The nation is at an important junction on the road toward its future: Can it retain its freedom, democracy and de facto independence? Or will it be slowly but surely absorbed by an aggressive and repressive China?
One important indicator is how the country deals with the cross-strait service agreement, signed in June last year by President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration. During the past few days we have seen strong pressure from the government on the Legislative Yuan to pass the agreement.
Ma and others supporting the agreement argue that approval by the legislature is necessary for economic growth and integration into the regional economy. In recent remarks Ma said the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA) signed in 2010 had been “a great boost to Taiwan.” He also said that trade with New Zealand has increased 73 percent since a bilateral economic cooperation agreement was signed with the country last year.
However, these rosy presentations by the Ma government are deceptive and amount to a number of half-truths and even outright lies. Let us take the issues one by one: First, the underlying political agenda. It is no secret that the leaders in Beijing want to push for unification. In their long-term vision, there is no room for a free and democratic Taiwan. Trade agreements such as the ECFA, the cross-strait service trade agreement and the proposed trade in goods agreement are viewed as a means to pull the nation closer into their unwelcome economic and political embrace.
Should Taiwan restructure its economy and work toward integration into the regional economy? Certainly, but that is not achieved by linking the economy closer to China’s. Indeed the opposite is the case: Overreliance on China would be detrimental. The economy will be strengthened only if it is linked more closely to other nations in the region, such as Japan, Vietnam, Malaysia and Indonesia. The economy would also benefit from closer ties to the “free” economies of the US and Europe.
Would the proposed trade pact be beneficial to the economy, and is it a pact between equal partners? The main problem is that the opening up of Taiwanese sectors of industry (such as printing, car rental, cargo transportation, beauty salons, restaurants and book publishing) is unconditional, but this is not reflected on the Chinese side. The agreement is restricted to China’s Fujian Province and is also conditional. Certainly not a deal between equals: It looks more like China is treating Taiwan as an extension of Fujian Province.
Would the proposed pact help preparations for entry into the Trans-Pacific Partnership? Ma is saying that he is worried that the delay in legislative approval of the cross-strait service agreement is damaging the credibility of the nation in the eyes of the international community. Actually, the opposite is the case: Other countries are increasingly worried that due to overreliance on China, the country will not be able to act with sufficient independence. It will be considered China’s appendix.
In addition to the abovementioned issues, there is a very basic question: where is the Chinese economy going? During the past two decades there has been strong growth, but there are increasing signs that a significant downturn is coming. The prominent international financier George Soros wrote recently that the growth model responsible for China’s rapid rise has run out of steam. A major downturn in China would suck Taiwan down with it.
Against this background it is wise if the nation distances itself from China, and does not go through with the cross-strait service agreement. It is a Trojan Horse that would destroy freedom and democracy from within.
Mei-chin Chen is a commentator based in Washington.
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
RSS