Recent media reports on the planned economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA) between Taiwan and China have focused on the “early harvest” list. Machine tools mentioned by President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) in an ECFA debate, as well as the petrochemical and automobile sectors, seem to have become an index of success or failure, but this has taken us off on a tangent.
China’s intention in allowing Taiwanese to profit more from the “early harvest” list is clear. Granting economic concessions makes perfect political sense on Beijing’s part. The signing of an ECFA, then, is advantageous to Taiwan for the time being, as the nation is likely to benefit from it over the next two or three years. However, the short-term benefits may be blinding us to the long-term drawbacks. If we merely focus on the list or short-term economic gains, we are leaving ourselves open to the machinations of Ma and Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤).
From an economic perspective, China’s ploy is to undermine the industries where Taiwan retains an advantage. The generosity shown to the weaker industries is an attempt to buy off Taiwan’s middle and working classes: It is essentially the so-called “united front” at work, through the economy. Furthermore, it is not extended to the industries where Taiwan is strong.
Hu knows that he cannot let Taiwan develop its economy independent of China and that he needs to make it difficult for our competitive sectors to survive in Taiwan in order to force them to relocate to China. Yes, the list does incorporate some of these sectors, but as the saying goes, the devil is in the details.
The Chinese government will inevitably employ all the means at its disposal to prevent the sectors from benefiting from the list, forcing them to move to China. As a result, Taiwan’s industries will become a part of China’s production chain in terms of labor distribution and will be stuck in a state of economic dependence on China.
On Tuesday last week, Japanese strategist Kenichi Ohmae, during a speech at the Presidential Office, likened the planned ECFA to a vitamin for Taiwan’s economy. But what kind of vitamin is this that is going to make Taiwan economically addicted to China?
Taiwan’s situation is somewhat different from that of Japan and South Korea, which have their own “industry clusters” responsible for medium and high-technology research and development. Both of these countries are able to make use of the Chinese market if they sign a free-trade agreement with China. Taiwan’s leading sectors, however, may not be around in less than 10 years’ time. Is this really a vitamin? If anything, it seems more like a harmful narcotic.
What is worse, an ECFA is quite similar to the Closer Economic Partnership Arrangement Hong Kong and China signed.
In the next few years, salaries are likely to decline and the income gap widen in Taiwan. Ohmae himself wrote a book about the so-called “M-shaped society” in 2006. We can see this happening in Taiwan today, as the number of people under the poverty line is increasing and social problems are on the rise. Are these the “benefits” that we can look forward from an ECFA?
Nobody opposes economic development and international trade. What the public opposes is the Ma administration’s opaque political agenda. In light of the government’s rash behavior, we should take to the streets if Ma continues to block a referendum on the issue.
Allen Houng is a professor in the Institute of Philosophy of Mind and Cognition at National Yang-Ming University.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with