A world of free-trade agreements (FTA) will open to Taiwan and the nation will enjoy greater international space if it just signs an economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA) with China. At least, that’s the pipe dream the government is trying to sell.
Here’s a reality check: The government will only be pursuing FTAs with countries that have already inked FTAs with China.
This is the impression President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) gave when he said, according to a report in the China Times on Jan. 12: “As long as other nations have already signed FTAs with the mainland, Beijing will have no objections if these countries wish to discuss similar deals with Taiwan.”
China’s acceptance is apparently key — this is not the same as allowing Taiwan more international space. On the contrary, it seems to reduce Taiwan to a province of China.
Thus, this policy fits well with the grand strategy of unification. The time is simply not ripe yet for unification, the KMT says. Nevertheless the government seems to be headed unfalteringly in this direction and hoping that time is on its side.
The consequences of a China-leaning FTA policy will not only hurt Taiwan’s sovereignty, but also its economic development. International experience shows that the most effective economic integration is done between countries at an equal development stage. An FTA between Taiwan and the EU, for example, would benefit both parties.
Taiwan would be able to improve its already competitive services in the finance, business and engineering sectors, while the EU would benefit from technological cooperation.
This would advance Taiwan’s knowledge economy.
Danish consultancy firm Copenhagen Economics estimates that an FTA would generate 20 billion euros (US$28 billion) over 10 years for the EU, while Taiwan’s GDP would grow 1.2 percent.
China trails Taiwan in industrial sophistication, so linking Taiwan’s economic freedom to FTA agreements China has signed with other countries would not necessarily advance the competitiveness of Taiwanese industries.
China and the EU have no FTA, and therefore, Taiwan would not be allowed to enter into negotiations with the EU. Nor does it help that the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) seems rather uninterested in the EU. This, despite South Korea’s recent FTA with the EU and the announcement that Singapore and the EU agreed to start negotiations on an FTA.
This KMT policy will exacerbate Taiwan’s isolation and its disappearance into a coming cross-strait market envisioned by the KMT, which will easily become a Greater China Market including China, Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan.
This will be a “one country, four systems” model.
Taiwan will not be able to escape this fate if it signs an unstrategic agreement bound by Chinese tunnel vision.
An ECFA with China is not necessarily a bad idea, but it all depends on the content and the room for maneuver that it leaves Taiwan in terms of seeking deals with other countries.
There are countless reasons to be pragmatic when dealing with China. There is no reason to be irresponsible and short-sighted.
The 2012 presidential election will not only concern economic and political integration with China but also the nation’s international status and democratic future.
Taiwan’s democracy would not survive political integration with China.
Michael Danielsen is the chairman of Taiwan Corner.
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