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.
A failure by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to respond to Israel’s brilliant 12-day (June 12-23) bombing and special operations war against Iran, topped by US President Donald Trump’s ordering the June 21 bombing of Iranian deep underground nuclear weapons fuel processing sites, has been noted by some as demonstrating a profound lack of resolve, even “impotence,” by China. However, this would be a dangerous underestimation of CCP ambitions and its broader and more profound military response to the Trump Administration — a challenge that includes an acceleration of its strategies to assist nuclear proxy states, and developing a wide array
Twenty-four Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers are facing recall votes on Saturday, prompting nearly all KMT officials and lawmakers to rally their supporters over the past weekend, urging them to vote “no” in a bid to retain their seats and preserve the KMT’s majority in the Legislative Yuan. The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), which had largely kept its distance from the civic recall campaigns, earlier this month instructed its officials and staff to support the recall groups in a final push to protect the nation. The justification for the recalls has increasingly been framed as a “resistance” movement against China and
Jaw Shaw-kong (趙少康), former chairman of Broadcasting Corp of China and leader of the “blue fighters,” recently announced that he had canned his trip to east Africa, and he would stay in Taiwan for the recall vote on Saturday. He added that he hoped “his friends in the blue camp would follow his lead.” His statement is quite interesting for a few reasons. Jaw had been criticized following media reports that he would be traveling in east Africa during the recall vote. While he decided to stay in Taiwan after drawing a lot of flak, his hesitation says it all: If
Saturday is the day of the first batch of recall votes primarily targeting lawmakers of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). The scale of the recall drive far outstrips the expectations from when the idea was mooted in January by Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) caucus whip Ker Chien-ming (柯建銘). The mass recall effort is reminiscent of the Sunflower movement protests against the then-KMT government’s non-transparent attempts to push through a controversial cross-strait service trade agreement in 2014. That movement, initiated by students, civic groups and non-governmental organizations, included student-led protesters occupying the main legislative chamber for three weeks. The two movements are linked
RSS