Although the title “Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu” at the WTO is not the most desirable, the need to maintain “normalization of economic and trade relations” with the People’s Republic of China (PRC) under the WTO framework does not necessarily mean that Taiwan has to sacrifice its political autonomy for economic benefits. However, this is what the incumbent government in Taiwan is doing (“ECFA poses three likely outcomes for Taiwan,” March 5, page 8).
The central issue on an economic cooperative framework agreement (ECFA) is not about normalizing trade relations with the PRC. It’s about the trade-off that comes when we consider giving up our independent sovereignty, Taiwan’s “de facto” political autonomy, for economic/trade benefits. Furthermore, sovereignty is a public good and belongs to the 23 million people of Taiwan.
A negative outcome of an ECFA is the erosion of Taiwan’s autonomy which will be borne by all its citizens, yet the benefits of the agreement will only extend to those sectors negatively affected by the free-trade agreement (FTA) between the ASEAN nations and the PRC.
It is like asking the general public to bear the burden of pollution without penalizing those firms who dispose of their industrial wastes. In socio-political terms, it would be more justifiable for the government to adopt some remedies through industrial adjustment policies or even social policies in sectors such as petrochemicals, textiles/clothing, machinery and others affected by the ASEAN-PRC FTA.
What evidence is there that Taiwan’s sovereignty will be eroded by signing an ECFA with the PRC? One could give a list of concrete examples, which is too long to be published here. Yet, the fact the contents of an ECFA were not based on the equilateral basis of the WTO principle, but on Chinese President Hu Jintao’s (胡錦濤) six points erodes Taiwan’s political autonomy.
The erosion of Taiwan’s sovereignty in signing an ECFA includes the absence of a guarantee that Beijing won’t block Taiwan from signing FTAs with other countries, which is a legitimate right for any WTO member.
While President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration claims an ECFA would mean Taiwan won’t be marginalized from economic integration, one has to point out that, without signing FTAs with other major trading partners, Taiwan will be locked into the “Greater China Economic Zone” in the short run, and get sucked into the PRC’s political orbit over the long term.
The PRC has been and still is an authoritarian regime. A marriage of convenience between a democratic Taiwan and an authoritarian PRC is doomed to fail economically and politically.
Moreover, the PRC’s relationship with the US and other industrialized democracies in the world is subject to instability and is unpredictable. Should the US-PRC relationship deteriorate in the near future, Taiwan’s inclusion in the “Greater China Economic Zone” will make the country vulnerable to external shocks from Washington.
One has to remind the Ma administration that globalization without independent sovereignty is like a piece of drifting wood in the ocean. Anyone can claim it. Ma should not trade away Taiwan’s sovereignty, which belongs solely to the people of Taiwan, for presumable economic benefits from a trade pact with the PRC.
Peter C.Y. Chow is professor of economics at the City University of New York and a research associate of the National Bureau of Economic Research.
Father’s Day, as celebrated around the world, has its roots in the early 20th century US. In 1910, the state of Washington marked the world’s first official Father’s Day. Later, in 1972, then-US president Richard Nixon signed a proclamation establishing the third Sunday of June as a national holiday honoring fathers. Many countries have since followed suit, adopting the same date. In Taiwan, the celebration takes a different form — both in timing and meaning. Taiwan’s Father’s Day falls on Aug. 8, a date chosen not for historical events, but for the beauty of language. In Mandarin, “eight eight” is pronounced
Having lived through former British prime minister Boris Johnson’s tumultuous and scandal-ridden administration, the last place I had expected to come face-to-face with “Mr Brexit” was in a hotel ballroom in Taipei. Should I have been so surprised? Over the past few years, Taiwan has unfortunately become the destination of choice for washed-up Western politicians to turn up long after their political careers have ended, making grandiose speeches in exchange for extraordinarily large paychecks far exceeding the annual salary of all but the wealthiest of Taiwan’s business tycoons. Taiwan’s pursuit of bygone politicians with little to no influence in their home
In a recent essay, “How Taiwan Lost Trump,” a former adviser to US President Donald Trump, Christian Whiton, accuses Taiwan of diplomatic incompetence — claiming Taipei failed to reach out to Trump, botched trade negotiations and mishandled its defense posture. Whiton’s narrative overlooks a fundamental truth: Taiwan was never in a position to “win” Trump’s favor in the first place. The playing field was asymmetrical from the outset, dominated by a transactional US president on one side and the looming threat of Chinese coercion on the other. From the outset of his second term, which began in January, Trump reaffirmed his
Despite calls to the contrary from their respective powerful neighbors, Taiwan and Somaliland continue to expand their relationship, endowing it with important new prospects. Fitting into this bigger picture is the historic Coast Guard Cooperation Agreement signed last month. The common goal is to move the already strong bilateral relationship toward operational cooperation, with significant and tangible mutual benefits to be observed. Essentially, the new agreement commits the parties to a course of conduct that is expressed in three fundamental activities: cooperation, intelligence sharing and technology transfer. This reflects the desire — shared by both nations — to achieve strategic results within
RSS