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
Jan. 1 marks a decade since China repealed its one-child policy. Just 10 days before, Peng Peiyun (彭珮雲), who long oversaw the often-brutal enforcement of China’s family-planning rules, died at the age of 96, having never been held accountable for her actions. Obituaries praised Peng for being “reform-minded,” even though, in practice, she only perpetuated an utterly inhumane policy, whose consequences have barely begun to materialize. It was Vice Premier Chen Muhua (陳慕華) who first proposed the one-child policy in 1979, with the endorsement of China’s then-top leaders, Chen Yun (陳雲) and Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平), as a means of avoiding the
The last foreign delegation Nicolas Maduro met before he went to bed Friday night (January 2) was led by China’s top Latin America diplomat. “I had a pleasant meeting with Qiu Xiaoqi (邱小琪), Special Envoy of President Xi Jinping (習近平),” Venezuela’s soon-to-be ex-president tweeted on Telegram, “and we reaffirmed our commitment to the strategic relationship that is progressing and strengthening in various areas for building a multipolar world of development and peace.” Judging by how minutely the Central Intelligence Agency was monitoring Maduro’s every move on Friday, President Trump himself was certainly aware of Maduro’s felicitations to his Chinese guest. Just
A recent piece of international news has drawn surprisingly little attention, yet it deserves far closer scrutiny. German industrial heavyweight Siemens Mobility has reportedly outmaneuvered long-entrenched Chinese competitors in Southeast Asian infrastructure to secure a strategic partnership with Vietnam’s largest private conglomerate, Vingroup. The agreement positions Siemens to participate in the construction of a high-speed rail link between Hanoi and Ha Long Bay. German media were blunt in their assessment: This was not merely a commercial win, but has symbolic significance in “reshaping geopolitical influence.” At first glance, this might look like a routine outcome of corporate bidding. However, placed in
China often describes itself as the natural leader of the global south: a power that respects sovereignty, rejects coercion and offers developing countries an alternative to Western pressure. For years, Venezuela was held up — implicitly and sometimes explicitly — as proof that this model worked. Today, Venezuela is exposing the limits of that claim. Beijing’s response to the latest crisis in Venezuela has been striking not only for its content, but for its tone. Chinese officials have abandoned their usual restrained diplomatic phrasing and adopted language that is unusually direct by Beijing’s standards. The Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs described the
RSS