The government likes to hold up the petrochemicals sector as the principal model industry in its propaganda about the economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA) it wants to ink with China, claiming that this sector stands to reap the greatest benefits once the agreement is signed.
The first hole in this argument is that the government’s claim that 500,000 people are unemployed in the petrochemicals sector is an exaggeration. To get that misleading figure, the government has thrown in many downstream and subsidiary processing industries willy-nilly. Second, according to available figures, the total value of Taiwan’s petrochemical product exports to China for 2008 was NT$674.4 billion (US$21.1 billion).
The Chinese market accounts for 64 percent of Taiwan’s total petrochemical exports — the highest proportion among all export product categories. In other words, Taiwan’s petrochemical industry is heavily dependent on exporting to China. In effect, Taiwan has long since become an offshore petrochemicals processing zone for China.
It would appear on the surface that, among all Taiwan’s plastics factories, the formation of ASEAN plus One (China) will have the greatest impact on the Formosa Plastics Group (FPG). This is because FPG constituent firms Formosa Chemicals and Fiber Corp (FCFC), Nan Ya Plastics Corp and Formosa Plastics sell a large part of their products to China.
For example, FCFC sells more than 80 percent of its exports of PTA — one of its main products — to China. In fact, however, ASEAN and China classify PTA as a Normal Track II product, and it continues to be subject to a 5 percent tariff. Besides, ASEAN countries export very little PTA to China, so the impact is not great at all.
So what is FPG so worried about? In 2007, the group exported a third of its diesel fuel to China, and in 2008 it supplied 40 percent of China’s total diesel imports. However, now that China’s two state-run oil companies have increased their production capacity and improved their quality, China has started to gradually cut its orders for oil from Taiwan.
This has put Taiwan’s petrochemical, gasoline and diesel export markets in a critical situation. In addition, as China and ASEAN form a free-trade area and cut tariffs between them, Taiwan’s oil exports to China will face stiff competition from Southeast Asian oil exporting countries. No wonder, then, that FPG cares so much about whether Taiwan signs an ECFA with China.
It looks as though the ECFA process is just a puppet show played out by government bureaucrats and a handful of petrochemical groups that export most of what they make, or by a small group of companies that stand to profit while other firms in Taiwan’s petrochemicals manufacturing chain are sacrificed and jobs lost. Surely it is time for the government to step back from the brink.
Chang Feng-yi is executive director of the Taiwan Labor and Social Policy Research Association.
TRANSLATED BY JULIAN CLEGG
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS