The Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement (TPP) received as much attention as would be expected at this year’s APEC summit in Hawaii, turning it into big global news. Differing from APEC, which is a loose economic forum, the TPP is a proposed system of cooperation for the trans-Pacific region that could be defined as a large-scale free-trade agreement (FTA). Since Taiwan is already a member of APEC, membership in the TPP should be smooth and free from the political interference Taiwan has experienced in the past.
Incomprehensibly, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) said in a public announcement on Nov. 14 that the government would use the next decade to prepare to join the TPP so Taiwan could avoid being left out of regional economic integration.
Not only did the president fail to express a willingness to aggressively pursue TPP membership, but the timeline he set out was also a roundabout way of rejecting TPP membership.
If the government desires to be a part of the TPP, why wait 10 years? Do we really need a decade to establish the conditions needed to join the TPP?
Even if agriculture is a thorny issue and tariffs are needed as protection, Vietnam — already negotiating to become a TPP member — and Japan, which will be joining negotiations soon, have the same problem. South Korea, which has signed FTAs with the US and the EU, also faces the problem of liberalizing agricultural products. Why is it then that South Korea and Vietnam can do it, but Taiwan can’t?
Taiwan’s agricultural and fisheries industries underwent transformation long ago; they are currently producing refined and sophisticated products. These industries no longer need a single market or a market with cheap prices for consumers. They need markets with higher prices spread across the globe. The TPP can provide this; it is suitable for the direction in which Taiwan’s agricultural industry is headed.
Furthermore, Taiwan can negotiate with Japan and Vietnam to gain benefits and much-needed time buffers. For Taiwan, a nation that has encountered numerous hardships in the regional economic integration process, the fact that the TPP has become a topic discussed at the APEC summit is a great opportunity falling into its lap.
Why is the Ma administration treating this issue like a hot potato? There are two reasons.
First, joining the TPP runs counter to Ma’s strategy of keeping Taiwan bound to China. Gradually turning Taiwanese independence into unification with China has always been at the center of his political outlook and the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement is his greatest achievement. If Taiwan joins the TPP, it would delay and impede the ultimate fulfillment of Ma’s goal of unifying Taiwan with China.
Second, China has not agreed to join the TPP because Beijing sees it as the US’ return to Asia and its first step toward reclaiming dominance in the Asia-Pacific region in an attempt to fight the ASEAN Plus One (China) economic grouping directed by Beijing.
This is the reason China’s response to the TPP has been circumspect and cautious. If Beijing doesn’t give the go-ahead, then of course the Ma administration won’t dare act rashly.
Huang Tien-lin is a former presidential advisor.
Translated by Kyle Jeffcoat
“History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes” (attributed to Mark Twain). The USSR was the international bully during the Cold War as it sought to make the world safe for Soviet-style Communism. China is now the global bully as it applies economic power and invests in Mao’s (毛澤東) magic weapons (the People’s Liberation Army [PLA], the United Front Work Department, and the Chinese Communist Party [CCP]) to achieve world domination. Freedom-loving countries must respond to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), especially in the Indo-Pacific (IP), as resolutely as they did against the USSR. In 1954, the US and its allies
Mainland Affairs Council Deputy Minister Shen You-chung (沈有忠) on Thursday last week urged democratic nations to boycott China’s military parade on Wednesday next week. The parade, a grand display of Beijing’s military hardware, is meant to commemorate the 80th anniversary of Japan’s surrender in World War II. While China has invited world leaders to attend, many have declined. A Kyodo News report on Sunday said that Japan has asked European and Asian leaders who have yet to respond to the invitation to refrain from attending. Tokyo is seeking to prevent Beijing from spreading its distorted interpretation of wartime history, the report
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in China yesterday, where he is to attend a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin today. As this coincides with the 50 percent US tariff levied on Indian products, some Western news media have suggested that Modi is moving away from the US, and into the arms of China and Russia. Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation fellow Sana Hashmi in a Taipei Times article published yesterday titled “Myths around Modi’s China visit” said that those analyses have misrepresented India’s strategic calculations, and attempted to view
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) stood in front of the Potala Palace in Lhasa on Thursday last week, flanked by Chinese flags, synchronized schoolchildren and armed Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops, he was not just celebrating the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the “Tibet Autonomous Region,” he was making a calculated declaration: Tibet is China. It always has been. Case closed. Except it has not. The case remains wide open — not just in the hearts of Tibetans, but in history records. For decades, Beijing has insisted that Tibet has “always been part of China.” It is a phrase
RSS