President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration justifies its obstinate pursuit of an economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA) with China by saying the Chinese market will be a gateway for Taiwanese manufacturers to global markets. One is reminded of Naomi Klein’s writings about how “disaster capitalism” has established itself through global free trade.
It is ironic that China’s economy has grown to its current size on the back of disaster capitalism, particularly since the Tiananmen Square Massacre in 1989.
Although the Tiananmen crackdown was widely condemned by the western world, Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平) used the state of shock in its aftermath to deepen the process of economic liberalization and open the door to foreign investment. With its favorable tariffs and cheap labor, China became the sweatshop of the world and a favorite target for Western investors.
Once its economic clout reached a certain level, China began plundering resources around the world in the name of trade liberalization. In Africa, China has taken advantage of political instability and poverty and fostered dictatorships to promote its interests — all in the name of “economic aid.”
Taiwan has been hit hard by the global financial crisis and our leaders will stick to their China-friendly policies come what may. In so doing, they have fallen into China’s disaster capitalism trap.
Since the advent of Chinese tourist groups, the tourism industry has been making more money. Yet the government failed to take into account the Chinese tourism sector’s integrated operations, in which one operator handles everything, from transport to food and accommodation. The turnover of any one Chinese travel agency is bigger than that of many Taiwanese agencies put together.
Taiwanese travel agencies gain limited benefits from Chinese tourists.
Moreover, China has tight control on the number of tourists coming over, which it can use as a bargaining chip.
Chinese investment is moving into the domestic tourism sector. For example, the online booking service ezTravel (易遊網) has seen the majority of its ownership bought by its biggest Chinese counterpart, Ctrip (攜程).
Chinese-owned firms could some day have a monopoly on Chinese tourists visiting Taiwan.
Although the proposed Taiwan-China memorandum of understanding (MOU) on financial supervision will advance the establishment of a cross-strait currency clearance mechanism and promote liberalization and transparency of financial transactions, the sheer size of China’s banks is overwhelming compared with Taiwan’s handful of financial holdings companies.
If financial markets are deregulated without supplementary measures, even the domestic life and property insurance sectors may be bought out. For example, Taiwan’s Nan Shan Life (南山人壽) could fall into the hands of China’s Primus Financial Holdings (博智).
If this happens, China will have a grip on all of the nation’s financial lifelines.
Meanwhile, makers of display panels and semiconductor wafers, which the government has promoted as key industries, have been moving facilities to China. This is likely to lead not just to capital outflows and higher unemployment, but to the transfer of core technologies. In the end, Taiwan’s high-tech industries will be undermined.
If an ECFA is signed, the result will follow the trend of the powerful gaining more power and the rich-poor gap widening. The end result of free trade is, Klein says, an even greater disaster for the public.
Wang Shih-wei is secretary-general of the Asia-Pacific Elite Interchange Association.
TRANSLATED BY JULIAN CLEGG
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS