Late last month, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao (溫家寶) said the Chinese government would look after the interests of Taiwan’s small and medium enterprises as well as Taiwanese nationals, especially farmers. Wen said China could make interest concessions because “Taiwanese compatriots are our brothers.” He sounded as if he were trying to run for the Taiwanese presidency.
Not long afterward, Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait Chairman Chen Yunlin (陳雲林) said Taiwan and China would likely sign an economic cooperation and framework agreement (ECFA) in May or June. Over the course of just a few days, Chinese officials, both high and low, talked about making interest concessions and set up dates for the signing of an ECFA. This is very suspicious.
China’s reasoning is simple. According to WTO regulations, once Taiwan and China sign an ECFA, they must sign a free-trade agreement (FTA) within 10 years. Therefore, an ECFA is like a legally binding engagement ceremony that requires marriage within a certain period of time, a marriage one cannot withdraw from. China is therefore prepared to make all sorts of promises before the engagement, because once an ECFA is signed, Taiwan will have no way of getting out of a cross-strait FTA.
In addition to mutual tariff exemptions, an FTA requires that the signatories deregulate their service industries. This implies that large numbers of people in the Chinese service industry will move to Taiwan, thereby bringing about a “one China market.” Research by Chung-Hua Institution for Economic Research estimates that 60 percent of Taiwan’s increased exports following the signing of an ECFA would go to China, while imports of Chinese products to Taiwan would crowd out products from other countries. Taiwan’s trade would become concentrated on China, which will give Beijing more power to manipulate Taiwan’s economy.
Because of the difference in size between China and Taiwan in a “one China market,” Beijing’s power to call the shots on Taiwan’s economic policy will increase, and Chinese authorities will be able to control the distribution of economic benefits among the Taiwanese public. Taiwanese businesspeople and political hacks who only care about their own interests will have to kowtow to China and avoid saying and doing things that could offend the Chinese government and powerful people there. Politicians will have to pay heed to their master when handling cross-strait relations and Taiwan’s domestic affairs, which would give China control over Taiwan’s political and economic situation and annex Taiwan without sacrificing a single soldier.
It was not very strange, then, that Wen juxtaposed an ECFA and peaceful unification on Friday last week, because one is a natural and necessary prerequisite for the other. While officials have said an ECFA will not include mention of unification, unification is precisely what it is aimed at, and that is a very smart form of trickery. This is why it is a total hoax when Premier Wu Den-yih (吳敦義) said he would resign if an ECFA mentions the word “unification.”
Once an ECFA is signed, it will only be a matter of time before the Chinese Communist Party gains control over Taiwan’s economic and political interests and annexes the country. When that happens, China will retract all the benefits it has used as bait to get Taiwan on the hook.
In the whole ECFA hoax, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) has the shadiest role. Is he really a fool fishing for short-term gain or a swindler pretending to be a fool?
Lin Kien-tsu is a member of the Taiwan Association of University Professors.
TRANSLATED BY DREW CAMERON
Taiwan aims to elevate its strategic position in supply chains by becoming an artificial intelligence (AI) hub for Nvidia Corp, providing everything from advanced chips and components to servers, in an attempt to edge out its closest rival in the region, South Korea. Taiwan’s importance in the AI ecosystem was clearly reflected in three major announcements Nvidia made during this year’s Computex trade show in Taipei. First, the US company’s number of partners in Taiwan would surge to 122 this year, from 34 last year, according to a slide shown during CEO Jensen Huang’s (黃仁勳) keynote speech on Monday last week.
On May 7, 1971, Henry Kissinger planned his first, ultra-secret mission to China and pondered whether it would be better to meet his Chinese interlocutors “in Pakistan where the Pakistanis would tape the meeting — or in China where the Chinese would do the taping.” After a flicker of thought, he decided to have the Chinese do all the tape recording, translating and transcribing. Fortuitously, historians have several thousand pages of verbatim texts of Dr. Kissinger’s negotiations with his Chinese counterparts. Paradoxically, behind the scenes, Chinese stenographers prepared verbatim English language typescripts faster than they could translate and type them
More than 30 years ago when I immigrated to the US, applied for citizenship and took the 100-question civics test, the one part of the naturalization process that left the deepest impression on me was one question on the N-400 form, which asked: “Have you ever been a member of, involved in or in any way associated with any communist or totalitarian party anywhere in the world?” Answering “yes” could lead to the rejection of your application. Some people might try their luck and lie, but if exposed, the consequences could be much worse — a person could be fined,
When China passed its “Anti-Secession” Law in 2005, much of the democratic world saw it as yet another sign of Beijing’s authoritarianism, its contempt for international law and its aggressive posture toward Taiwan. Rightly so — on the surface. However, this move, often dismissed as a uniquely Chinese form of legal intimidation, echoes a legal and historical precedent rooted not in authoritarian tradition, but in US constitutional history. The Chinese “Anti-Secession” Law, a domestic statute threatening the use of force should Taiwan formally declare independence, is widely interpreted as an emblem of the Chinese Communist Party’s disregard for international norms. Critics
RSS