The fourth meeting between Straits Exchange Foundation (SEF) Chairman Chiang Pin-kung (江丙坤) and Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait (ARATS) Chairman Chen Yunlin (陳雲林) focused on four issues: cooperation on standardizing inspections and certification; quarantine and inspection of agricultural products; avoidance of double taxation and cooperation on fishery labor affairs. These issues, in addition to the memorandum of understanding on financial supervision and management, as well as the opening up of Chinese investment in Taiwan, were designed to establish a single China market with the ultimate goal of unification.
President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration claims these agreements simply promote the economy and prevent Taiwan from being marginalized. It says there is no political element to the proposed economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA). It is, however, trying to hoodwink the public under the rubric of maintaining a separation of politics and economics.
History tells us that there is no such thing as a separation of politics and economics. We have seen repeated instances of wars fought for economic interests: the Opium War, the Sino-Japanese War, the clashes between eight European powers and the Qing Dynasty in the 19th century, and, more recently, the US-led invasion of Iraq. Any given economic policy is inherently political.
Beijing’s insistence on setting its “one China” policy as a precondition for negotiations is an example of politics leading economics. You only have to listen to Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤), Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao (溫家寶) and other Chinese officials to see the similarities between the ECFA and the closer economic partnership agreements China signed with Hong Kong and Macau. Both were economic cooperation arrangements with the precondition of acknowledging the “one China” policy.
The aim is to incorporate Taiwan within the single China market. Beijing is trying to make Taiwan’s economy inextricably meshed with its own, with the ultimate political objective of being able to absorb Taiwan without a single shot being fired.
Ma’s basic position is this: Taiwan has to be more competitive, given the trend toward globalization and fierce international competition, and its best bet is cooperation with China. His idea is to benefit from a division of labor, whereby research and development is carried out in Taiwan but the manufacturing is done in China. To this end, he wants to see Taiwan open up to China, and to concentrate on China for both investment and exports.
Estimates published in the May 9 edition of The Economist showed Taiwan has already invested some US$400 billion in China. More than 80 percent of Taiwan’s investment overseas is in China. Taiwan, therefore, is well on the way to becoming overly dependent on China, economically speaking, and at risk of coming under its control.
The folly of not distinguishing friend from foe, and in fact allowing oneself to become economically reliant on the latter, is exposing Taiwan to serious danger.
Taiwanese investment in China is contributing to the rapid growth in China’s economy, providing it with both capital and technology. This is fueling the rapid modernization of China’s armed forces and helping it build a military empire. China has 1,400 missiles aimed at Taiwan, posing a serious risk to Taiwan’s survival.
This is the result of the policy of not distinguishing friend from foe, and a catastrophe in the making born of the pretence of the separation of economics and politics. When will the Taiwanese wake up?
Wang To-far is a professor of economics at National Taipei University.
TRANSLATED BY PAUL COOPER
A response to my article (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” Aug. 12, page 8) mischaracterizes my arguments, as well as a speech by former British prime minister Boris Johnson at the Ketagalan Forum in Taipei early last month. Tseng Yueh-ying (曾月英) in the response (“A misreading of Johnson’s speech,” Aug. 24, page 8) does not dispute that Johnson referred repeatedly to Taiwan as “a segment of the Chinese population,” but asserts that the phrase challenged Beijing by questioning whether parts of “the Chinese population” could be “differently Chinese.” This is essentially a confirmation of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formulation, which says that
Media said that several pan-blue figures — among them former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) chairwoman Hung Hsiu-chu (洪秀柱), former KMT legislator Lee De-wei (李德維), former KMT Central Committee member Vincent Hsu (徐正文), New Party Chairman Wu Cheng-tien (吳成典), former New Party legislator Chou chuan (周荃) and New Party Deputy Secretary-General You Chih-pin (游智彬) — yesterday attended the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) military parade commemorating the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II. China’s Xinhua news agency reported that foreign leaders were present alongside Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), such as Russian President Vladimir Putin, North Korean leader Kim
Taiwan stands at the epicenter of a seismic shift that will determine the Indo-Pacific’s future security architecture. Whether deterrence prevails or collapses will reverberate far beyond the Taiwan Strait, fundamentally reshaping global power dynamics. The stakes could not be higher. Today, Taipei confronts an unprecedented convergence of threats from an increasingly muscular China that has intensified its multidimensional pressure campaign. Beijing’s strategy is comprehensive: military intimidation, diplomatic isolation, economic coercion, and sophisticated influence operations designed to fracture Taiwan’s democratic society from within. This challenge is magnified by Taiwan’s internal political divisions, which extend to fundamental questions about the island’s identity and future
Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) Chairman Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌) is expected to be summoned by the Taipei City Police Department after a rally in Taipei on Saturday last week resulted in injuries to eight police officers. The Ministry of the Interior on Sunday said that police had collected evidence of obstruction of public officials and coercion by an estimated 1,000 “disorderly” demonstrators. The rally — led by Huang to mark one year since a raid by Taipei prosecutors on then-TPP chairman and former Taipei mayor Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) — might have contravened the Assembly and Parade Act (集會遊行法), as the organizers had