In an interview on Thursday, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) repeated his intention to push through an economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA) with China, insisting that it was the only way for Taiwan’s economy to remain competitive as regional trade pacts excluding Taiwan kick in.
However, the government has done an extremely poor job of explaining how an ECFA would benefit the public, largely because Taipei and Beijing have yet to work out the details of the proposed pact.
Since, by Ma’s own admission, no official talks have taken place and China’s position on the finer points of the pact is unknown, the rosy predictions of the benefits of such a pact made by institutions such as the Chung-Hua Institution for Economic Research seem a little far-fetched.
Another problem is that those who oppose an ECFA have not put forward a viable alternative. The truth is that apart from organizing a campaign for a referendum on the signing of an ECFA, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) has said little or nothing about what else would work.
Criticizing the ECFA is one thing, but if the opposition cannot come up with a credible new policy for people to scrutinize, then those who don’t support the pact have nothing with which to counter the government’s ECFA propaganda.
China’s growing economic and diplomatic might, its position relative to Taiwan and the history between the two mean that it cannot be ignored.
Instead of burying its head in the sand and hoping that China will go away, the opposition needs to present a way of dealing with China economically and politically that will uphold Taiwan’s interests and sovereignty.
As a former chairwoman of the Mainland Affairs Council, WTO negotiator, policy adviser to the Ministry of Economic Affairs and an expert in international economics, business law and treaties, DPP Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) should be the ideal candidate. So far, however, all Tsai has done is demand transparency during the ECFA negotiation process and repeat that the DPP opposes any treaty signed under the “one China” framework.
What she really needs to do is present a practical alternative, one that would leave no doubt about the issue of sovereignty, such as a deal signed between Taiwan and China under the auspices of the WTO.
The DPP — because of the small number of seats it holds in the legislature — has resorted to “scorched earth” tactics, such as boycotts when opposing government policies that would allow Chinese students to study in Taiwan. However, if the DPP carries on with such tactics and continues to oppose the government’s proposals for the sake of opposition — reminiscent of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) actions during its time out of power — the party could lose the credibility that it still holds in the eyes of moderate voters.
The DPP needs to come up with a counter to the KMT’s “China-centric approach” and get it out into the public domain fast before the momentum of cross-strait rapprochement becomes too great and the DPP starts to fade into obscurity.
A gap appears to be emerging between Washington’s foreign policy elites and the broader American public on how the United States should respond to China’s rise. From my vantage working at a think tank in Washington, DC, and through regular travel around the United States, I increasingly experience two distinct discussions. This divergence — between America’s elite hawkishness and public caution — may become one of the least appreciated and most consequential external factors influencing Taiwan’s security environment in the years ahead. Within the American policy community, the dominant view of China has grown unmistakably tough. Many members of Congress, as
The shifting geopolitical tectonic plates of this year have placed Beijing in a profound strategic dilemma. As Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) prepares for a high-stakes summit with US President Donald Trump, the traditional power dynamics of the China-Japan-US triangle have been destabilized by the diplomatic success of Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi in Washington. For the Chinese leadership, the anxiety is two-fold: There is a visceral fear of being encircled by a hardened security alliance, and a secondary risk of being left in a vulnerable position by a transactional deal between Washington and Tokyo that might inadvertently empower Japan
After declaring Iran’s military “gone,” US President Donald Trump appealed to the UK, France, Japan and South Korea — as well as China, Iran’s strategic partner — to send minesweepers and naval forces to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. When allies balked, the request turned into a warning: NATO would face “a very bad” future if it refused. The prevailing wisdom is that Trump faces a credibility problem: having spent years insulting allies, he finds they would not rally when he needs them. That is true, but superficial, as though a structural collapse could be caused by wounded feelings. Something
Former Taipei mayor and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) founding chairman Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) was sentenced to 17 years in prison on Thursday, making headlines across major media. However, another case linked to the TPP — the indictment of Chinese immigrant Xu Chunying (徐春鶯) for alleged violations of the Anti-Infiltration Act (反滲透法) on Tuesday — has also stirred up heated discussions. Born in Shanghai, Xu became a resident of Taiwan through marriage in 1993. Currently the director of the Taiwan New Immigrant Development Association, she was elected to serve as legislator-at-large for the TPP in 2023, but was later charged with involvement
RSS