In theory, globalization is a process that leads to prosperity and enhances the quality of life for all human beings. However, there are people who consider globalization to be a scheme used by developed countries to further exploit valuable resources from developing countries. Some people believe that globalization is nothing more than an excuse for those fully developed and insatiable countries to sustain their dominance in the global arena.
There used to be a widely accepted belief that globalization helped developing countries develop and flourish. This was a popular view during the 1980s and early 1990s. However, since the beginning of the 1990s, an opposite opinion has been strongly expressed: that globalization could be more harmful than beneficial for some developing countries.
Differences in opinion between promoters and opponents of globalization have generated significant conflict throughout the world. However, the animosity between developing and developed countries has been replaced by tensions between the different sectors that benefit from globalization and those that are disadvantaged. This was evident at the WTO ministerial conference held in Hong Kong last month.
Regardless of these two very different views, it is certain that globalization is an irreversible and inevitable trend that we will all have to deal with sooner or later.
Protesters who represent or empathize with disadvantaged sectors come from both developing and developed countries, including Taiwan.
These protesters have been striving to stop the process of globalization. Their main target is the organization widely recognized as the catalyst for promoting globalization, the WTO. Protesters equate opposing globalization with opposing the world trade body.
WTO negotiation rounds can result in the alteration of international and national economic structures. There are fears then that changed economic structures could lead to a reallocation of limited resources, and that such reallocation will have a negative impact on a number of vulnerable economic sectors, such as agriculture.
WTO protesters advocating the protection of vulnerable sectors used all means possible to oppose the negotiation process in Hong Kong.
Is opposing the WTO the only way to protect vulnerable or disadvantaged sectors? The answer is no. There are other more practical mechanisms which are feasible and could be more effective.
Before its entry into the WTO in 2002, Taiwan had been a member of the Pacific Economic Cooperation Council (PECC) since 1986. It also joined the APEC forum in 1991.
PECC is a semi-official organization founded in 1980. It comprises tripartite representatives from business, government and academic circles of 25 member economies in the Asia-Pacific region. PECC's agenda is aimed at improving cooperation and policy coordination in all economic areas, including trade and finance. Its goal is to promote economic development and cooperation among Asia-Pacific countries.
In contrast, APEC is an intergovernmental organization founded in 1989. Its purpose is to promote free trade and economic cooperation within the same region. APEC organizes events that bring together leaders and senior officials from 21 member economies to exchange views every year.
Thanks to its governmental endorsement, APEC has dominated the PECC since its formation. PECC has therefore lost its competitiveness. It has transformed its role from a competitor to a partner of APEC. PECC has become an APEC think tank, and now terms itself the "APEC second track."
PECC has carried out a number of APEC projects and this relationship has been a positive development for PECC's own growth.
It also holds a seat as an observer in APEC ministerial meetings. APEC is a non-binding group, indicating that there are no regulations to enforce trade and economic commitments, while APEC has a caucus operating during WTO gatherings.
In short, PECC acts as a communication channel to APEC, while APEC has a platform to make statements within the WTO.
Instead of solely pursuing trade liberalization like the WTO, PECC and APEC also aim at achieving economic cooperation. The purpose of economic cooperation is to provide opportunities for vulnerable or disadvantaged sectors.
Activists concerned about these sectors could consider taking an alternative route by using a route connecting PECC and APEC with WTO.
Proposals to strengthen cooperation among sectors can be initiated by PECC and proposed to APEC. After a consensus is reached at APEC, the proposal could then be submitted to the WTO for its consideration.
This shortcut connecting PECC to APEC and the WTO can avoid bloodshed and irrational protest.
A more active participation in PECC and APEC could shed some light on the difficult anomaly of globalization versus anti-globalization.
Let us use American football as a metaphor.
PECC would be like a coach who provides strategies to help guide quarterbacks in launching successful offenses. APEC would act as a quarterback passing the ball to the WTO to score a touchdown.
Darson Chiu is an associate research fellow at the Taiwan Institute of Economic Research.
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.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing