The recent US-China Joint Statement suffers from intellectual laziness when it applauds the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA) between Taiwan and China. Why applaud an unsustainable policy that undermines the current international trade status and sovereignty of Taiwan and supports a government that appears to consider democratic Taiwan a part of China and thus goes against the wishes of the vast majority of Taiwanese?
No matter if the backing of ECFA is a result of intellectual laziness or not, it supports China’s political engineering with the ultimate goal of annexing Taiwan. This runs against Taiwanese wishes and is not sustainable.
On the surface, the ECFA seems like a great breakthrough in a troubled relationship, providing hope for a peaceful development in the near future. The assumption appears to be that trade and dialogue will lead to peace and prosperity. The intellectually lazy politicians will be satisfied with such fantasies and thus refrain from asking critical questions about the optimistic buzzwords that are easy to sell to the international community.
Why not jump on this bandwagon with positive thinking and openly support the ECFA? Because the ECFA undermines Taiwan’s hard-won international trade status in the WTO as well as its sovereignty. The ECFA was signed between two NGOs from Taiwan and China, the Straits Exchange Foundation and the Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait (ARATS) respectively, and not between two legal members of the WTO. The trade status appears to be further undermined by the fact that the ECFA has not yet been submitted to the WTO as expected, despite the pact going into force on Jan. 1.
The political symbolism is hard to misunderstand. China appears in the international press as the responsible nation entering dialogue with Taiwan, even though Beijing has not altered its position one inch. It continues to consider Taiwan a part of China. Recently, ARATS Chairman Chen Yunlin (陳雲林) stated that the negotiations were based on the so-called “1992 consensus,” even though its existence is widely disputed, and opposition to Taiwanese independence.
The whole package of agreements between Taiwan and China is increasingly leaving the international community with the impression that Taiwan is a part of China, which Taiwan’s government applauds. President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) even considers himself the president of China.
The vast majority of Taiwanese want Taiwan to be independent and surveys from the Mainland Affairs Council reveal that more than 80 percent of the public rejects any formulation of a “one China” system. Moreover, identification with Taiwan has been increasing over the past 20 years in spite of Taiwan having a China-leaning government since 2008. By applauding the ECFA, the US-China Joint Statement is increasing the gap between the wishes of Taiwanese and the imagined goal of both Ma’s administration and international policymakers. This will only lead to trouble and increasing tensions in Taiwan. It is time to respect the wishes of Taiwanese rather than follow the fantasies of intellectually lazy politicians.
Michael Danielsen is the chairman of Taiwan Corner.
The conflict in the Middle East has been disrupting financial markets, raising concerns about rising inflationary pressures and global economic growth. One market that some investors are particularly worried about has not been heavily covered in the news: the private credit market. Even before the joint US-Israeli attacks on Iran on Feb. 28, global capital markets had faced growing structural pressure — the deteriorating funding conditions in the private credit market. The private credit market is where companies borrow funds directly from nonbank financial institutions such as asset management companies, insurance companies and private lending platforms. Its popularity has risen since
The Donald Trump administration’s approach to China broadly, and to cross-Strait relations in particular, remains a conundrum. The 2025 US National Security Strategy prioritized the defense of Taiwan in a way that surprised some observers of the Trump administration: “Deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving military overmatch, is a priority.” Two months later, Taiwan went entirely unmentioned in the US National Defense Strategy, as did military overmatch vis-a-vis China, giving renewed cause for concern. How to interpret these varying statements remains an open question. In both documents, the Indo-Pacific is listed as a second priority behind homeland defense and
In an op-ed published in Foreign Affairs on Tuesday, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) said that Taiwan should not have to choose between aligning with Beijing or Washington, and advocated for cooperation with Beijing under the so-called “1992 consensus” as a form of “strategic ambiguity.” However, Cheng has either misunderstood the geopolitical reality and chosen appeasement, or is trying to fool an international audience with her doublespeak; nonetheless, it risks sending the wrong message to Taiwan’s democratic allies and partners. Cheng stressed that “Taiwan does not have to choose,” as while Beijing and Washington compete, Taiwan is strongest when
US Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent and Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng (何立峰) are expected to meet this month in Paris to prepare for a meeting between US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平). According to media reports, the two sides would discuss issues such as the potential purchase of Boeing aircraft by China, increasing imports of US soybeans and the latest impacts of Trump’s reciprocal tariffs. However, recent US military action against Iran has added uncertainty to the Trump-Xi summit. Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs Wang Yi (王毅) called the joint US-Israeli airstrikes and the
RSS