Most international observers believe that the second "strategic economic dialogue" between the US and China failed to break new ground.
Aside from Chinese promises to increase flights to the US before 2012 and give US financial organizations a bit more leeway to operate in China, little was accomplished. The question of the yuan's exchange rate was not resolved, and little progress was made on providing US companies with greater access to Chinese markets. Sources in Washington said that discussions ended somewhat acrimoniously on both sides. This atmosphere has led many to believe that the chances of another meeting at the end of the year aren't good.
Nonetheless, there are several aspects of the conference worth considering.
First, the main point of the dialogue was to find ways to resolve US-China trade issues caused by a lack of transparency in China's economic structure. This is why the issues discussed included the yuan's exchange rate and market access. It also provided the US with a platform to raise "structural" issues with China.
Contrast this with the economic forum between the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Chinese Communist Party (CCP), which focused only on one thing -- securing more Taiwanese investment and technology in China. It failed to address structural problems in cross-strait economic and trade interaction, including intellectual property rights, international trademark registration and market transparency.
Despite the widely touted agreement on protection for Taiwanese investors, in the end, China's Taiwan Affairs Office used it to manipulate Taiwanese business associations, which were supposed to be independent. Taiwanese investors will not be protected by a full array of laws, but by cozying up to the government. More important, with a fine supporting performance by the KMT, the forum has become a platform for the CCP's unification campaign. In short, it's done nothing to resolve economic issues, but only added to Taiwan's political woes.
Second, US manufacturers have undoubtedly been hurt by China's mercantilist manipulation. Yet despite its size, the US has been unable to pressure China to open up its markets and promote economic transparency. Despite its own failure, the US is pressuring Taiwan to open up to China, saying this would go a long way toward helping Taiwan and US economic relations. The result of the most recent US-China dialogue shows that this argument is not very convincing.
Finally, China's actions at the US conference was hardly surprising. It reflected Beijing's fundamental unwillingness to address these structural problems. Nor are China's international trade disputes limited to the US. Witness its numerous trade conflicts with the EU, or reports that Australia is set to discontinue negotiations on a free-trade agreement with China after two years of frustrating talks.
Looking at China's economic and Taiwan policy from a global strategic perspective, the question is not how Taiwan should open up to China. The real issue is how to strengthen Taiwan's economy, as well as cooperation with the international community to urge China to open up its markets and make its economy more transparent. This would promote fair competition that would be beneficial to Taiwan and create a liberal economic environment free of China's political interference.
Resolving the structural issues in cross-strait trade is a more important objective than hoping China will buy more Taiwanese products, or that Taiwan will raise its China-bound investment limit.
Lai I-chung is the head of the Democratic Progressive Party's Department of Chinese Affairs.
Translated by Marc Langer
As the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its People’s Liberation Army (PLA) reach the point of confidence that they can start and win a war to destroy the democratic culture on Taiwan, any future decision to do so may likely be directly affected by the CCP’s ability to promote wars on the Korean Peninsula, in Europe, or, as most recently, on the Indian subcontinent. It stands to reason that the Trump Administration’s success early on May 10 to convince India and Pakistan to deescalate their four-day conventional military conflict, assessed to be close to a nuclear weapons exchange, also served to
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
After India’s punitive precision strikes targeting what New Delhi called nine terrorist sites inside Pakistan, reactions poured in from governments around the world. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) issued a statement on May 10, opposing terrorism and expressing concern about the growing tensions between India and Pakistan. The statement noticeably expressed support for the Indian government’s right to maintain its national security and act against terrorists. The ministry said that it “works closely with democratic partners worldwide in staunch opposition to international terrorism” and expressed “firm support for all legitimate and necessary actions taken by the government of India
The recent aerial clash between Pakistan and India offers a glimpse of how China is narrowing the gap in military airpower with the US. It is a warning not just for Washington, but for Taipei, too. Claims from both sides remain contested, but a broader picture is emerging among experts who track China’s air force and fighter jet development: Beijing’s defense systems are growing increasingly credible. Pakistan said its deployment of Chinese-manufactured J-10C fighters downed multiple Indian aircraft, although New Delhi denies this. There are caveats: Even if Islamabad’s claims are accurate, Beijing’s equipment does not offer a direct comparison
RSS