A heated debate is going on in Taiwan over the cross-strait service trade agreement with China. Proponents, with President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) in the forefront, argue that the agreement is essential for the nation’s competitiveness and its future as a trading nation.
In an international press conference on Sunday, Ma said that the pact is “crucial to Taiwan’s future economic development,” while Premier Jiang Yi-huah (江宜樺) pronounced a day earlier that the pact would “help Taiwan’s liberalization and internationalization.”
Opponents — including the students who have taken over the legislative chamber, the Democratic Progressive Party and the Taiwan Solidarity Union — maintain that the agreement is bad for the nation and will further undermine the already shaky and stagnant economy.
Who is right? To decide, consider a number of specific aspects of the agreement and also the way the government has attempted to advance it through the legislature.
First, is the agreement with the People’s Republic of China a prerequisite for Taiwan to join other international trade blocs, such as the much-touted Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)?
The answer is a clear and straightforward “no.”
On the contrary, the nation has a better chance of joining the TPP if it does not have a service trade agreement with Beijing. The reason is that if the agreement with China goes ahead, other countries will perceive Taiwan’s economy as too closely tied to China, which will not help the nation’s liberalization and internationalization.
Second, will the trade agreement improve the economy?
Again, the answer is “no,” because a trade agreement with China is likely to hollow out the economy instead of strengthening it. An overreliance on China will make Taiwan less prepared for intensive cooperation — and competition — with other economies in the region and around the world.
Third, is the trade agreement fair and balanced? Jiang and other officials love to point out that Beijing has agreed to open 80 categories of its service sector to Taipei, while Taiwan will open 64 to China. Such statements are highly deceptive, as each category has a different weight, size and impact on the economy.
In his press conference on Saturday, Jiang also said: “Every economic expert knows that this agreement will do more good for Taiwan.”
He forgot to mention that the chairwoman of the economics department at Taiwan National University, and many other economists, have criticized the report as bad for the nation.
However, all the “economics” arguments aside: This trade agreement has very little to do with free trade. Instead, it is a rather obvious attempt to push the nation into the economic orbit of undemocratic and repressive China, so that a few years down the road, Taiwan has no choice but to succumb to Beijing’s pressure to “unify.”
And by “unify,” it means something along the same lines as the way Hong Kong and Tibet have been incorporated by China.
Last but not least, Ma and his officials are trying to label the student protest as “illegal” and blame the students for “violence.”
These tactics by a Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government are reminiscent of the old days of the Martial Law era and the White Terror of 1947 to 1987.
They have no place in Taiwan’s new democracy and should be rejected out of hand.
Gerrit van der Wees is editor of Taiwan Communique, a publication 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