It is clear that whoever hopes to win the presidential election next year will have to propose a sound strategy on how to deal with China: not just politically, but also economically.
The process of cross-strait economic liberalization launched in the 1980s and sustained even under the pro-independence Democratic Progressive Party from 2000 until 2008, accelerated dramatically after President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) stepped into office on May 20, 2008. With the signing of the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA) in June last year and various other economic pacts in recent years, the dependence of Taiwan’s economy on China has grown by leaps and bounds.
Putting the political implications of those agreements aside, we will leave it to the history books to judge whether the decision to open the gates to Chinese money was economically sound for Taiwan. A growing number of economists are claiming that China’s economic miracle is heading full speed for a brick wall. Although such predictions have been made for more than a decade, there is evidence that this time the alarmists could be right.
Should such pessimistic forecasts come to pass, the more dependent Taiwan is on China for its economic well-being, the more severe the repercussions of a downturn across the Taiwan Strait will be.
Earlier this month, renowned economist Nouriel Roubini was warning of potentially destabilizing contradictions between China’s short and medium-term economic performance. In his view, China was able to weather the global economic crisis and sustain double-digit economic growth by artificially propping up its economy with major infrastructure projects.
However, this stopgap measure cannot go on indefinitely and already the construction spree is catching up with China as evidenced by low usage of its high-speed rail systems, highways leading to nowhere and steel-and-glass ghost towns. Furthermore, a recent scandal about the safety of China’s new ultramodern high-speed rail system has highlighted the prohibitive cost of construction and operation. The rail system, which was part of Beijing’s stimulus plan for 2008, is already losing money and depends for its survival on bank loans. The Chinese Ministry of Finance last week confirmed that its debt currently stands at US$276 billion, which was almost entirely borrowed from Chinese banks.
A great share of the massive infrastructure projects that have sustained the illusion of a booming Chinese economy has been buttressed by bank loans and many of those are non-performing and will very likely never be reimbursed. Add rampant corruption, as was ostensibly the case with the underused high-speed rail, to this mix and there are the makings of an economic time bomb — the consequences of which for the Chinese economy (and the region) one can only guess at.
For Taiwan, these signs should awaken officials to the need to implement prophylactic measures in the event the Chinese economy implodes. The key to this is threefold: ensuring Chinese money in Taiwan comes from economically sound institutions; redoubling efforts to attract foreign investment from sources other than China; and diversifying export destinations (Taiwan’s exports to China plus Hong Kong last year accounted for about 42 percent of total exports. Inflation, or a major economic downturn in China, would have a serious negative impact on Taiwan’s exports).
While there is no way to avoid significant trade with the giant next door, the candidates in next year’s presidential election should clearly explain to the public how they intend to hedge against a possible rainy day in China. It’s not a question of whether Taiwan should deal with China or not, but how.
Ideas matter. They especially matter in world affairs. And in communist countries, it is communist ideas, not supreme leaders’ personality traits, that matter most. That is the reality in the People’s Republic of China. All Chinese communist leaders — from Mao Zedong (毛澤東) through Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平), from Jiang Zemin (江澤民) and Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) through to Xi Jinping (習近平) — have always held two key ideas to be sacred and self-evident: first, that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is infallible, and second, that the Marxist-Leninist socialist system of governance is superior to every alternative. The ideological consistency by all CCP leaders,
The US on Friday hosted the second Global COVID-19 Summit, with at least 98 countries, including Taiwan, and regional alliances such as the G7, the G20, the African Union and the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) attending. Washington is also leading a proposal to revise one of the most important documents in global health security — the International Health Regulations (IHR) — which are to be discussed during the 75th World Health Assembly (WHA) that starts on Sunday. These two actions highlight the US’ strategic move to dominate the global health agenda and return to the core of governance, with the WHA
In the past 30 years, globalization has given way to an international division of labor, with developing countries focusing on export manufacturing, while developed countries in Europe and the US concentrate on internationalizing service industries to drive economic growth. The competitive advantages of these countries can readily be seen in the global financial market. For example, Taiwan has attracted a lot of global interest with its technology industry. The US is the home of leading digital service companies, such as Meta Platforms (Facebook), Alphabet (Google) and Microsoft. The country holds a virtual oligopoly of the global market for consumer digital
Former vice president Annette Lu (呂秀蓮) on Saturday expounded on her concept of replacing “unification” with China with “integration.” Lu does not she think the idea would be welcomed in its current form; rather, she wants to elicit discussion on a third way to break the current unification/independence impasse, especially given heightened concerns over China attacking Taiwan in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. She has apparently formulated her ideas around the number “three.” First, she envisions cross-strait relations developing in three stages: having Beijing lay to rest the idea of unification of “one China” (一個中國); next replacing this with