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
Jaw Shaw-kong (趙少康), former chairman of Broadcasting Corp of China and leader of the “blue fighters,” recently announced that he had canned his trip to east Africa, and he would stay in Taiwan for the recall vote on Saturday. He added that he hoped “his friends in the blue camp would follow his lead.” His statement is quite interesting for a few reasons. Jaw had been criticized following media reports that he would be traveling in east Africa during the recall vote. While he decided to stay in Taiwan after drawing a lot of flak, his hesitation says it all: If
When Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) caucus whip Ker Chien-ming (柯建銘) first suggested a mass recall of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators, the Taipei Times called the idea “not only absurd, but also deeply undemocratic” (“Lai’s speech and legislative chaos,” Jan. 6, page 8). In a subsequent editorial (“Recall chaos plays into KMT hands,” Jan. 9, page 8), the paper wrote that his suggestion was not a solution, and that if it failed, it would exacerbate the enmity between the parties and lead to a cascade of revenge recalls. The danger came from having the DPP orchestrate a mass recall. As it transpired,
Elbridge Colby, America’s Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, is the most influential voice on defense strategy in the Second Trump Administration. For insight into his thinking, one could do no better than read his thoughts on the defense of Taiwan which he gathered in a book he wrote in 2021. The Strategy of Denial, is his contemplation of China’s rising hegemony in Asia and on how to deter China from invading Taiwan. Allowing China to absorb Taiwan, he wrote, would open the entire Indo-Pacific region to Chinese preeminence and result in a power transition that would place America’s prosperity
All 24 Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers and suspended Hsinchu Mayor Ann Kao (高虹安), formerly of the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), survived recall elections against them on Saturday, in a massive loss to the unprecedented mass recall movement, as well as to the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) that backed it. The outcome has surprised many, as most analysts expected that at least a few legislators would be ousted. Over the past few months, dedicated and passionate civic groups gathered more than 1 million signatures to recall KMT lawmakers, an extraordinary achievement that many believed would be enough to remove at
RSS