In his new book, entitled The Emergence of the United States of Chunghwa
But, leaving aside the fact that Taiwan's democratic political system is fundamentally different from China's autocratic system, the gap in national income between the two sides of the strait has highlighted the precipitateness and practical unlikelihood of the unification prediction.
Ohmae's presumption of political integration developing from regional economic cooperation evidently involved a giant intellectual leap. His argument relies on the economic perspective and includes no political or social analysis. He is overly optimistic about economics but ignores politics. I wish to present here my rebuttal of his prediction.
First, political democracy and social justice are just as important as economic factors to national development. Indeed, China continues to maintain a high economic growth rate. But the extreme imbalance described by Ohmae -- between China's six highly developed areas on the one hand and the interior on the other -- are cause for grave concern. As he says, many exploited workers are actually behind the high economic growth.
Perhaps he thinks that boosting the economy by exploiting the workers is not morally questionable, or that China's centralized power structure is still capable of controlling industrial action. But as authoritarian rule in China weakens, the uncertainties caused by unbalanced development may become the most significant variable, a possibility Ohmae ignores, intentionally or otherwise. But it is this variable that is key to his optimistic evaluation, making his federation prediction nothing more than a castle in the air.
Next, European integration is perhaps the most successful example of regional integration. European countries have gradually moved towards political integration founded on a process of economic integration conducted over the past 50 years.
But this integration has occurred with the consent of sovereign European states. Referendums were held in each of the states before almost every important treaty was passed. Britain and Denmark have refused to join the single European currency, the Euro, in order to maintain their monetary sovereignty.
State sovereignty may be affected by the tides of globalization, but it will never disappear. Ohmae's prediction shows that his understanding of international politics is extremely subjective.
Finally, politics have always been a major element of the cross-strait issue. By hastening cross-strait business integration, China's enthusiastic encouragement of Taiwanese businesses to invest there is an attempt to expand the room for maneuvering of its Taiwan policy, and to reduce the island's political autonomy.
This two-faced tactic of using business to contain the government highlights all too clearly the goal of China's economic strategy against Taiwan. Ohmae has completely ignored China's political machinations in his interpretation in exclusively economic terms of the complex cross-strait relationship. His simple conclusion is no help to the current deadlock.
Political integration between Taiwan and China must be based on the principle of equal sovereignty. That being so, the final decision on Taiwan's status rests solely with the nation's 23 million people. It will not be determined by Beijing, much less by a groundless prediction.
Chen Chi-mai is a DPP legislator.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with