Since the turn of the 21st century, Hong Kong and Taiwan have both worried about becoming economically marginalized.
In fact, marginalization worries have a long history in Hong Kong and Taiwan, although such worries previously centered on becoming culturally marginalized.
Around the turn of the century, China's booming economy helped the nation rise on the world scene, and in the late 1990s, Beijing started actively to push for the formulation of the ASEAN-plus-one free trade zone.
This idea was then expounded in many of Taiwan's mainstream economic policies.
At present, ASEAN cooperation is primarily focused on economic matters and the organization hopes to establish an independent economy.
However, ASEAN has faced considerable difficulty in implementing this idea as a result of the restrictions that are imposed by the global division of labor.
In 2003, intra-ASEAN trade was valued at US$176 billion, accounting for 22.2 percent of ASEAN's total foreign trade -- a total basically unchanged since 1997.
ASEAN trade with China only accounted for 7 percent of total ASEAN external trade, while the bloc's trade with Japan was 14.2 percent, the EU 13 percent, the US 9.5 percent and Taiwan 4.4 percent.
Looking at ASEAN-bound investment, the EU has been the biggest contributor, investing a total of US$6 billion in 2003, followed by the US with US$2.2 billion and Japan with US$1.3 billion, while China merely invested US$10 million.
Taiwan invested US$300 million in ASEAN, 30 times more than China, while South Korea invested US$250 million.
These statistics present the following image: From a global perspective, the EU and Japan are ASEAN's most important sources of capital, trade and technology.
In East Asia, Japan and Taiwan take the lead and South Korea and ASEAN pull up the flanks, while China brings up the rear.
This structure implies that whether upstream, midstream or dowstream, Japan, Taiwan, ASEAN and possibly even South Korea's industries are becoming more integrated, while ASEAN and China and possibly even individual ASEAN member states are competitors.
Since this is the case, Taiwan and ASEAN's industries enjoy a complementary relationship as do China and Taiwan's industries.
Replacement of Taiwanese products is therefore not a very serious problem.
Compare this to the internal situations in ASEAN and China. Each member state of ASEAN is obliged to join an intra-regional free trade agreement, which is no easy task.
In China, regional and provincial "fiefdom economies" persist, such that domestic integration is patchy at best.
Taiwan's mainstream policy position -- as represented by former premier Vincent Siew (蕭萬長) -- holds that Taiwan's economy would become marginalized if China and ASEAN were to more tightly integrate their economies.
I find such an idea really odd. Taiwan is indeed suffering from a "marginalization fear complex," but what we should really be worrying about more is marginalization in the diplomatic and political spheres.
It is only normal to struggle and compete in the process of economic development, but fears of economic estrangement are both unfounded and also unnecessary.
That could lead to a loss of confidence, and that's when we really need to start worrying about being marginalized.
Lin Cho-shui is a Democratic Progressive Party legislator.
Translated by Daniel Cheng
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers