There have always been many different opinions regarding how cross-strait trade relations should be defined and constructed. Whether one promotes opening up or continued restrictions on cross-strait trade, this has always been a major issue in Taiwan.
In this presidential election, with Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) candidates Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and Vincent Siew (蕭萬長) proposing a "cross-strait common market," the issue has again become the mainstay of debate between the pan-blue and pan-green camps.
Yet because election discourse often oversimplifies issues, the two sides have not been able to clarify their stances so the public can form an opinion on the differences between their views on the cross-strait trade relationship.
What is a "common market?" A common market is arrived at through a process of negotiations and adjustments, whereupon the two sides establish a customs union and implement a unified foreign trade policy on the basis of equality and mutual benefit.
In principle, human resources, capital, labor and products flow freely within a common market. Of course, all these changes cannot be achieved in one fell swoop. Preferential trade agreements, free-trade agreements (FTA) and customs unions that offer a lower degree of economic integration are required for a gradual evolution to the more advanced common market, a process that requires longwinded negotiations and adjustments.
Socially and economically, more competitive and mobile individuals or businesses stand to gain most from this process; conversely, less competitive and disadvantaged groups tend to suffer the greatest harm.
The most important aspect of the establishment of a common market is the process of gradual negotiation and adjustment to allow full economic integration between the parties. For instance, the creation of the EU, starting from the European Steel and Coal Community, required more than 50 years of hard work, whereas ASEAN is just stepping into the FTA phase, and only expects to reach the initial targets of a common market by 2015 at the earliest.
Looking at the cross-strait situation, however, even normal mutually beneficial and equal economic relations are still lacking. Any suggestion of an immediate establishment of a common market is quite unrealistic.
Besides, another characteristic of common markets is the principle of equality and mutual benefit, including the free exchange of human resources, capital, labor and products.
Following attacks from the pan-green camp over the damage a common market could do to disadvantaged groups in Taiwan, including laborers and agricultural workers, Ma and Siew have not only altered their stance on recognition of Chinese education qualifications but have even gone to the trouble of elaborately explaining how a "cross-strait common market" would not allow for the import of Chinese labor and agricultural products. These claims are contradictory to the idea of a common market, and do not even comply with WTO regulations.
Realistically speaking, appropriate allowance for Taiwanese holders of Chinese degrees to take examinations for Taiwanese qualifications, and opening Taiwan to skilled Chinese manpower and non-competitive agricultural products, are likely to be unavoidable trends.
Liberalization and globalization are unstoppable and Taiwan is a beneficiary. Opening is the reasonable course. How the impact on non-competitive industries, laborers and farmers can be reduced should be the focus of public concern. I would very much like to hear what Siew has to say.
Lee Wen-chung is a former DPP legislator.
Translated by Angela Hong
Jaw Shaw-kong (趙少康), former chairman of Broadcasting Corp of China and leader of the “blue fighters,” recently announced that he had canned his trip to east Africa, and he would stay in Taiwan for the recall vote on Saturday. He added that he hoped “his friends in the blue camp would follow his lead.” His statement is quite interesting for a few reasons. Jaw had been criticized following media reports that he would be traveling in east Africa during the recall vote. While he decided to stay in Taiwan after drawing a lot of flak, his hesitation says it all: If
When Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) caucus whip Ker Chien-ming (柯建銘) first suggested a mass recall of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators, the Taipei Times called the idea “not only absurd, but also deeply undemocratic” (“Lai’s speech and legislative chaos,” Jan. 6, page 8). In a subsequent editorial (“Recall chaos plays into KMT hands,” Jan. 9, page 8), the paper wrote that his suggestion was not a solution, and that if it failed, it would exacerbate the enmity between the parties and lead to a cascade of revenge recalls. The danger came from having the DPP orchestrate a mass recall. As it transpired,
Elbridge Colby, America’s Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, is the most influential voice on defense strategy in the Second Trump Administration. For insight into his thinking, one could do no better than read his thoughts on the defense of Taiwan which he gathered in a book he wrote in 2021. The Strategy of Denial, is his contemplation of China’s rising hegemony in Asia and on how to deter China from invading Taiwan. Allowing China to absorb Taiwan, he wrote, would open the entire Indo-Pacific region to Chinese preeminence and result in a power transition that would place America’s prosperity
All 24 Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers and suspended Hsinchu Mayor Ann Kao (高虹安), formerly of the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), survived recall elections against them on Saturday, in a massive loss to the unprecedented mass recall movement, as well as to the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) that backed it. The outcome has surprised many, as most analysts expected that at least a few legislators would be ousted. Over the past few months, dedicated and passionate civic groups gathered more than 1 million signatures to recall KMT lawmakers, an extraordinary achievement that many believed would be enough to remove at
RSS