The influence of APEC has been on the decline, but the US’ recent breakthrough following several years of promoting the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement (TPP) increased the importance of the annual APEC summit in Japan earlier this month.
Although the TPP was not developed within the APEC framework, APEC member countries treated it as a possible option when discussing the feasible directions of the proposed free-trade area of the Asia-Pacific (FTAAP). Naturally, Taiwanese are concerned about whether Taiwan will be able to join the TPP and end its exclusion from the current wave of free-trade agreements (FTA).
The TPP was first proposed by the US in 1998. In the beginning, it was driven by economic motives and Washington hoped it would be able to attract the Asian APEC members to the free-trade group as soon as possible. This did not happen at the time and by 2006, it was merely a minor free-trade area consisting of four small economies: Brunei, Chile, Singapore and New Zealand, known as the Pacific-4 (P-4).
However, regionalism has continued to grow in East Asia, leading to greater regional cooperation, such as ASEAN Plus One, ASEAN Plus Three and the East Asia Summit. Meanwhile, China’s regional influence is increasing and might now have surpassed that of Japan.
Based on its own strategic interests, the US has begun to plan for a “return” to Asia to fill the power vacuum that resulted after former US president George W. Bush concentrated diplomatic resources on his “war on terror,” or to actively work to maintain a balance in the region as Asian countries raise concerns over China’s rise. Obviously, the TPP is becoming the most effective tool for Washington to implement this economic and trade tactic.
After the US announced that it would start TPP negotiations with the P-4 in 2008, Australia, Peru and Vietnam, followed by Malaysia last month, also joined TPP talks. A total of nine countries are now engaging in TPP talks and the first round is expected to conclude by the next APEC summit, scheduled for late next year in the US. Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Canada and Mexico have all expressed their willingness to join in the talks. The completion of the talks for these countries or a second expansion phase are expected in 2015, in step with the pace of East Asian economic integration. It will include all other APEC member countries by 2020 if everything goes to plan. By that time, it will have integrated East Asian regionalism and indirectly realized an FTAAP under the APEC framework.
The above is a description of how the US wants to use the TPP to deconstruct East Asian regionalism. Whether it will achieve its goals will of course depend on a number of variables.
For example, US President Barack Obama has emphasized that the TPP will be a high--quality, 21st century trade agreement with an extensive membership. “High quality” refers to a high degree of free trade, as most industries will be included in the scope of negotiation, while member countries may have to eliminate all tariffs or open their markets completely within 10 years.
Clearly, it will be difficult for Japan to join the group if it continues to maintain its protectionist agricultural policies. In addition, Obama seems to have more room to move in foreign affairs than in domestic affairs. US labor unions and a Democrat-dominated US Congress have always opposed FTAs and this may restrict the US’ deployment in the Asia-Pacific region.
Since China’s regional advantage is concentrated in East Asia and especially in ASEAN Plus Three, it has adopted a defensive role toward Asia-Pacific regionalism. Beijing is also aware that the expansion of the TPP is part of the US’ Asia-Pacific strategy and is therefore unlikely to express its stance too early. China is therefore likely to wait and see how things develop.
As for Taiwan, the TPP does have an open clause and seems to welcome all APEC members or other economies with similar views to join. However, membership requires the approval of all existing members, making Taiwanese membership difficult.
Finally, the TPP is Washington’s grand strategy for its Asia-Pacific deployment. Even if Beijing, a complex factor, is excluded, Taiwan is not the US’ first priority at a time when the economic and trade order in the Asia-Pacific is being realigned. Thus, even in the best conditions, Taiwan is not likely to join in the near future, but rather at the time of a future third expansion. According to this analysis, that would be after 2015 at the earliest.
Honigmann Hong is an assistant professor in the China studies program at National Tsing Hua University.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS