On March 18, the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission (USCC) held a hearing on recent economic, political and military developments between Taiwan and China and their implications for the US. A broad range of important issues was raised, but one is of utmost interest: the proposed economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA) between Taiwan and China.
While trade agreements between countries are commonplace, this one has some complex elements: It will be an agreement between two “entities” (for lack of a better term) which officially do not recognize each other’s sovereignty.
Much has changed since the days of the Chinese Civil War. Taiwan made a momentous transition to democracy in the early 1990s, and China experienced its rise as a major economic and political power. Some things, however, have stayed the same: China still claims Taiwan as part of its territory and vows to take military action against it if it moves toward de jure independence.
Now an ECFA enters the picture. While under “normal” circumstances such an agreement would be a good thing, there are, in the present context, ample reasons to have serious doubts.
At the USCC hearing, several witnesses argued in favor of an ECFA, seemingly implying that it would be good for US relations with Taiwan and China. This, as US Senator Sherrod Brown and Commissioner Dennis Shea stated, is by no means certain.
Brown expressed reservations on both the content and the process for approval in Taiwan. He noted that the two parties in the negotiations were rather unequal in size and felt that Taiwan was “giving too much away with too little in return.” He also criticized the lack of transparency in the negotiations and the fact that the legislative branch was not consulted in the process. He advised the administration of US President Barack Obama to urge Taiwan to make the process fully transparent and adhere to the basic principles of checks and balances within the political system.
Shea said that Taiwan and China have very different motivations and expectations for going into such an agreement. The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government wants to get out of the economic doldrums and sees closer economic association with China as the only way out. For China, it is much more political: Chinese officials and analysts see it as a stepping stone toward unification.
So what are the implications for the US and other countries in the region? It is beyond doubt that such an agreement between China and Taiwan will move Taiwan further under the Chinese umbrella. A closer link between the two economies will lead to a distancing between Taiwan and the US. Over time, this will also mean that Taiwan will drift away from the US politically. Is this what we want?
During the past decades, Taiwan’s economy and political system have thrived because of its close ties with the US and the West in general. Freedom and democracy became an integral part of the political, economic and social system in Taiwan, in part because of frequent and close interactions with the West.
The big questions policymakers in Taipei, Washington and Europe should grapple with are these: If Taiwan becomes more economically integrated with China, what will this do to its flourishing democracy? If Taiwan shines less brightly as a beacon for democracy, what does this do to our support for democracy in Asia as a whole and the confidence people in East Asia will have in the US?
Nat Bellocchi is a former chairman of the American Institute in Taiwan and a special adviser to the Liberty Times Group. The views expressed in this article are his own.
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