The focus of most discussions about the recently signed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA) has been on who gains or loses from the “early harvest list” of goods and services that will be subject to reduced or zero tariffs under the agreement. However, this is only one aspect of the issue. The new order of cross-strait economic cooperation brought about by the ECFA has implications for more than just trade. The influence that closer trade and economic relations across the Taiwan Strait will have on human rights and the environment are, if anything, even more deserving of attention.
The process of globalization, of which cross-strait trade liberalization is a part, presents great challenges for the protection of human rights and the environment in both Taiwan and China. Trade liberalization, if not accompanied by a mechanism for social adjustments, will lead to wider social divisions, rising unemployment, stagnation of real wages and poor environmental management. In the end, it will set back social progress. Much academic research has been done on the subject and many researchers have come to this same conclusion. The governments of Taiwan and China must take the potential negative influences on human rights and the environment.
The Chinese government, in the free-trade agreement it signed with New Zealand, has accepted some form of human rights and environmental provisions, both in the text of the agreement and in binding supplementary agreements. When negotiating further cross-strait trade agreements, the Chinese government should continue this progressive path. Beijing could even be a pioneer in taking effective measures to increase the scope and authority of human rights and environmental provisions in trade agreements, which would help remove obstacles to signing trade agreements with other developed countries.
According to the implementation law that was passed when Taiwan ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Taiwan’s government is duty-bound to ensure that human rights are protected in its trade policies and trade-related laws. In promoting cross-strait economic cooperation, Taiwan’s government is not exempt from this duty to protect human rights and it should make clear in forthcoming trade and investment agreements that respect for human rights is the foundation of cross-strait cooperation as well as a basic element of it.
When Taiwan’s legislature deliberates the ECFA, it should pass a resolution to the effect that the text of follow-up trade and investment agreements should recognize that the concepts of human rights and sustainable development are applicable to cross-strait trade liberalization and economic cooperation. The legislature should insist that trade liberalization measures must promote inclusive and sustainable economic growth and help people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait to enjoy the civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights included in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The legislature should further demand that the government evaluate proposed follow-up trade and investment agreements for their impact on human rights and the environment. It should insist that the governments of Taiwan and China prioritize strengthening cooperation in various areas and collaborate in working out effective measures to reduce the negative impacts of trade liberalization on human rights and the environment.
In the past, there have been some cases in which certain Taiwanese and Chinese businesses have acted contrary to the principles of respect for human rights and sustainable development. We are aware that such incidents have provoked xenophobic and exclusionist attitudes among the public and such attitudes are a negative element that makes it difficult for Taiwan and China to deepen their economic cooperation.
In this regard, the legislature should demand that future trade and investment agreements include articles dealing with corporate responsibility. Active measures should be taken to strengthen corporate social responsibility and prevent similar bad business practices from happening again. For example, the two sides could jointly declare in such agreements their intention to respect the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development Guidelines on Multinationals and, in accordance with those guidelines, provide effective non-judicial channels for redress in case of business practices that violate human rights or harm the environment. Companies that fail to make improvements within a given time, when requested to do so, would then be denied access to preferential conditions available under such agreements.
Taiwan and China should use the ECFA as an opportunity to improve their civil cultures. Both governments have a duty to set a progressive social agenda that includes respect for human rights and adherence to sustainable development so as to lay a sound basis for long-lasting cross-strait economic cooperation. At the same time as expanding economic and trade relations, the two sides should strive to promote a just, sustainable and humane kind of globalization. The opportunity lies before them. The question is — will they do it?
Tseng Chao-ming is secretary-general of Corporate Responsibility Taiwan. Wu Tung-jye is secretary-general of the Green Formosa Front.
TRANSLATED BY JULIAN CLEGG
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
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.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath