The EU-South Korea free-trade agreement (FTA) came into effect on Friday. Within five years, import tariffs on industrial products between the EU and South Korea will be reduced to zero. In seven years, all service sectors will be open to cross-border competition. According to the South Korean government, EU-South Korean trade is expected to increase by about 20 percent within the coming years.
Because Taiwanese products compete with their South Korean counterparts in many sectors, the Republic of China government initiated FTA talks with the EU two years ago. Although implementation of the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA) with China accelerated this trend, the Greek debt crisis, ongoing FTA negotiations between the EU and other countries, and Beijing’s ambiguity on this subject have all slowed down the process. The EU and Taiwan have failed to even establish a joint study group, the first step toward FTA negotiations.
Beijing should immediately deny rumors that it opposes Taiwan-EU talks on free trade, which are in its own interest.
First, Taiwan’s initiative for FTA negotiations falls entirely under the framework of the WTO while the nation uses the designation “Special Customs Union of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu” or “Chinese Taipei” when conducting talks.
Trade talks have nothing to do with sovereignty and are fully compatible with the so-called “1992 consensus” formula. Furthermore, Taipei and Brussels adopted the wording “Trade Enhancing Measures” (TEM) to replace the term FTA to avoid the issue of sovereignty.
Second, the EU and China began negotiating a new agreement on economic and trade cooperation as early as January 2007. Even following the model on accession to the WTO in 2001 and 2002, Beijing now has no reason to oppose similar negotiations between the EU and Taiwan.
Third, Beijing’s opposition or hindrance to Taiwan-EU TEM talks will harm the ECFA, which Taiwan’s opposition condemned as a conspiracy by Beijing to isolate Taiwan.
An explicit stance by Beijing that it does not oppose Taiwan-EU trade talks would show opposition condemnation of the ECFA to be false and confirm the positive correlation between rapprochement in the Taiwan Strait and Taiwan’s inclusion in the international community.
Fourth, constrained by the Greek debt crisis and a heavy load of ongoing FTA negotiations, the EU will not begin negotiations on a TEM with Taiwan even if Beijing announced that it did not oppose such talks.
Fifth, Chinese fears that a richer Taiwan could cut off ties with China are groundless. The wealthier Taiwan is, the more reluctant Taiwanese are to unilaterally change the “status quo.” More importantly, increased international networking would encourage Taiwanese to be more open to China.
Last but not least, the rise of China and cross-strait economic integration could mitigate the Taiwanese independence movement, but it will never accelerate the trend toward unification, as Beijing had wished.
Political integration or unification must be based upon common identity, which can never be achieved by trade and economics alone.
From this viewpoint, Beijing should immediately make it clear that it does not oppose Taiwan-EU TEM talks, which will benefit Taiwan, cross-strait relations and China.
Hungdah Su is a professor and Jean Monnet chair of the department of political science at National Taiwan University and the -director---general of the EU Center in Taiwan.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers