On March 22, many people attended a forum held by Taiwan Thinktank in Kaohsiung City. They chose to participate in the event because they were worried about the “economic cooperation framework agreement” (ECFA) that President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) government is about to sign with China and the severe economic downturn and loss of political autonomy that Taiwan could suffer as a result.
From an economic perspective, any form of integration may trigger a decline in autonomy, especially when the economic scale of the two nations in question differ greatly. This is the exact reason why the UK is unwilling to join the “Eurozone.” Despite this, London remains the world’s biggest financial center.
After they both signed a Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA) with China, the economies of Hong Kong and Macau seemed to prosper. What actually happened is that they lost their autonomy after they were made to rely on China’s economy. Last July Macau’s gaming stocks fell by 20 percent when Beijing announced tighter visa policies and tens of thousands of Macanese lost their jobs. This is a prime example of the dangers of signing economic agreements with China.
From a political perspective, if we were to lose our economic autonomy, the next step would be the formation of a politically based “one-China market.” In the face of much opposition from within Taiwan, the government has repeatedly reaffirmed that an “ECFA is a purely economic issue that involves neither politics nor sovereignty.”
The government has also emphasized that “we will open up our economy in whatever way is beneficial to us and not open up those parts that will be unbeneficial to us.” But academic theories and mounting evidence show that an ECFA is more than a purely economic issue it has deep political connotations.
Politics will always be a factor when a country establishes closer economic ties with another nation. For example, the first free trade agreement the US ever signed was signed with Israel, a country that has contributed little to the US economy. This shows that the US signed this agreement for political, not economic reasons.
Research gained from computable general equilibrium models shows China’s industries and overall exports will be negatively affected after signing an ECFA with Taiwan, so why is China still willing to do so? Obviously, China’s real goal is to use economics and trade to expedite unification.
I am not against Taiwan carrying out economic integration with other countries or areas. However, we need to make sure that things are equal and fair between both parties of any agreement. Taiwan’s biggest problem now is that it is overly reliant on China and it is simply too risky to put all our eggs in one basket. As soon as an ECFA is signed, more of Taiwan’s industries will move to China, where costs are lower. Once we become reliant on China, Beijng will be able to simply pull the plug on our economy to “punish” us if they hear any “rhetoric” from Taiwan that upsets them.
We cannot rely on China, which is a country with lower wage levels than us, to help develop our economy in the long-term. If we do rely on China and develop even closer relations with it, wages in Taiwan will drop and unemployment will rise rapidly. We will become increasingly entwined in Chinese politics. Once this happens, what will we have left to pass on to future generations?
Wu Rong-i is a board member at Taiwan Thinktank and a former vice premier.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG AND DREW CAMERON
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS