In recent weeks, the government has begun to resemble a snake oil salesman in its frantic efforts to promote a so-called panacea for Taiwan’s economy — an economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA) that it is determined to sign with China.
In the months since the agreement was floated, the government has used a number of tactics to promote the pact, including an ethnically stereotyped cartoon, sleep-inducing public forums and, more recently, talk of enlisting the help of a thug politician to preach the ECFA gospel to a population that remains unconvinced.
The most successful tactic, however, appears to be repetition of the notion that following the signing of an ECFA, China will be willing to let Taiwan sign free-trade agreements with other countries.
As the adage goes: “Repeat a lie a thousand times” and eventually someone will start to believe.
One individual who seems to be unaware of this ruse is US-Taiwan Business Council president Rupert Hammond-Chambers, who this week said the signing of an ECFA “would dramatically reduce the ability of the Chinese to oppose Taiwan making other regional agreements.”
It would be interesting to know what the reasoning behind Hammond-Chambers’ statement was, because so far there is not a shred of evidence to support that claim.
At no point since an ECFA was first mentioned has a Chinese official said that Beijing would stop blocking Taiwan’s efforts to sign trade pacts with other nations. In fact, the opposite is more likely true; countless Chinese officials have gone on record saying that an ECFA is one more step toward unification.
It is hard to believe that China will acquiesce to such a request from Taipei when Beijing continues to block attempts by Taiwan to join UN special agencies. Last month in Copenhagen, a Chinese delegate openly opposed Taiwan’s participation as an observer in the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, citing the “one China” principle.
Even in the international bodies in which China grudgingly tolerates Taiwan’s presence, such as the WTO and the World Bank, Taiwan fights a constant battle to block efforts by Chinese officials to downgrade its status.
If any reminder is needed about China’s intentions, one only need refer to a recent e-mail sent by World Bank vice president and corporate secretary Kristalina Georgieva, who reminded her colleagues that because China is a member of the bank’s institutions, “Taiwan, China” must be used “on all occasions.”
In fact, the sole crumb of Chinese “goodwill” that has succored President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) during the 20 months of his administration was the shady, underhanded deal that resulted in Taipei’s participation in last year’s WHA, details of which have never been released.
Come May, China may well sign an ECFA and Taiwan may well claim that the deal adheres to the “WTO framework.” You can rest assured, however, that Beijing will not allow any language into the agreement that infers Taiwanese statehood. Once signed, it will be back to business for Beijing, belittling Taiwan at every opportunity.
Only then will those who believed Ma’s claims that Beijing would have a change of heart will come to realize that they, too, have been taken in by the biggest snake oil salesman of them all.
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS