Beijing has initiated a new strategy against Taiwan. China's Ministry of Commerce and the State Council's Taiwan Affairs Office said China wanted to sign a pact with Taiwan similar to the Closer Economic Partnership Arrangement (CEPA) it had signed with Hong Kong and Macau earlier this year.
Because China's attempts to interfere with Taiwan's presidential elections have failed twice over the past eight years, it has decided for now to stop using the tactics of military intimidation and propaganda. Instead, Beijing promotes "one China" and "opposing Taiwan independence" politically, while economically it encourages direct links and integration.
Such changes are only tactical adjustments. The ultimate goal remains the same; that is, China wants to annex Taiwan. So the CEPA is nothing but a new economic tactic invented by Beijing.
Basically, the CEPA deal tries to bait people by offering trade facilitation and by further opening the Chinese market. Under the CEPA, several industries in Hong Kong, including the service industry, enjoy a preferential entry into the Chinese market.
Beijing wants to use the arrangement to inject some life into Hong Kong's economy and fulfill further integration between the two economies. Once Taiwan also signs the deal, the "Chinese economic circle," or common market, would take shape.
In response to this strategy, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) agreed immediately, saying that promoting cross-strait economic cooperation and establishing a common market is also what the party is working for.
No responsible political party should have responded in such a rash manner. Although trade liberalization and facilitation is conducive to a bilateral relationship, we cannot ignore some basic facts about cross-strait relations.
Economically, after sixteen years of cross-strait engagement, China now accounts for more than 60 percent of Taiwan's outward investment. The island's trade dependence on China is more than 25 percent.
But underneath China's brilliant economic performance lies the possibility of collapse. Taiwan's economy is thus at high risk as we have put too many eggs in one basket. If our finance and service industries, as well as our overall economy, were to be drawn to China as a result of the arrangement, it is not very difficult to see whether the CEPA would be good or bad for Taiwan.
In fact, an international conference called "Cross-Strait Exchanges and National Security of Taiwan," held by Taiwan Advocates earlier this month, pointed out that economic exchanges may have brought Taiwan several benefits but the whole economy and society will suffer from unemployment and a deteriorating distribution of wealth. Fortunately, unlike Hong Kong's, Taiwan's industries have not been completely hollowed out, thanks to former president Lee Teng-hui's (
However, Taiwan has tasted the bitter outcome of cross-strait exchanges over the past few years. And Hong Kong, as if quenching its thirst with poison, is now moving its service industry further north under the CEPA. Taiwan should not make the same mistakes.
Economic affairs cannot be handled outside a political context as long as China does not give up its attempt to annex Taiwan. We also have to take China into consideration during our engagement with the US and Japan.
Since China spares no effort to prevent Taiwan from signing free-trade agreements with other countries, how likely is Beijing to sign the deal with Taiwan? An arrangement like the CEPA is nothing more than a product of the "one country, two systems" formula.
For both the CEPA and a free trade agreement, official talks will be necessary. However, during our recent experience of working with China in areas such as combating crime, exchanging weather information, performing financial management and arranging direct flights, Beijing has been deliberately nibbling away at our sovereignty by insisting on the "one China" principle and refusing official talks.
It is unlikely that Beijing will treat us on an equal basis.
Some people in Taiwan cite the example of the European common market. But European integration has come about because each member country is willing to participate in various mechanisms that are based on decisions made by parliament or that are arrived at through referendums.
Most important , no matter how big or small the country is, every member is treated equally. Documents in the EU are prepared in every country's language.
There is no such thing as a big country's vote outweighing that of a small country.
The successful integration of Europe is based on member countries' negotiating patiently on an equal basis. Therefore, only when China treats Taiwan equally and obtains Taiwan's consent can the two sides talk about a common market. It is very wrong of some people in Taiwan to advocate for a common market while attacking our own government. They simply attack the wrong target.
Lu Shih-xiang is chief executive officer of the Foundation for the Advancement of Media Excellence and a member of the Taipei Society.
Translated by Jennie Shih
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
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry