President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) has repeatedly stated that Taiwan’s economic development cannot be separated from that of China, while criticizing the administration of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) for what he describes as closed economic policies and telling the public how he has improved the situation.
Indeed, no country can ignore the scale of China’s market and its economic development in recent years. However, it is extremely naive to suggest that China is some kind of panacea — the answer to all of Taiwan’s economic problems. To do so would be to disregard a whole raft of problems.
First, as an economic entity, China is not a completely deregulated market. Politics plays a significant role in its economic development. Taiwanese businesses investing in China lack comprehensive legal guarantees, and there are many cases of corrupt local governments with their fingers in the cookie jar. Indeed, an increasing number of these companies are returning to Taiwan, complaining about their treatment by undesirable elements in China, or even by the government. This evidently is a serious problem.
Second, China has access to a prodigious labor pool and follows its own model of industrial development. For the short term at least, Taiwanese products enjoy an advantage in the Chinese market. However, if Taiwan fails to upgrade and improve its own manufacturing industries and continues to rely on low-tech and original equipment manufacturing (OEM), China will very soon be able to manufacture these same products at a lower cost.
It will become progressively difficult to sustain Taiwan’s traditional manufacturing industries solely by relying on the Chinese market. This is especially true given Beijing’s current development model, which entails absorbing Taiwan’s technology and using it in its own factories. For an example of this, look at what’s happening in the agricultural industry.
Third, China is making all kinds of concessions and opening up trade with Taiwan, but all these are predicated on political considerations. In other words, China has consistently and clearly placed politics over economics. Not only has it maintained that the “one China” principle is to inform all trade exchanges with Taiwan, it is furthering its goal of unification by making Taiwan increasingly economically dependent. Anyone who is naive enough to believe that politics and economics can be kept separate when dealing with China has erred in their understanding of the very basis of China’s cross-strait policy and the timetable it has set for achieving its goal.
As far as China is concerned — and perhaps for any other country too — economic development, while important, is no substitute for politics. The idea that one can avoid or dissipate political disputes through trade exchanges alone has never been borne out historically. When engaging in economic and trade exchanges with China, then, not only does Taiwan need to be careful about ensuring sustainable economic development, it also needs to consider the concomitant political implications.
Lo Chih-cheng is chief executive of the Taiwan Brain Trust.
Translated by Paul Cooper
Taiwanese pragmatism has long been praised when it comes to addressing Chinese attempts to erase Taiwan from the international stage. “Taipei” and the even more inaccurate and degrading “Chinese Taipei,” imposed titles required to participate in international events, are loathed by Taiwanese. That is why there was huge applause in Taiwan when Japanese public broadcaster NHK referred to the Taiwanese Olympic team as “Taiwan,” instead of “Chinese Taipei” during the opening ceremony of the Tokyo Olympics. What is standard protocol for most nations — calling a national team by the name their country is commonly known by — is impossible for
India is not China, and many of its residents fear it never will be. It is hard to imagine a future in which the subcontinent’s manufacturing dominates the world, its foreign investment shapes nations’ destinies, and the challenge of its economic system forces the West to reshape its own policies and principles. However, that is, apparently, what the US administration fears. Speaking in New Delhi last week, US Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau warned that “we will not make the same mistakes with India that we did with China 20 years ago.” Although he claimed the recently agreed framework
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
The Office of the US Trade Representative (USTR) on Wednesday last week announced it is launching investigations into 16 US trading partners, including Taiwan, under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 to determine whether they have engaged in unfair trade practices, such as overproduction. A day later, the agency announced a separate Section 301 investigation into 60 economies based on the implementation of measures to prohibit the importation of goods produced with forced labor. Several of Taiwan’s main trading rivals — including China, Japan, South Korea and the EU — also made the US’ investigation list. The announcements come
RSS