In the era of globalization, all nations in the world -- including Taiwan -- are confronted by the same predicament: how to strike a balance between the trend of globalization and the need for a localized awareness. In Taiwan, this much-needed debate has turned into just another battleground for pro-independence and pro-unification forces. As a result, the nation's path to globalization has been a narrow one, and globalization is being equated with Sinicization and the belief that Taiwan cannot exist without the China market.
But interpreting localization through a nationalist lens only creates obstacles and restricts government policy. For Taiwan, globalization does not in fact amount to Sinicization. The goal of localization is simply to safeguard the nation's autonomy in the face of the overwhelming forces of global capitalism.
At the recent WTO summit in Hong Kong, participants agreed that globalization has not brought benefits to all people -- an outcome that economists, businesspeople and financial regulators had so confidently predicted.
According to the most recent annual Progress Report by the Director of the UN Research Institute for Social Development, over the past 20 years, 53 of the 73 nations studied (or 80 percent of the total population of those nations) experienced a widening income gap between the rich and the poor. This phenomenon was seen in nations with rapid economic growth, such as China, and also in nations with sluggish economies, such as Bolivia. Which leads to the question: who is the real beneficiary of globalization?
In Taiwan, discussions about globalization often focus solely on the issue of Sinicization. Commentators often arrive at the following four conclusions: without bilateral trade with China, Taiwan would show a trade deficit; without investment cooperation with China, Taiwanese businesses would lose market opportunities and fail to keep ahead of business rivals from other nations; actively opening cross-strait economic links is the only way to achieve a win-win situation; and failing to establish the three direct cross-strait links runs counter to the spirit of globalization.
In the 1980s, the appreciation of the New Taiwan dollar and the increasing costs of land and labor were major factors that caused Taiwanese businesses to relocate to and invest in Southeast Asia.
In the end, such firms were able to become multinational companies. This investment in Southeast Asia didn't result in lost market advantages. By the same token, China's more than 20 years of high economic growth does not make it the only nation that is growing rapidly. Vietnam has had a similar economic performance -- but does anyone argue that "without Vietnam, Taiwanese businesses would lose market opportunities?"
In the debate on globalization in Taiwan, participants also overlook important issues of politics and culture. But, in the effort to promote cross-strait economic exchanges, will all other aspects of globalization necessarily follow? Given the following examples, the answer is "no."
Canada's Quebec Province is tightly integrated economically with North America, but more than half of its residents still hope to win independence from the rest of the nation. In the past, Vietnam has chosen to safeguard its cultural industry rather than sign a "most-favored nation" treaty with the US. During the 1997 Asian financial crisis, Malaysia insisted on its own economic approach rather than follow the neoliberal advice of the International Monetary Fund. In other words, in the course of promoting globalization, each nation or region still has the ability to retain control over its own economic choices.
The many "localization" movements taking place across the world are rarely mentioned in Taiwan's globalization debates. This is driven by ideological motivations, which want the public to equate localization with nationalism or even Taiwan independence. This is the reason why the Taiwanese public cannot accept the fact that localization's goals do not contradict the goals of globalization.
If it is ridiculous to say that economic development independent of China will benefit Taiwan, then it is just as absurd to argue that integrating Taiwan and China's economies will not cause any harm to Taiwan. The demand of localization supporters is that in the process of globalizing, the nation should retain its grip on its distinct national identity. After all, globalization is an unfair game. Localization provides a point of departure in considering how to operate within the global economy while protecting Taiwan's autonomy and unique culture.
An Indian environmental activist once said that deforestation for the sake of planting cash crops is a sign of a dysfunctional community. Such behavior is common in nations where peoples' hearts and minds have been colonized by foreign forces. And if we continue to equate globalization with Sinicization, our nations will likely be overrun by just such a "cash-crop" mentality.
Wang Hong-zen is the dean of the Graduate School of Southeast Asian Studies at National Chi Nan University.
TRANSLATED BY LIN YA-TI
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
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
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath