Taiwan is mired in confusion and controversy over the cross-strait service trade agreement, which was signed by delegates from Taiwan and China in June, but has not yet been ratified by the legislature.
The issue has become heavily politicized and this has put a big obstacle in the way of the nation’s participation in regional economic integration.
Although the Chinese government was prepared for some negative reaction, it could not have foreseen the extent of the public backlash in Taiwan. A major reason for the backlash is that the two sides went hastily to the negotiating table before any cohesive public consensus had been achieved.
The impasse over the agreement is causing uncertainty over the agreements that are supposed to follow on from it — on trade in goods and on settlement of disputes.
No matter what benefits cross-strait trade may bring, it will not change the fact that Taiwan is much more dependent on China than China is on it; Taiwan is the weaker and more sensitive nation. Cross-strait trade is asymmetric; it is by no means a case of mutual dependence.
The “turnpike theory” proposed by US economist Paul Samuelson says that economies will only develop if governments find the best strategy for development. If the economic structure is unbalanced, the government should balance it to allow it to develop.
This state of equilibrium is what Samuelson calls the “turnpike,” which implies a pragmatic circumvention strategy. For example, the two nations are constrained by their political confrontation, but their main purpose in signing the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA) in 2010 was to systematize and liberalize their economic and trade relations. It is rather like using economic and trade development to build a freeway that enables the two sides to come and go freely, thus providing dependable and unimpeded economic benefits.
The freeway they build may not be the best possible route across the Strait. It is still a circuitous path to get to the onramp. However, once on it, travel should be unimpeded.
The already-signed agreement on investment protection and promotion, the service trade agreement and the planned agreements on goods trade and dispute settlement, which are now under intense negotiation, are four important bridges that make up part of the ECFA freeway. The key factor that will determine whether traffic can flow freely will be the construction quality of these four bridges, which may be more important than the completion date.
Agreements on cross-strait liberalization may occasionally be put on hold, but sometimes going slowly gets better results. Taiwan’s economy is not yet so sick that an extra strong remedy is the only way to fix it.
The service trade agreement issue can be quite perplexing. The government often trumpets the agreement’s benefits for certain sectors, while accusing its opponents of protectionism, yet it also calls on sectors that are set to suffer from the agreement to make sacrifices for in the name of free competition and active deregulation. This is an absurd case of applying socialism to the rich and capitalism to the poor.
The media’s agenda, on the other hand, is to portray the agreement as having no merit whatsoever, indirectly aggravating opinions opposed to the pact as if it were a doomsday herald.
The agreement has implications for the nation’s development strategy for industrial upgrade and economic transition. However, the authorities are divided and have not offered a reassuring political analysis. Instead, they are fumbling about muddle-headedly.
Mark Lin is an assistant research fellow at the Taiwan Institute of Economic Research.
Translated by Julian Clegg
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
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.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath