One of the main reasons the controversy over the service trade pact and the students’ robust response to it remain intractable is that the government and those opposed to the pact are approaching the issue from differing perspectives. While the government views the issue purely in terms of economics, opponents emphasize the importance of recognizing a political dimension. The two sides have very different ideas, and never the twain shall meet.
The government’s contention is that the signing of the cross-strait pact will enable Taiwan’s service sector to be more competitive internationally. Opponents to the pact say it will tie the nation and its economic future more closely to China and have significant political ramifications, such as creeping political change through increased economic engagement.
The government claims China has made generous concessions. Opponents say China’s “generosity” is, in itself, disconcerting, and are suspicious that Beijing is offering a poisoned chalice.
The government holds that the agreement will have a positive effect on the development of the nation’s service sector as a whole. Opponents emphasize the need to consider the potential negative effects it will have on individual industries and businesses.
The government warns that Taiwan risks being marginalized if the pact is not signed. The opponents counter that if it is ratified, Taiwan’s international status will increasingly be relegated to that of an outpost of China.
The differences in the above arguments can succinctly be categorized as “economics” versus the “political economy.”
The former says that signing agreements with China is an economic issue and consequently needs evaluation only from an that perspective. The latter argues that there is no way signing such an agreement with a country that has more than 1,000 missiles pointed at the nation’s shores can possibly be regarded as purely economic.
Rather, it is a political economic issue that needs to be handled with extreme caution.
Neoliberal economics, the prevailing economic theory, derives from the liberal economics of Adam Smith. International free-trade is implicit in the theory. This paradigm keeps economics and politics in their respective corners, to the extent of favoring complete withdrawal of government oversight and removal of any obstacles to trade.
“Liberal economics” is little more than an ideology of the privileged class in the modern capitalist system, because truly fair competition and a perfect market cannot exist. Further, the notion that either politics or the economic preferences of governments can be divorced from economics is simply an attempt to remove the dog-eat-dog element of reality to concentrate on purely economic thought.
Former Control Yuan president Wang Tso-jung (王作榮) once criticized Taiwanese economists fond of repeating the “market deregulation and free competition” mantra of parroting each other.
The political economy argument says that economic phenomena and events cannot be seen in isolation from the sociopolitical context in which they occur. In fact, economics was not considered a separate academic discipline in the West until the middle of the 19th century: Prior to that, the study of the economic behavior of states was known as political economy. Only by the Herculean efforts of neoclassical economists did economics become a field of study in its own right. The title of Karl Marx’s Das Kapital was appended with the clarification “A Critique of Political Economy,” and was aimed primarily at neoclassical economists of the day.
So, is it possible to evaluate a cross-strait service trade agreement from a purely economic perspective? Of course not.
Indeed, this is the main reason over half the public oppose the pact in its present form. Any agreement on economic relations and trade between two nations has to be seen as a political economic issue. Any such agreement necessarily involves the specific sociocultural circumstances of nations involved and the political impact it is to have on the respective societies and economies.
Previous protests have been the same: The demonstrations against the deregulation of agricultural products and the opposition to lifting the ban on US beef imports are but two instances.
Even trade, which has the potential to be good for the nation — or, at the very least, not entail hostile intent — still evokes this level of reaction and harm in society.
It is therefore impossible to speak of approaching it from a purely economic perspective — especially when dealing with a hostile country like China, which claims Taiwan as an “inalienable part” of its territory and continuously pressures the nation on the international stage.
Therefore the debate should not be framed as service trade economics, but as service trade political economy.
Chi Chun-chieh is a professor in the Department of Ethnic Relations and Cultures at National Dong Hwa University.
Translated by Paul Cooper
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