to the Taiwanese economy.
The current cross-strait trade relationship should really be in Taiwan’s favor, so it should be China that comes to Taiwan asking for an ECFA to balance cross-strait trade, while Taiwan should be procrastinating to maintain its advantage. This is not what is happening. Instead, it is Taiwan that is eager to implement an ECFA. This also carries many political implications that could cloud thinking on the issue.
There are those who say that the Taiwanese economy will suffer because ASEAN and China have already formed a free-trade area, and that if Taiwan and China sign an ECFA it would help bring Taiwan closer to being able to participate in ASEAN trade.
The situation is not as bad as that. The original six ASEAN states formed a free-trade area in 2006, lowering customs tariffs to below 5 percent. This did not have a great impact on Taiwan and the nation’s trade surplus with ASEAN is actually increasing. Trade with ASEAN nations has been growing since 2003, and Taiwan enjoys a trade surplus. When the global economic crisis hit in 2008, Taiwan’s foreign trade contracted — with the exception of its trade with ASEAN nations, where the nation still has a trade surplus of US$12.9 billion.
It is to be expected that the signing of an ECFA will see cheap Chinese goods flow into Taiwan. We must pay attention to whether that increase will lead to a trade deficit that would hurt even more small and medium-sized enterprises, setting off a wave of unemployment. We should also pay attention to whether the government is aware of the importance of diversifying risk and whether it has prepared a rescue plan.
Chen Hurng-yu is a professor at National Chengchi University’s department of history.
TRANSLATED BY PERRY SVENSSON
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
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS