A few days ago, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) spokesman Yang Wei-chung (楊偉中) said that since the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) agrees that Taiwan should join the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) as soon as possible, they should stop blocking the cross-strait service trade agreement.
Yang also said that the DPP would be contradicting itself if it continues to oppose the agreement, while supporting entry into the TPP, an agreement of a higher level and wider scope than the service trade agreement.
However, a close look at Yang’s comments shows that the KMT still does not really understand why Taiwanese have doubts about the service trade agreement and that the KMT does not know what sort of trade liberalization Taiwanese want, which is disappointing.
The KMT and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) are more responsible than anyone for the fact that most Taiwanese do not support the service trade agreement.
First, regardless of whether we look at the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA) or the dozen or so other agreements signed between Taiwan and China prior to that, there was a big difference between what was said before and what was done after they were signed. Gains and losses are unavoidable in international negotiations, but how will the government be able to convince the public of an agreement’s virtues if the gains are always exaggerated while the losses always ignored?
Second, over the past few years, the pace at which China has been trying to spur unification and influence politics here using economic means has accelerated considerably because of the tacit approval of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and his administration, which has helped China to make things worse.
Apart from the KMT trying to replace the so-called “1992 consensus,” which it knew the DPP would never accept, with a “one China” framework, Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) said in October last year that cross-strait political problems must not be passed down from generation to generation.
In other words, as Taiwan becomes more and more reliant on China in terms of trade, there is a high likelihood that we will lose even more say in cross-strait negotiations and that the KMT will increasingly lean toward China. This is another reason why Taiwanese are unwilling to support the service trade agreement.
Regardless of whether it is the TPP or the RCEP, as long as Taiwan is able to join under fair and equal conditions, and as long as the government has well-thought-out plans in place and provides the necessary assistance to affected industries, higher-level agreements will help transform and upgrade production modes in Taiwan.
Agreements with a broader scope will help balance out and remove some of China’s influence on Taiwan’s economy and society while increasing the nation’s autonomy and giving it more leeway to make policy decisions.
These are two key components that Taiwan desperately needs to examine and the two things that the service trade agreement cannot provide.
If the KMT continues to try to equate regional economic integration with the service trade agreement, it will not only be unhelpful to forging domestic consensus on the issue, but will allow the KMT to find excuses for possible CCP interference.
If the time needed to enter into either the TPP or the RCEP is further extended, Taiwan will be further isolating itself.
Huang Tzu-wei is a researcher at the Taiwan Thinktank.
Translated by Drew Cameron
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