When the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) so vigorously campaigned for Taiwan to sign the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA) with China two years ago, it not only viewed it as a way to improve economic and political ties across the Taiwan Strait, but also as a major political achievement.
The KMT thought the ECFA would boost its votes in last year’s special municipality elections and January’s presidential and legislative elections. However, the results of the elections in New Taipei City (新北市) and Taipei City at the end of last year suggest the ECFA had no apparent effect, especially when compared with the lively debates concerning the Taipei International Flora Expo: Local administrative issues completely marginalized the far more national concern of cross-strait relations.
In the past, political views regarding cross-strait relations, unification and independence were a dividing factor and a major source of competition in domestic politics. However, the Taiwanese-versus-Chinese identity debate has not been the only wellspring of political momentum. Nevertheless, at the national level the issue of unification or independence has restructured the party-political spectrum.
Now that cross-strait relations are ostensibly warmer, why isn’t it being discussed in election campaigns? What seemed to be a thriving KMT is now dancing to a new tune. Do the difficulties the KMT faced during last year’s municipality elections herald any significant shift in the public’s understanding or opinion of cross-strait relations?
The issue of cross-strait relations under the KMT is no longer simply an issue of unification versus independence, but rather a relationship dealing with special interests and material gains. Although the ECFA has a tinge of political opacity, it is basically an agreement about China cutting import tariffs for Taiwan.
However, the fact that the ECFA blatantly favors Taiwan should be an omen of how we are being forced to see only the benefits of more intimate cross-strait relations, instead of what it means further down the line. Whether it is high-level Chinese officials leading purchase groups visiting Taiwan — such as the governor of Shandong Province last month, the deputy chairman of the Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Straits the month before or the Chinese Minister of Culture, who advocated a cultural version of the ECFA — it all boils down to economic determinism. The more Taiwan relies on China economically, the easier political integration becomes.
The problem is that if economic ties are reduced to a relationship purely about material gains, then the previously dichotomous pan-blue pro-unification and pan-green pro-independence political structure becomes useless in explaining the effect of cross-strait relations on Taiwan. Moreover, this newly formed relationship will become a critically important element in the restructuring of the pan-blue and pan-green political terrain.
The redistribution of wealth and the more apparent distinctions among social classes that the ECFA ushers in will not simply develop according to society’s current ethno-linguistic groups, pan-blue versus pan-green or even north versus south.
The newly polarized demographics of an exploitative existence expressed in the binary advantaged--disadvantaged system might very well replace our conventional notions of national identity and independence---unification politics, eventually causing progress in cross-strait relations to backfire. This explains why the issue of the ECFA lost its appeal in the special municipality elections last year, and why it is still not clear how it will affect the presidential and legislative elections at the beginning of next year.
Hsu Yung-ming is an assistant professor of political science at Soochow University.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.