Straits Exchange Foundation Chairman Chiang Pin-kung (江丙坤) said recently that dependence on China is not a bad thing and what should really worry us is that China might not allow Taiwan to depend on it. As irritating as this statement may be, it exposes the focus of the government’s policies: a determination to depend on China in the hope of gaining economic benefits.
In the past, dependency theory was used by the political left to describe how imperialism relied on a core-periphery relationship of exploitation and economic colonization.
The theory was used to explain why third world countries remained in poverty: The higher the periphery’s dependency on the core, the tighter the core’s control over the periphery.
A semi-periphery was later added to the theory to explain how the four Asian Tigers could be dependent yet able to develop, a relationship that was termed “dependent development.”
This meant that the four Asian economies were economically and politically dependent on the US, but managed to develop economically because they benefited from the periphery that also depended on the US.
Dependency theory was swept away by the waves of globalization, as previously anti-imperialist states like the Soviet Union, China and India either collapsed or turned to capitalism.
Together with Brazil, these countries, referred to as BRIC, turned into opportunists led by the principles of international capitalism.
The theory of a core-periphery relationship became insufficient to explain the significant changes that were observed in economic fortunes.
The only nation that still swears by anti-imperialism and now and then test-shoots its missiles against its neighbors, North Korea, is a different variation on leftism.
It is therefore surprising to suddenly hear someone singing the praises of dependent development for Taiwan, although the core that we are supposed to cling to now is not the US or Japan, but rising Chinese imperialism.
The government has no shortage of compradors ready to act as brokers between the core and the periphery.
It seems to be quite an easy task and they claim to be working to save the nation’s economy, which makes it almost impossible to condemn their efforts.
Furthermore, Guangdong Province’s gross regional product surpassed Taiwan’s gross national product several years ago, while Jiangsu and Shandong provinces did so last year and Zhejiang Province is expected to catch up with Taiwan this year.
This illustrates that the nation’s economic position is deteriorating.
The Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics’ recent prediction that GDP will shrink this year confirms negative market expectations and strengthens the public’s sense of economic marginalization.
This atmosphere is a hotbed for proponents of a new dependency theory.
The results of the government’s agenda can already be seen.
Public debate about whether to pursue de jure independence is no longer on the political agenda.
If the public raises concerns about a Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement, it can always be labeled as something else. The point is, the train is about to leave the station and it won’t stop before its dark destination.
Hsu Yung-ming is an assistant professor of political science at Soochow University.
TRANSLATED BY PERRY SVENSSON
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Former minister of culture Lung Ying-tai (龍應台) has long wielded influence through the power of words. Her articles once served as a moral compass for a society in transition. However, as her April 1 guest article in the New York Times, “The Clock Is Ticking for Taiwan,” makes all too clear, even celebrated prose can mislead when romanticism clouds political judgement. Lung crafts a narrative that is less an analysis of Taiwan’s geopolitical reality than an exercise in wistful nostalgia. As political scientists and international relations academics, we believe it is crucial to correct the misconceptions embedded in her article,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
RSS