For all its vaunted benefits, the growing economic relationship across the Taiwan Strait seems to be premised on false assumptions that could eventually derail dialogue and engender dangerous frustrations.
On one side is China, which has made no secret of its belief that increasing the flow of economic interaction and investment across the Strait would, according to some law of economic determinism, win the hearts and minds of Taiwanese and reconcile them to the idea of unification.
Despite claims by President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration that cross-strait economic integration does not undermine Taiwan’s sovereignty, Beijing has consistently reminded the world that the process itself is a means to bring about unification.
Whether Ma and his officials believe their own claims or are too naive to see through Zhongnanhai’s strategy is beside the point, as in Beijing’s eyes the coveted end goal remains the same, regardless of Taipei’s complicity.
In Taiwan, many supporters of greater economic activity across the Strait, from farmers to leaders of large corporations, have also approached the process from the wrong angle. Remarks by Democratic Progressive Party Legislator Liu Chien-kuo (劉建國) during a small protest in Yunlin County against a visit by Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait Chairman Chen Yunlin (陳雲林) at the weekend perfectly illustrate this.
“We are still waiting for [Beijing] to finish buying the 1,800 tonnes of oranges it promised [to buy two years ago],” Lin said of expectations in the county, whose economy overwhelmingly depends on agriculture. “I think that what it comes down to is whether China really wants to help Taiwan’s economy and employment rate, or if it is all a scheme to press for unification.”
Such comments reflect a misreading of Beijing’s intentions and the raison d’etre of growing cross-strait economic activity. Not only does China have no desire to help Taiwan’s economy and employment rate, such expectations confer upon Beijing a paternalistic role that only bolsters its claim over Taiwan.
Nations do not engage in trade for reasons other than self-interest. The US, for example, did not sign the North American Free Trade Agreement to address unemployment in its Canadian and Mexican neighbors, but because liberalizing trade along that axis served its commercial interests. With China, the rationale for increased trade with Taiwan is a little more complex, as besides economic calculations — and perhaps even overarching them — is the undeniably political goal of unification. To believe anything else and to assume there are humanitarian ramifications to cross-strait liberalization is foolhardy.
As money flows increase, the false expectations that animate both sides will have to be rectified, the sooner the better, to mitigate the scope of disappointment when the veil is finally lifted.
China will have to realize that while Taiwanese are more than happy to trade, this does not signify they are willing to forsake their political system in the process. Its long history of independence, from its first baby steps into modernity under Japanese colonial rule to exposure to Western values, culminating in a vibrant democracy, has shaped Taiwan in a way that no economic interaction could ever erase entirely. All the money in China will not vanquish that sentiment that is the very foundation of Taiwanese identity, something polls have repeatedly demonstrated.
Conversely, Taiwanese must acknowledge that Beijing has no responsibility to improve Taiwan’s economy. One cannot claim sovereignty and expect other governments to give generously while not asking something in return.
Clarity on both sides is in order. The longer the two sides talk past each other, the more ingrained those false assumptions will be and therefore the more violent the backlash.
China’s supreme objective in a war across the Taiwan Strait is to incorporate Taiwan as a province of the People’s Republic. It follows, therefore, that international recognition of Taiwan’s de jure independence is a consummation that China’s leaders devoutly wish to avoid. By the same token, an American strategy to deny China that objective would complicate Beijing’s calculus and deter large-scale hostilities. For decades, China has cautioned “independence means war.” The opposite is also true: “war means independence.” A comprehensive strategy of denial would guarantee an outcome of de jure independence for Taiwan in the event of Chinese invasion or
A recent Taipei Times editorial (“A targeted bilingual policy,” March 12, page 8) questioned how the Ministry of Education can justify spending NT$151 million (US$4.74 million) when the spotlighted achievements are English speech competitions and campus tours. It is a fair question, but it focuses on the wrong issue. The problem is not last year’s outcomes failing to meet the bilingual education vision; the issue is that the ministry has abandoned the program that originally justified such a large expenditure. In the early years of Bilingual 2030, the ministry’s K-12 Administration promoted the Bilingual Instruction in Select Domains Program (部分領域課程雙語教學實施計畫).
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) earlier this month said it is necessary for her to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and it would be a “huge boost” to the party’s local election results in November, but many KMT members have expressed different opinions, indicating a struggle between different groups in the party. Since Cheng was elected as party chairwoman in October last year, she has repeatedly expressed support for increased exchanges with China, saying that it would bring peace and prosperity to Taiwan, and that a meeting with Xi in Beijing takes priority over meeting
Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs spokesman for maritime affairs Rogelio Villanueva on Monday said that Manila’s claims in the South China Sea are backed by international law. Villanueva was responding to a social media post by the Chinese embassy alleging that a former Philippine ambassador in 1990 had written a letter to a German radio operator stating that the Scarborough Shoal (Huangyan Island, 黃岩島) did not fall within Manila’s territory. “Sovereignty is not merely claimed, it is exercised,” Villanueva said. The Philippines won a landmark case at the Permanent Court of Arbitration in 2016 that found China’s sweeping claim of sovereignty in
RSS