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.
An old Latin adage reads: Si vis pacem, para bellum. Translated it means: “If you wish peace, then prepare for war.” This adage has many variants and claims to authorship, but what is most important is its message for a peaceful Taiwan. Why should Taiwan prepare for war? The reasons are many and obvious. Certainly, such preparation is not because Taiwan wants war or is a warlike nation. Instead, the answer is found in its neighbor, China. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP), which rules China as a one-party state, is ambitious and troubled — and that combination makes war a viable option,
As a Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (ROTC) cadet, I frequently get asked how quickly the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) might overrun Taiwan if it invaded before 2040. My answer is that the PLA will not be able to take over Taiwan within that time frame, because the more eager the PLA is to complete the task in a short period, the more likely it would fail — and fail big. Having a slim chance of winning is what keeps the PLA from taking action. From time to time, some PLA leaders or keyboard fighters make threats — one of the
Hypersonic weapons are defined as armaments capable of traveling at speeds faster than Mach 5 and can be broadly classified into two types: hypersonic glide vehicles (HGV) and hypersonic cruise missiles. The former are launched into the upper atmosphere by ballistic missiles. The vehicle is then separated from the booster to maneuver, or glide, toward its target. The latter can be launched from a jet plane or rocket to reach supersonic speed before igniting a scramjet engine to achieve hypersonic speeds. As the US engages in a great-power competition with China and Russia, all three countries are racing to field hypersonic
With the World Bank and the IMF yesterday starting their annual meetings, all eyes are on Evergrande, China’s second-largest property developer, which apparently cannot repay about US$300 billion it owes to banks, bondholders, employees and suppliers. With the property giant teetering on the edge of bankruptcy, the world is being forced to contemplate a scenario it had never seriously considered — a made-in-China financial crisis. Observers have been quick to draw parallels between the Evergrande debacle and past crises. Some compare it to the 2008 crash of the US investment bank Lehman Brothers, which triggered a massive banking and financial crisis.